https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29624 The court held that the assessee could not substitute the market value as of January 1, 1954, for depreciable assets when computing capital gains. It was determined that the cost of acquisition had to be the written down value as defined in the Income-tax Act. Additionally, the court ruled that house rent allowance should be treated as part of perquisites under the Act, disagreeing with the interpretation that excluded cash benefits. The court decided in favor of the revenue and against the assessee on both issues. The judgment will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. en-us Fri, 27 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:53:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29624 The court held that the assessee could not substitute the market value as of January 1, 1954, for depreciable assets when computing capital gains. It was determined that the cost of acquisition had to be the written down value as defined in the Income-tax Act. Additionally, the court ruled that house rent allowance should be treated as part of perquisites under the Act, disagreeing with the interpretation that excluded cash benefits. The court decided in favor of the revenue and against the assessee on both issues. The judgment will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29624