1997 (7) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... partners of the firm in terms of the deed of copartnery dated October 16, 1972? If the answer to the above be in the affirmative--- Whether the Tribunal was justified, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in holding that the firm was liable to be assessed in respect of the profits which arose and accrued to it with regard to its trading from January 1, 1972, to October 15, 1972, in terms of section 170 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? " The facts, as briefly stated, in the order of the Appellate Tribunal are that the assessee-firm comprised three partners during the accounting period which was the calendar year 1972. A new deed of partnership was constituted with effect from August 3, 1972, whereby four new partners were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ority and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed the view, taken by the assessing authority that there was succession within the meaning of section 170 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act). The Tribunal, however, held that income up to October 16, 1972, only was assessable in the hands of the firm. It is in the backdrop of this factual position that the aforementioned question has to be considered. The short question for consideration is whether the business of the firm was succeeded by the company and whether there was succession within the meaning of section 170 of the Act. The authorities clearly held that the business of the firm was distinct from the business of the company. The Appellate Tribunal relied on the case....