https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25500 The court held that the receiver was not appointed to carry on the cinema business but to collect rents. The receiver did not conduct any business and merely collected rental income. The receiver represented the individual interests of the co-owners, and the assessment should be made based on the individual shares of the quondam partners. The assessment of the receiver as an "association of persons" was not sustainable. The common question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The Revenue was directed to pay the costs of the assessee, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500. en-us Tue, 20 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:13:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25500 The court held that the receiver was not appointed to carry on the cinema business but to collect rents. The receiver did not conduct any business and merely collected rental income. The receiver represented the individual interests of the co-owners, and the assessment should be made based on the individual shares of the quondam partners. The assessment of the receiver as an "association of persons" was not sustainable. The common question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The Revenue was directed to pay the costs of the assessee, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 20 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25500