Separate legal personality means sale of entire shareholding does not by itself constitute business succession under Section 170.

A transfer of 100% shareholding in a company does not, by itself, amount to succession of business under Section 170 of the Income-tax Act, because a company has a separate legal identity from its shareholders and succession requires transfer of the business itself. The text therefore treats share sale as a change in ownership of shares, not a transfer of the company's business or its assessee status. The question whether repairs and renovation expenses were revenue or capital expenditure was not decided on merits and no final determination was recorded on that issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sale of 100% shareholding of a company amounts to transfer of business and succession within the meaning of Section 170 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the expenditure incurred on repairs and renovations was revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether sale of 100% shareholding of a company amounts to transfer of business and succession within the meaning of Section 170 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 170 applies where one person carrying on a business or profession is succeeded therein by another person who continues the same business. Succession requires transfer of ownership of the business itself, with continuity of identity and integrity of the business. A company is a juristic person distinct from its shareholders, and a transfer of shares changes only the ownership of shares between shareholders; it does not transfer the company's business or alter its separate legal identity. Even if transfer of shares may amount to transfer of a capital asset in some contexts, that does not make Section 170 applicable to the company as assessee.

Conclusion: Sale of 100% shareholding did not amount to succession of business under Section 170, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the expenditure incurred on repairs and renovations was revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.

Analysis: This question was not adjudicated on merits in the judgment and was not the basis of any substantive finding. The appeal was dismissed on the first issue itself.

Conclusion: No final determination was recorded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because change in the shareholding of a company does not by itself constitute transfer of business or succession under the Income-tax Act, and the company's separate legal identity remains unaffected.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of shares in a company does not amount to succession of the company's business under Section 170 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 because a company has a separate legal personality distinct from its shareholders, and succession requires transfer of the business itself from one assessee to another.

---