“going concern”

Judicial DoctrinesSlump SaleSlump Sale477 judgments

The decision most relied on for going concern is Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT (345 ITR 421), cited in 97 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on going concern

Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT

345 ITR 421 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Business contracts and commercial rights of similar nature qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) and are eligible for depreciation. The decision also affirms that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

65 Taxmann.com 288 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

When a business is purchased as a going concern, the consideration paid in excess of the value of its tangible assets is classified as goodwill, which is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation without needing a separate valuation.

Harshad J.Choksi v. CIT, Bombay City- VII

25 Taxmann.com 567 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

The conditions for claiming a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) are not fulfilled if the assessee fails to provide details of the parties associated with the debts or evidence that these amounts were offered to tax in earlier years. An alternate claim for loss under Section 28 is denied without evidence substantiating the loss in the relevant assessment year.

L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT

72 ITR 114 · 1969 · High Court

citing judgments

A business concern can still be considered to be carrying on its business even if there are long intervals of inactivity, provided it is kept alive, retains its registered office, and holds meetings. It is not necessary for a business to have work constantly to be considered in existence.

Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v. DCIT

34 Taxmann.com 9 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on goodwill, even if it's considered an intangible asset representing future profits, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. SMIFS Securities Ltd.

Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT

19 SOT 612 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

While the case involves a reference to "fresh tangible material", "valuation of shares", "going concern", and "indexed cost of acquisition", the provided passages do not clearly articulate the specific holding of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT, 313 ITR (AT) 263 (SB)

110 ITD 59 · 2008 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot improve his assessment by adopting a new theory during reassessment proceedings.

CIT v. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd.

291 ITR 362 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on standby machinery that is kept ready for use, even if not actually put to use due to reasons such as raw material paucity. This is permissible as long as the business is a going concern.

Judgments citing going concern

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Cir.-2, Surat vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat

ITA 120/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A No. 38/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sumeet Industries Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2, 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Surat. Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A No. 46/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: (2012-13) The Dcit, Central Cirlce-2, Vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat. 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A No. 47/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Dcit, Central Cirlce-2, Vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat. 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 120/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Cirlce-2, Vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat. 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B

Section 143(3)Section 156ASection 31Section 31(1)Section 61

goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of such corporate debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such corporate

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

before lower authorities and further submitted that assessee had acquired the Engineering Plastics Business and Industrial Yarn Business from SRF Polymers Limited on a “going concern basis” with effect from 1st Jan 2009 under a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) at a consideration of Rs.15,031.26 lakhs. The consideration paid ... does not make any difference, whether the valuation was done prior to or after the purchase and in case of business purchase as a going concern, the basic principle to amount for goodwill is balance figure of price paid over and above the value of assets and liabilities purchased. Apart

Perfect Press Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 19(4), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6239/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

wages and salary to staff and other financial expenses related to the business in order to keep the corporate entity intact which is a going concern. Was it a case of temporary lull in the business requires verification? On the issue of addition of Rs. 51,44,000/- under section

M/S. Genpact Services Llc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Genpact Services Llc, Vs. Dcit, Genpact Tower, Sector-53, Circle-1(3)(1), (International Dlf City, Phase-V, Taxation), Gurgaon New Delhi Pan :Aaccg3353P (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessee had acquired third party debt collection services as well as part of analytical business of M/s. Genpact India as slump sale as a going concern on “as is where is basis” for a total consideration of Rs. 62,12,70,648/-. Out of which, an amount of Rs.39 ... trained and assembled workforce, amounting to Rs.2,91,63,000/-. He observed, the assessee had acquired the business on a slump sale as a going concerns on “as is where is basis”. He observed that business was acquired along with all assets and liabilities for a fixed consideration. Therefore

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

Birla global finance Ltd with Aditya Birla Nuvo limited. vi. It also submitted various minutes of the meetings, also contended that it is a going concern that has been transferred and vii. Therefore assessee transferred an undertaking which is tax compliant of Section 2 (19 AA) of the act. viii ... Birla financial Ltd are shown as investment in subsidiary Under the head non-current investment and iii. conditions of undertaking as well as of going concern is not fulfilled and iv. accordingly the assessee is subject to dividend distribution tax as the allotment of 92,02,66,951 equity shares

