SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM AND CO. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court, by a majority (Sarkar and Shah JJ.), held that the assessee was not entitled to the relief claimed under Section 25(4). The Court reasoned that the documents (Exs. CI and CII) showed that the business carried on by the firm existing in 1918 was discontinued in October/November 1937, and its businesses were split into two, carried on by independent partnerships. This disintegration amounted to a discontinuance of the original businesses, as the parts are not the whole. The Court further held that the business on which tax was charged under the Act of 1918 was not being carried on on April 1, 1939, by the firm that had paid tax under that Act. The business to which the company succeeded in February 1948 could not, before the succession, be said to have been carried on by a firm that was carrying on business on April 1, 1939, because that firm was newly formed under the instrument of October 30, 1943, which expressly revoked the earlier partnership agreements. Therefore, the conditions for relief under Section 25(4) were not met. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co., was a firm that had been carrying on business since before 1918 and had paid tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918. The firm conducted three types of businesses: piece-goods, yarn, and general merchants; manufacture and sale of umbrellas; and manufacture and sale of soaps. There were changes in the firm's constitution between 1918 and 1939. In May 1939, two partnership agreements were executed, splitting the business into two separate partnerships from October-November 1937. On October 30, 1943, a new partnership agreement consolidated these two businesses into a single partnership. This single partnership continued until February 7, 1948, when its business was transferred to a company. The assessee claimed relief under Section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act for assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50, arguing it carried on business on April 1, 1939, on which tax was charged under the 1918 Act, and was succeeded by a company in February 1948.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the disintegration of the original firm's business into two separate partnerships in October/November 1937 constituted a discontinuance of the business for the purposes of Section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the business being carried on by the firm constituted on October 30, 1943, could be considered the same business that was being carried on on April 1, 1939, for the purpose of claiming relief under Section 25(4). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that it was entitled to relief under Section 25(4) as it had been carrying on a business on April 1, 1939, which had been taxed under the 1918 Act, and was subsequently succeeded by a company. The assessee contended that changes in the partnership constitution did not amount to a discontinuance or succession that would disentitle them to relief. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the disintegration of the business into two separate entities in 1937 constituted a discontinuance of the original business. They further argued that the firm constituted in 1943 was a new entity, and therefore, the business carried on by it could not be considered the same business that was in existence on April 1, 1939, for the purpose of Section 25(4).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 25(3), Section 25(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
' .. • fJ S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 91 tained allegations only as regards 6 and not as regards the rest. This would mean that the Tribunal had no juri iction to find that more than 6 votes had been improperly rejected in his case. If the votes regarding which no plea of impro- priety had been raised by Jabar Singh were eliminated, it would follow that as a result of the final scrutiny Genda Lal had obtained properly 5,660 valid votes as against 5,658 pol- led by Jabar Singh.
The result of the election, therefote, was materially affected by the improper reception or refusal of votes and therefore I consider that the election of J a bar Singh was properly set aside and that is why I concur in the order that the appeal should be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed. SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM AND CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS (A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J. C. SHAH JJ.)
Income Tax Act (II of 1922). s. 25(3) and (4)-Firm carrying on business in 1918-Disintegration into two firms-If discontinuance of business .
By s. 25(4) of the Income-tax Act, 'Where the person who was at the commencement of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939 .... carryin
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
