https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289482 The court determined that the new firm did not succeed the old firm within the meaning of Section 26(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it did not take over the business in its entirety. However, the court found that there was a change in the constitution of the firm, making Section 26(1) applicable. Therefore, the new firm was held liable for assessment based on the profits of the previous year due to the continuity of business with only a change in partners. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Aug 2020 16:46:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289482 The court determined that the new firm did not succeed the old firm within the meaning of Section 26(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it did not take over the business in its entirety. However, the court found that there was a change in the constitution of the firm, making Section 26(1) applicable. Therefore, the new firm was held liable for assessment based on the profits of the previous year due to the continuity of business with only a change in partners. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Jun 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289482