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Assessee incurred loss in the Sprinkler business and wanted to hive off the same, i.e., wanted to sell its Sprinkler business as a going concern, identifying it’s assets and liabilities. The Assessee sold its sprinkler business on a slump sale basis. As per section ... shares by the Assessee, is concerned, the learned counsel for the Assessee explained the circumstances under which the sprinkler business was sold as a going concern and as to how losses were incurred by the sprinkler business resulting in a decision to sell sprinkler business. It was highlighted that

ACIT Central Circle 2 (3), Chennai vs. M/S Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 579/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

available assets for sale under the Liquidation Process on 02.05.2019. Subsequently, several auctions were conducted for the sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern. In the 4th auction conducted on 07.08.2020, M/s.Liberty Group Pte Ltd was declared the highest bidder and on 11.08.2020, Liberty also had confirmed

ACIT Central Circle 2 (3), Chennai vs. M/S Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 578/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 303/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 302/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 301/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sbq Steels Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 300/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 22(4)Section 33(1)Section 54

Mahavir Ghar Sansar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-1(1)(1), Mahavir Ghar Sansar Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Private Limited, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 19 Raj Mahal, 84, Veer Vs. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs7170C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 01.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 For Ay 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

brief are that, during the assessment year 2008- 09 the assessee had via slump sale taken the entire Pharma and agro division as a going concern basis from Almet Corporation Ltd. from the effective date of November, 2007. The assessment for the said assessment year 2008-2009 was made vide

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

Section 2Section 37Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B

entire division including stores, computers, employees and stock-in-trade Page 3 of 31 ITA Nos. 50 & 93/Bang/2020 was transferred on a going concern basis and not only "Splash" brand as alleged by the learned AO. 1.7. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that as per Business Transfer ... entity i.e, Splash Fashions India Private Limited ("Splash India") w.e.f. 01.10.2012. This transfer the business of the assessee carried under “Splash” brand as a going concern was on 'slump sale' basis to Splash India. 2.1 Subsequent to the transfer of ‘Splash’ division on slump sale basis, the Assessee filed

Asst CIT Cir. 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Dpn Reality Deals Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1347/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Vp आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1347/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Acit, Circle-15(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Dpn Reality Deals Room No. 483A, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Unit No. 4, Building No. 400020. 2, Sector-1, Millenium Business Park Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy6576C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Saurabh Bhat Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.11.2019 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal & Deleting The Additions Of Rs.19,46,21,075/- Made U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh BhatFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (DR)

Section 56(2)(viib)

given a caveats/disclaimer as under: "This report is based on the information provided to us by the management of the Company and on a going concern basis. We have relied on the representations made to us by the management. We have assumed such representations to be reliable and our conclusion

ACIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jacob Engineering India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3700/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-10(2)(1), M/S. Worley India Pvt. R.No.216-A, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Jacobs Engineering India M.K. Road, Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Ramkrishna Mandir Road, Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaach0456J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.R. &For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 92C

that the TPO had erred in placing reliance on the financial data of only one year and doubted the ability to continue as going concern. Merit is found in the contention of the Appellant, that the Cades is functionally similar. The same is considered as a comparable company

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

Rs.65.50 Cr without any factual support or valid reasons. 5.9 The assessee's contention that consequent to its acquisition of a going concern, the sales and profit have Increased manifold which has been possible due to the Intangibles acquired by it, does not appear to be a valid justification ... creating intangible assets in the books. In fact, the sales and profit have naturally grown as the assessee has taken over a going concern, which did not require any gestation period to commence its business. It will be futile to argue that a going concern would automatically result into creation

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Bioworth India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR) by

Section 133(6)Section 37

from audited books of accounts of Kemwell Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., for asst. year 2009-10 that the accounts were prepared on the basis of going concern and no qualification as there in the notes to accounts of the company. Accordingly assessee’s protest of treting net reliable value as sale ... valuation reports prepared by the assessee show inconsistencies. Specific gaps in the valuation report dated 02.09.2009 is discussed here. The company KPL is a going concern. However the valuer adopted Net worth Method with adjustments. The valuer valued the worth of subsidiaries also based Page

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

papers etc., of the Partnership business shall belong to the Continuing Partner and he shall continue the business of the said firm as going concern with full and irrevocable authority to collet all the outstanding assets of the Partnership and ask for, demand, to institute suits and continue the existing ... Souza, Mangaluru Page 25 of 41 taken over all the assets and liabilities and is continuing the business of the disallowed firm as a going concern. The Assessee submitted that when the Partnership Firms were dissolved, as a Partner and further as a matter of contractual obligation, the Assessee