https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61016 Where an electricity undertaking is transferred as a running concern for a single lump sum without separate valuation of individual assets, the excess cannot be treated as balancing charge under section 41(2) because the transaction is in substance a slump transfer of the undertaking as a whole. On that basis, no liability arose under section 41(2). For capital gains, the same whole-undertaking transfer allowed substitution of the market value as on 1-1-1954, since the capital asset was the undertaking itself and not separately itemised assets. The result was recomputation of capital gains on that statutory basis. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:43:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61016 Where an electricity undertaking is transferred as a running concern for a single lump sum without separate valuation of individual assets, the excess cannot be treated as balancing charge under section 41(2) because the transaction is in substance a slump transfer of the undertaking as a whole. On that basis, no liability arose under section 41(2). For capital gains, the same whole-undertaking transfer allowed substitution of the market value as on 1-1-1954, since the capital asset was the undertaking itself and not separately itemised assets. The result was recomputation of capital gains on that statutory basis. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61016