https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168760 A supplementary reference on a new question was held incompetent because it was sought under section 66(4) rather than the proper route under section 66(2), and it was not shown to be within limitation. On the substantive tax issues, the business sale was treated as a transfer by the assessee-firm, not by the partners individually, because the firm was named as transferor and the business was conveyed as a going concern without dissolution. The excess realised on depreciable assets was chargeable under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii), and the capital sum was chargeable as capital gains under section 12B since the dissolution-based exemption did not apply. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:55:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168760 A supplementary reference on a new question was held incompetent because it was sought under section 66(4) rather than the proper route under section 66(2), and it was not shown to be within limitation. On the substantive tax issues, the business sale was treated as a transfer by the assessee-firm, not by the partners individually, because the firm was named as transferor and the business was conveyed as a going concern without dissolution. The excess realised on depreciable assets was chargeable under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii), and the capital sum was chargeable as capital gains under section 12B since the dissolution-based exemption did not apply. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168760