https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382299 The court found that the appellant firm violated clauses (a) and (c) of the proviso to Section 47(xiii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by revaluing a capital asset and crediting the enhanced value to partners' current accounts. This constituted an indirect benefit to the partners, deemed a transfer of a capital asset. However, the tax liability for the capital gains was imposed on the successor company, not the erstwhile firm. The appeal was partly allowed, the assessment order was set aside, and no costs were imposed. en-us Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382299 The court found that the appellant firm violated clauses (a) and (c) of the proviso to Section 47(xiii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by revaluing a capital asset and crediting the enhanced value to partners' current accounts. This constituted an indirect benefit to the partners, deemed a transfer of a capital asset. However, the tax liability for the capital gains was imposed on the successor company, not the erstwhile firm. The appeal was partly allowed, the assessment order was set aside, and no costs were imposed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382299