<?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>1959 (5) TMI 11 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49597</link>
    <description>A duly executed and acted-upon partnership deed, supported by account books showing capital contributions, drawings and profit-sharing, established genuineness of the firm and entitlement to registration under section 26A. Earlier family treatment as a Hindu undivided family did not bar a later disruption and fresh partnership arrangement. Retention of bank accounts in existing names and non-production of the Bali Khata were insufficient to prove the firm was a mere veneer; refusal based on surmise and suspicion could not stand. The registration refusal was therefore unsustainable and the firm was entitled to be registered for the relevant assessment year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (5) TMI 11 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49597</link>
      <description>A duly executed and acted-upon partnership deed, supported by account books showing capital contributions, drawings and profit-sharing, established genuineness of the firm and entitlement to registration under section 26A. Earlier family treatment as a Hindu undivided family did not bar a later disruption and fresh partnership arrangement. Retention of bank accounts in existing names and non-production of the Bali Khata were insufficient to prove the firm was a mere veneer; refusal based on surmise and suspicion could not stand. The registration refusal was therefore unsustainable and the firm was entitled to be registered for the relevant assessment year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>