Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Rule 9 of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D of the Income-tax Act, 1918 applied where, during the year of assessment, a partnership carrying on a business took in a new partner and the business continued with some of the original partners.
Analysis: The rule was construed in the context of the income-tax code as a whole, including the provisions on joint assessment for partnerships and the later Rule 11 dealing with changes in partnership and succession. The reasoning treated a partnership business, for tax purposes, as capable of being regarded as a changed taxing entity when the constitution of the firm altered during the year. The statutory history, including earlier enactments and the Finance Act, 1926, was read as showing that Rule 9 was not spent and that Parliament intended it to retain practical operation in cases where the partnership personnel changed but the trade continued. The presence of Rule 11 did not exclude Rule 9, and the language of succession and cessation was held capable of covering a reconstituted partnership for the purpose of apportioning liability fairly.
Conclusion: Rule 9 applied to the altered partnership, and the assessment could lawfully be adjusted by apportionment.