“Section 2(47)(4)”

There can be no estoppel against the statute, meaning tax cannot be levied or collected without express authority of law. An appellate authority may adjudicate additional claims or legal contentions to ensure the correct tax liability is determined.

A partner's contribution of a personal asset to a partnership firm does not amount to a "transfer" for capital gains purposes under the Income-tax Act, as the consideration (the partner's interest in the firm) is indeterminate, and the computational machinery for capital gains fails.

Courts cannot substitute their own views for those of the Directorate of Enforcement when assessing whether actions were taken arbitrarily or without jurisdiction. The court must consider the substance of the matter, not just the form.

The distribution of capital assets to a partner upon the dissolution of a partnership firm does not constitute a 'transfer' and is therefore not taxable as capital gains.

The revenue authorities cannot exclude comparable companies from the final list if the Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had not rejected them, even if the revenue representative believes they do not pass the comparability test.

When a partner retires from a partnership firm and receives consideration, including a proportionate share of goodwill, it is not considered a transfer for capital gains tax purposes.

Capital gains arising from the distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons, or otherwise, are taxable under section 45(4) based on the fair market value of the asset on the date of transfer. This applies even to reconstitutions of partnership businesses as part of a family settlement.

The taxability of an amount received by a partner upon retirement from a firm depends on the specific mode of retirement and how the accounts are settled, with admission of new partners generally not constituting a taxable transfer.