9911796707
TMI Blog1932 (1) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner, viz.: Whether the transfer by the petitioners of Eagle Rolling Mills to a limited company on the 31st December, 1926, constitutes the latter company successor to the petitioners within the meaning of Section 26(2) of the Act. 2. Section 26(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act reads as follows: Where, at the time of making an assessment under Section 23, it is found that the person carry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners claimed the benefit of the deductions allowed in the shape of depreciation and also for expenditure for the purpose of earning profits in the year of account under Section 10(2) of the Act. The Income Tax authorities, however under Section 26(2) assessed the new company holding that the new company had succeeded Best Co. as owners of the Ragle Rolling Mills. The point taken here b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Best Co. own and control, Section 26(2) has no application and that the proper persons entitled to be assessed and to claim the deductions are the petitioners. As the learned Income Tax Commissioner points out, to introduce the words each and every into Section 26(2) in place of any would be to deprive it of any logical meaning and indeed to make an absurdity of it. It would mean this tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enient course but seems to me to be a just one. Upon whom the burden is ultimately to fall is a matter of arrangement between the vendor company and the purchaser company. Taking this view, in my opinion, our answer to the question referred must be that the new company is the successor of the petitioners. Costs to the Commissioner ₹ 250. Ramesam, J. 4. I agree. Cornish, J. 5. I a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
