Law:

Section:

Section 25 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Assessment - In case of discontinued business - succession to - assessee-HUF having income from business had been paying tax under the indian income-tax act, 1918 - there was a partial partition of assessee-HUF on 11-10-1948, which was last day of previous year relevant to assessment year 1949-50, whereby various businesses owned by family were divided through entries made in account books - on 12-10-1948 a partnership firm was constituted to carry on those businesses and succeeded family - whether in view of fact that it was clear from deed of partnership that disruption and succession were intended by parties to be simultaneous, it could be said that succession in fact took place on 11-10-1948, though it was referred to as on 12-10-1948 and, therefore, assessee was entitled to exemption under section 25(4) in assessment year 1949-50 and not in 1950-51 - held, on facts, yes FACTS The assessee-HUF carrying on a business had been an assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918 before the commencement of the 1922 Act. On 11-10-1948, which was the last day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1949-50, there was a partial partition of the assessee-HUF and the various businesses owned by the family were divided through entries made in the account books. Thereafter, a partnership firm was constituted to carry on those businesses and succeeded the family on 12-10-1948. For the said assessment year 1949-50 the assessee claimed the benefit of section 25(4). The ITO, however, rejected the claim. On appeal, the AAC also held that as the succession took place on a day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1950-51, the claim could not be considered in respect of the assessment year 1949-50. On second appeal, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's order. On reference, the High Court agreed with the view expressed by the Tribunal. On appeal: HELD It is not possible for the Court to indulge in differential calculus in cases, as was observed by the Delhi High Court in Mahabir Pershad & Sons v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 775, which deal with a point of time which coincides with the end of one interval and the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492