https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173322 For succession to business under section 8(3) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, identity of the business is not enough; continuity must also be shown. A later concern cannot be treated as the predecessor's successor if the original business had ended or been discontinued, even where the new activity is similar. The Tribunal misapplied the legal test by focusing only on whether the assessee carried on the same business and by treating a short closure or suspension as irrelevant without first determining whether the business sold by the receiver was a going concern. The reasoning on succession was therefore legally flawed. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Sep 2015 12:02:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173322 For succession to business under section 8(3) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, identity of the business is not enough; continuity must also be shown. A later concern cannot be treated as the predecessor's successor if the original business had ended or been discontinued, even where the new activity is similar. The Tribunal misapplied the legal test by focusing only on whether the assessee carried on the same business and by treating a short closure or suspension as irrelevant without first determining whether the business sold by the receiver was a going concern. The reasoning on succession was therefore legally flawed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173322