https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276772 Section 10(2)(vii)'s fourth proviso was construed as a narrow deeming provision applying only to insurance, salvage or compensation moneys actually received in respect of destroyed capital assets. The court reasoned that mercantile accounting under section 13 did not expand the statutory word "received" into "receivable", because the fiction created by the proviso had to be confined to its express terms. The reference to "paid" elsewhere in the Act did not justify taxing compensation for destroyed machinery and buildings on accrual. The amount therefore became assessable only on actual receipt, not on mere receivability. en-us Tue, 16 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:48:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276772 Section 10(2)(vii)'s fourth proviso was construed as a narrow deeming provision applying only to insurance, salvage or compensation moneys actually received in respect of destroyed capital assets. The court reasoned that mercantile accounting under section 13 did not expand the statutory word "received" into "receivable", because the fiction created by the proviso had to be confined to its express terms. The reference to "paid" elsewhere in the Act did not justify taxing compensation for destroyed machinery and buildings on accrual. The amount therefore became assessable only on actual receipt, not on mere receivability. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276772