https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19270 Compensation received from an insurer for partial damage to machinery was treated as indemnity for loss, not as consideration for a transfer of the asset or any rights in it; in the absence of a transfer, section 45 capital gains tax did not apply, and the assessee's contention succeeded on this point. The computation of capital employed under section 80J was upheld because it was governed by a binding Supreme Court decision on the same question, so the Revenue's position prevailed on that issue. The reference was thus disposed of by accepting the assessee's capital gains argument and rejecting the challenge to the section 80J computation. en-us Fri, 11 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:28:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19270 Compensation received from an insurer for partial damage to machinery was treated as indemnity for loss, not as consideration for a transfer of the asset or any rights in it; in the absence of a transfer, section 45 capital gains tax did not apply, and the assessee's contention succeeded on this point. The computation of capital employed under section 80J was upheld because it was governed by a binding Supreme Court decision on the same question, so the Revenue's position prevailed on that issue. The reference was thus disposed of by accepting the assessee's capital gains argument and rejecting the challenge to the section 80J computation. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19270