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 a firm was entitled to relief under section 25(4) when, though its partners changed over time, the business continued unchanged and was ultimately succeeded by a private limited company.
Analysis: Section 25(4) excludes a mere change in the constitution of a partnership from the concept of succession. The law of income-tax treats a firm as a distinct assessable unit, and the real inquiry is whether the same business unit continued or whether there was a cesser and a new succession. On the facts, the business carried on as tea brokers remained the same throughout, with no dissolution, division of assets and liabilities, or transfer to an outside person. The change was only in the personnel of the partners and their shares, which did not destroy the identity of the unit.
Conclusion: The firm was entitled to relief under section 25(4), and the answer in the assessee's favour was .
Final Conclusion: Mere changes in partners did not prevent the continued business from being treated as the same assessable unit for income-tax purposes, so the statutory relief remained available upon succession to the company.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, a mere change in the constitution of a partnership does not amount to a succession if the same business unit continues without cesser of the business.