https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26198 Where one partner retired and the remaining partners continued the business under the same firm name, the arrangement was treated as a change in the constitution of the firm under section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rather than succession under section 188. The Full Bench rule applied because one or more partners of the old firm continued in the reconstituted firm, and the later amendment to section 187(2), effective from assessment year 1975-76, did not govern the relevant assessment year 1974-75. On that basis, the view that two separate assessment orders were justified as a case of succession could not be sustained. en-us Thu, 12 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:43:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26198 Where one partner retired and the remaining partners continued the business under the same firm name, the arrangement was treated as a change in the constitution of the firm under section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rather than succession under section 188. The Full Bench rule applied because one or more partners of the old firm continued in the reconstituted firm, and the later amendment to section 187(2), effective from assessment year 1975-76, did not govern the relevant assessment year 1974-75. On that basis, the view that two separate assessment orders were justified as a case of succession could not be sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26198