https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178106 Income under section 41(2) was held to accrue when the amount payable for the acquired undertaking became finally ascertained and enforceable by civil court decree, not merely on the date of acquisition or actual receipt. Pendency of an appeal against the decree did not prevent accrual because taxability depends on accrual, not receipt. The Court also held that reassessment under section 147(a) was valid where the assessee's return and balance-sheet did not disclose the decree, the decretal amount, or other primary facts necessary to determine taxability under section 41(2). On both issues, the Revenue's position was upheld. en-us Sat, 10 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:58:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178106 Income under section 41(2) was held to accrue when the amount payable for the acquired undertaking became finally ascertained and enforceable by civil court decree, not merely on the date of acquisition or actual receipt. Pendency of an appeal against the decree did not prevent accrual because taxability depends on accrual, not receipt. The Court also held that reassessment under section 147(a) was valid where the assessee's return and balance-sheet did not disclose the decree, the decretal amount, or other primary facts necessary to determine taxability under section 41(2). On both issues, the Revenue's position was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 10 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178106