https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200793 An Appellate Assistant Commissioner's enhancement of capital gains was treated as a re-adjustment of an existing assessment, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. A court-appointed commissioner's sale of partnership assets was regarded as a transfer for capital gains purposes, while the third proviso was confined to distribution of capital assets in specie and did not extend to sale proceeds. The proviso dealing with depreciation adjustments applied only where an actual adjustment had been made in the income-tax assessment, so the assessee could not reduce the capital gain by depreciation already reflected in the statutory scheme. The full capital gain was therefore taxable. en-us Wed, 26 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:03:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200793 An Appellate Assistant Commissioner's enhancement of capital gains was treated as a re-adjustment of an existing assessment, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. A court-appointed commissioner's sale of partnership assets was regarded as a transfer for capital gains purposes, while the third proviso was confined to distribution of capital assets in specie and did not extend to sale proceeds. The proviso dealing with depreciation adjustments applied only where an actual adjustment had been made in the income-tax assessment, so the assessee could not reduce the capital gain by depreciation already reflected in the statutory scheme. The full capital gain was therefore taxable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200793