<?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>1991 (9) TMI 105 - ITAT BOMBAY-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58320</link>
    <description>The court partially allowed the appeal, ruling that the firm would be treated as a registered entity entitled to benefits only up to the date of the partner&#039;s death. Post that date, the firm would be assessed as unregistered. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate disclosure and compliance with registration requirements under the Income-tax Act, highlighting the legal consequences of changes in a firm&#039;s constitution on its registration status.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:14:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (9) TMI 105 - ITAT BOMBAY-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58320</link>
      <description>The court partially allowed the appeal, ruling that the firm would be treated as a registered entity entitled to benefits only up to the date of the partner&#039;s death. Post that date, the firm would be assessed as unregistered. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate disclosure and compliance with registration requirements under the Income-tax Act, highlighting the legal consequences of changes in a firm&#039;s constitution on its registration status.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>