<?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>1983 (3) TMI 92 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59841</link>
    <description>A partnership remained valid and genuine where one partner&#039;s interest was represented jointly by executors under a will, because the executor derives title on the testator&#039;s death and may exercise the deceased&#039;s powers over the estate. The partnership deed treated the deceased partner&#039;s estate as represented by the executor and executrix, so the representative character of that partner did not invalidate the firm. The absence of the executrix&#039;s signature on Form No. 12 was not treated as fatal, because the executors together constituted a single partner and one executor could act for the estate absent a contrary direction. Continuation of registration was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2011 14:07:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=98290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (3) TMI 92 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59841</link>
      <description>A partnership remained valid and genuine where one partner&#039;s interest was represented jointly by executors under a will, because the executor derives title on the testator&#039;s death and may exercise the deceased&#039;s powers over the estate. The partnership deed treated the deceased partner&#039;s estate as represented by the executor and executrix, so the representative character of that partner did not invalidate the firm. The absence of the executrix&#039;s signature on Form No. 12 was not treated as fatal, because the executors together constituted a single partner and one executor could act for the estate absent a contrary direction. Continuation of registration was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>