<?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>1960 (11) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49452</link>
    <description>A Tribunal&#039;s factual finding that an alleged partnership was not a genuine firm was sustained because it rested on relevant material circumstances, including the absence of adjustment entries, the deletion of the former proprietary interest from the deed, no written notice to insurers, continued use of existing bank accounts and powers of attorney, and no fresh appointment letters. Remarks on possible motive were treated as observations on probabilities, not as the basis of the decision. The order was therefore not shown to be founded on no material or on conjecture alone, and the refusal to call for a reference on the first question was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2014 19:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49452</link>
      <description>A Tribunal&#039;s factual finding that an alleged partnership was not a genuine firm was sustained because it rested on relevant material circumstances, including the absence of adjustment entries, the deletion of the former proprietary interest from the deed, no written notice to insurers, continued use of existing bank accounts and powers of attorney, and no fresh appointment letters. Remarks on possible motive were treated as observations on probabilities, not as the basis of the decision. The order was therefore not shown to be founded on no material or on conjecture alone, and the refusal to call for a reference on the first question was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>