<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1964 (4) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49375</link>
    <description>A Tribunal&#039;s finding on partnership genuineness can raise a question of law where it turns on misconstruction of the partnership deed or on irrelevant considerations. Here, the deed on its face created a valid partnership among the named individuals, and surrounding facts about capital contribution and profit distribution in the parent concerns did not by themselves negate genuineness. The Tribunal had confused the legality of the partnership with the destination of profits and misread the deed, so the High Court was entitled to interfere in reference jurisdiction and answer the question for the assessee. The refusal of registration was therefore not sustained in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (4) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49375</link>
      <description>A Tribunal&#039;s finding on partnership genuineness can raise a question of law where it turns on misconstruction of the partnership deed or on irrelevant considerations. Here, the deed on its face created a valid partnership among the named individuals, and surrounding facts about capital contribution and profit distribution in the parent concerns did not by themselves negate genuineness. The Tribunal had confused the legality of the partnership with the destination of profits and misread the deed, so the High Court was entitled to interfere in reference jurisdiction and answer the question for the assessee. The refusal of registration was therefore not sustained in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>