https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280657 Succession for section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act was held to occur when ownership of the business passed on the partner's death, not when the assets were later sold, so exemption was available only up to that date. The court rejected reliance on sections 42 and 47 of the Partnership Act, holding that section 47 governs winding up after dissolution and does not continue the old firm. On recovery, service of notice on the assessee satisfied section 29, so the absence of a separate notice to the petitioner did not invalidate the section 46(2) certificate or attachment. en-us Thu, 10 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 May 2019 16:54:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280657 Succession for section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act was held to occur when ownership of the business passed on the partner's death, not when the assets were later sold, so exemption was available only up to that date. The court rejected reliance on sections 42 and 47 of the Partnership Act, holding that section 47 governs winding up after dissolution and does not continue the old firm. On recovery, service of notice on the assessee satisfied section 29, so the absence of a separate notice to the petitioner did not invalidate the section 46(2) certificate or attachment. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280657