https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171905 A company assessment made after liquidation was invalid because a return filed by an unauthorised person could not sustain assessment of a non-existent entity, but reassessment proceedings against the successor were valid under section 34 read with section 26(2) since the successor could be proceeded against when the predecessor could not be found. A closing-down sale of machinery during winding up was not a sale in the course of carrying on business, so the excess realised was not assessable as business profit under the proviso to section 10(2)(vii). Section 26(2) extended only to business profits and gains of the transferred business, not to capital gains, so the successor was not liable for the predecessor's capital gain. en-us Tue, 01 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:54:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171905 A company assessment made after liquidation was invalid because a return filed by an unauthorised person could not sustain assessment of a non-existent entity, but reassessment proceedings against the successor were valid under section 34 read with section 26(2) since the successor could be proceeded against when the predecessor could not be found. A closing-down sale of machinery during winding up was not a sale in the course of carrying on business, so the excess realised was not assessable as business profit under the proviso to section 10(2)(vii). Section 26(2) extended only to business profits and gains of the transferred business, not to capital gains, so the successor was not liable for the predecessor's capital gain. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 01 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171905