HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v A. W. Figgies & Co. and Others
Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1952
[1954] SCR 171 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, sections 3 and 25(4)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · Mehr Chand Mahajan J. (author) · S. R. Das J. · N. H. Bhagwati J.
Assessment years: 1947–48
01 · Facts of the case
A tea-broking firm taxed under the 1918 Act continued through several changes of partners before a limited company succeeded it in 1947. Revenue denied succession relief because the partners differed from those in 1939.
Source: Primary report: SCR 172–174
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Did changes of partners destroy the identity of the assessable firm for section 25(4) relief? The firm was a distinct assessable unit. Mere reconstitution did not necessarily create a new unit or amount to succession. The same business continued at the same place without cessation or division of its assets and liabilities; the 1945 deed did not establish a different unit.
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue’s appeal was dismissed with costs; section 25(4) relief was upheld.
Source: Primary report: SCR 177
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue’s appeal was dismissed with costs; section 25(4) relief was upheld.
Source: Primary report: SCR 177
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Distinguish a change in partners from genuine dissolution or succession. This concerns historical relief for businesses taxed under the 1918 Act, not automatic relief for all current restructurings.
Source: Primary report: SCR 175–177
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Seven pages / SCR 171–177. Preceding Sardar Indra Singh ending on first page; following Sidheshwar caption on last page.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory text and assessment period only. Present statutory equivalence and later judicial treatment are not cleared.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-18. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been comprehensively checked.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.