TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether dissolution of the partnership and partition of the branches amounted to discontinuance of business within Section 25(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. (ii) Whether, on the same facts, the assessees were entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 2(21) of the Excess Profits Tax Act.
Issue (i): Whether dissolution of the partnership and partition of the branches amounted to discontinuance of business within Section 25(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The governing test was whether the business, despite a change in ownership or constitution, continued as the same running concern. A mere division of assets or branches did not by itself establish discontinuance where the businesses continued as going concerns, the profits were not capitalised or distributed, and there was no interruption in the business activity. The Court distinguished cases where the old business had truly ended from those where only ownership changed while the business itself retained continuity and identity. It held that in such cases the apparent discontinuity was notional rather than real, and that a partition of a composite business could amount to succession without discontinuance where the branches continued to operate.
Conclusion: The dissolution and partition did not amount to discontinuance of business, and the finding under Section 25(3) was against the assessees.
Issue (ii): Whether, on the same facts, the assessees were entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 2(21) of the Excess Profits Tax Act.
Analysis: The claim under the Excess Profits Tax Act depended on the business having commenced after the relevant date. Once it was found that there had been no discontinuance and no new business had come into existence, the statutory condition for the proviso was not satisfied. The business was treated as a continuing concern rather than a fresh commencement.
Conclusion: The assessees were not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 2(21) of the Excess Profits Tax Act.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessees, and their applications were dismissed because the business was held to have continued without legal discontinuance despite the dissolution and division.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a business continues as a going concern after dissolution or partition, with only a change in ownership or constitution and no real cessation of commercial activity, there is no discontinuance of business for tax purposes.
TaxTMI 
