https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296082 The disagreement in this case centered around whether the money equivalent to the enhanced portion of an asset revalued constitutes a capital asset for tax purposes. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that this money does not qualify as a capital asset and therefore does not trigger a transfer of a capital asset upon the firm's dissolution. The court also rejected challenges to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the reopening of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Ultimately, both the Revenue and Assessee appeals were dismissed on April 3, 2019. en-us Thu, 15 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jul 2021 08:55:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296082 The disagreement in this case centered around whether the money equivalent to the enhanced portion of an asset revalued constitutes a capital asset for tax purposes. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that this money does not qualify as a capital asset and therefore does not trigger a transfer of a capital asset upon the firm's dissolution. The court also rejected challenges to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the reopening of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Ultimately, both the Revenue and Assessee appeals were dismissed on April 3, 2019. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296082