Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (1.38 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs K. H. Chambers, Madras on 9 November, 1964

Krishna Lifestyle Technologies Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 5 February, 2008

In Commissioner of Income Tax v. K.H. Chambers the Court was considering the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court observed that there is no clear and exhaustive definition of the expression "succession" and consequently sought to place reliance on decided cases and text books which throw light on the matter. The Court then observed as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 12 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Dy Cit Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs M/S Archroma India Pvt Ltd., Thane on 29 June, 2022

22. The distinction between the case of the assessee and succession envisaged u/s. 170 as submitted by learned Counsel of the assessee also fails on the touchstone of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. K.H. Chambers [1965] 55 ITR 674 . In this view of the matter other decisions referred by learned Counsel of the assessee cannot take precedence.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Madhukant M. Mehta on 12 August, 1980

15. On the facts, the finding in that case was that it was the export business of the father which was carried on by the son. The whole of the business was transferred, the identity was preserved and the same business was continued. The father has reserved for himself some of the assets. He did so, however, not for the purpose of running the said business by himself but for the purpose of discharging the debts and to help the son to carry on the same business more effectively. Therefore, there was a clear case of succession.
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Doon Jewellers on 20 October, 1989

17. Thus, where the claim (as in the instant case) is that the old firm became extinct on account of its dissolution and the formation of the new firm was not a continuation of the old firm or it is not a mere case of structural alteration in the personnel constituting the firm and incidental redistribution of the shares amongst the partners, the question which should require consideration of the adjudicating authority would be whether the firm carrying on the business is succeeded by another firm, in other words, whether there is a change in the ownership from one entity to another, notwithstanding that the nature and extent of the business of the old firm have been preserved intact. Succession connotes that there is a change of ownership from one entity to another, the former coming to an end and the latter taking over the same business in continuity as a going concern. In other words, the successor business must be the continuation of the original business. For a succession to take place it is essential that the identity and continuity of the business must be maintained, i.e., substantial identity and substantial continuity of the business must be preserved, In CIT v. K.H. Chambers [1965] 55 1TR 674, the Supreme Court observed (headnote) :
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next