https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192703 The word "person" in rule 11(2) of the Income Tax Act 1918 was held to include the Crown for a computational provision governing succession to a trade. Although the Crown is not bound by charging provisions unless named expressly or by necessary implication, that immunity did not prevent rule 11(2) from applying because it did not impose tax on the Crown itself. Excluding the Crown would have created an unintended disparity in the basis of assessment when a trade passed to a Crown successor. The balancing charge was therefore correctly brought into the transferor's computation and the appeal failed. en-us Fri, 11 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jun 2017 18:37:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192703 The word "person" in rule 11(2) of the Income Tax Act 1918 was held to include the Crown for a computational provision governing succession to a trade. Although the Crown is not bound by charging provisions unless named expressly or by necessary implication, that immunity did not prevent rule 11(2) from applying because it did not impose tax on the Crown itself. Excluding the Crown would have created an unintended disparity in the basis of assessment when a trade passed to a Crown successor. The balancing charge was therefore correctly brought into the transferor's computation and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192703