https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5117 Liability under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 depended on a clear finding that the machinery was sold; absent such a finding, taxability could not be finally determined and the matter had to be reconsidered by the Tribunal. Taxing authorities were required to apply the legal character of the transaction, not a supposed business substance, so a transfer between a firm and a distinct company could not be treated differently merely on commercial impression. The closure of part of the business or realization of assets did not by itself prevent application of the proviso after the 1949 amendment. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jan 2024 18:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5117 Liability under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 depended on a clear finding that the machinery was sold; absent such a finding, taxability could not be finally determined and the matter had to be reconsidered by the Tribunal. Taxing authorities were required to apply the legal character of the transaction, not a supposed business substance, so a transfer between a firm and a distinct company could not be treated differently merely on commercial impression. The closure of part of the business or realization of assets did not by itself prevent application of the proviso after the 1949 amendment. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5117