https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276745 The decisive issue was whether the partnership deed, read with the parties' conduct, showed that the old firm had ceased and the successor firm had come into existence before the tax relief provision took effect. The deed stated that the old accounts were settled up to 31 March 1939, the partners became separate from 1 April 1939, and the Abdullapur business fell to the new partners. On that construction, supported by the delayed relief claim, the succession was treated as having occurred before the amending Act commenced, so the successor firm fell within the relief provision. The contrary view that succession occurred only after the Act was rejected. en-us Fri, 14 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:36:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276745 The decisive issue was whether the partnership deed, read with the parties' conduct, showed that the old firm had ceased and the successor firm had come into existence before the tax relief provision took effect. The deed stated that the old accounts were settled up to 31 March 1939, the partners became separate from 1 April 1939, and the Abdullapur business fell to the new partners. On that construction, supported by the delayed relief claim, the succession was treated as having occurred before the amending Act commenced, so the successor firm fell within the relief provision. The contrary view that succession occurred only after the Act was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276745