https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169511 Rule 9 of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D was treated as continuing to operate where a partnership changed constitution during the assessment year but the business carried on. Read with the partnership assessment provisions and Rule 11 on change and succession, the rule was construed as allowing the firm to be regarded as a revised taxing entity for fair apportionment of liability. The statutory history, including earlier enactments and the Finance Act 1926, was taken to show that Rule 9 remained effective and was not displaced by Rule 11. On that basis, the assessment could be adjusted by apportionment for the reconstituted partnership. en-us Fri, 20 Feb 1942 00:00:00 +0630 Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:42:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169511 Rule 9 of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D was treated as continuing to operate where a partnership changed constitution during the assessment year but the business carried on. Read with the partnership assessment provisions and Rule 11 on change and succession, the rule was construed as allowing the firm to be regarded as a revised taxing entity for fair apportionment of liability. The statutory history, including earlier enactments and the Finance Act 1926, was taken to show that Rule 9 remained effective and was not displaced by Rule 11. On that basis, the assessment could be adjusted by apportionment for the reconstituted partnership. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Feb 1942 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169511