https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11708 HC held that section 45(4) did not apply because there was no transfer by distribution on dissolution, so the Assessing Officer could not treat market value as the full value of consideration; section 45(1) read with section 48 likewise did not authorize treating market value as consideration. The disallowance of depreciation was erroneous because provisions cited by the Department do not equate "transfer" for capital gains with the terms in section 32/34 concerning sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed assets, and there is no requirement that the firm remain owner for the entire year. Both issues were decided for the assessee and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11708 HC held that section 45(4) did not apply because there was no transfer by distribution on dissolution, so the Assessing Officer could not treat market value as the full value of consideration; section 45(1) read with section 48 likewise did not authorize treating market value as consideration. The disallowance of depreciation was erroneous because provisions cited by the Department do not equate "transfer" for capital gains with the terms in section 32/34 concerning sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed assets, and there is no requirement that the firm remain owner for the entire year. Both issues were decided for the assessee and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11708