<?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>1956 (2) TMI 4 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49675</link>
    <description>For registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, a firm is not treated as a separate legal person capable of entering into a partnership as such with another firm, a Hindu undivided family business, or an individual; the partnership must be between persons, and the firm remains only a compendious name for its partners. The article also states that registration requires strict compliance with the prescribed form: the deed must specify the individual shares of all partners, and the application must bear the personal signatures of all partners, not merely an authorised signature by one partner. On that reasoning, the claim to registration failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 14:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (2) TMI 4 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49675</link>
      <description>For registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, a firm is not treated as a separate legal person capable of entering into a partnership as such with another firm, a Hindu undivided family business, or an individual; the partnership must be between persons, and the firm remains only a compendious name for its partners. The article also states that registration requires strict compliance with the prescribed form: the deed must specify the individual shares of all partners, and the application must bear the personal signatures of all partners, not merely an authorised signature by one partner. On that reasoning, the claim to registration failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>