https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169640 Whether the Ahmedabad and Bhavnagar businesses were one firm or two distinct firms for income-tax purposes depended on whether the businesses were interlaced or interlocked, not on common ownership alone. The Tribunal erred by treating common partners as making separate firms impossible, although the governing principle allows common partners to carry on distinct businesses as separate taxable units. On the facts, the businesses could be treated as two distinct firms, and the finding that they were one firm could not stand; the assessee succeeded on the reference. en-us Fri, 26 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:52:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169640 Whether the Ahmedabad and Bhavnagar businesses were one firm or two distinct firms for income-tax purposes depended on whether the businesses were interlaced or interlocked, not on common ownership alone. The Tribunal erred by treating common partners as making separate firms impossible, although the governing principle allows common partners to carry on distinct businesses as separate taxable units. On the facts, the businesses could be treated as two distinct firms, and the finding that they were one firm could not stand; the assessee succeeded on the reference. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169640