Case Name : N. Bagavathy ammal vs. Cit
Citation :  127 taxman 422/259 itr 678 (sc)
Court : Supreme court
Section : 46
Meaning : Having referred to ‘capital asset’ in sections 45(1), 47 and 48, the parliament appears to have deliberately chosen to use the word ‘asset’ in section 46(1) and (2), the ostensible intention being to bring assets of all kinds within the scope of the charge. It is not necessary to refer to a dictionary to hold that capital assets are a species of the genus ‘assets’. If the words ‘capital assets’ and ‘assets’, as used in sections 45(1) and 46, respectively, did not overlap, then there was no need to provide for a non obstante clause in section 46(1) with reference to section 45.
Case Name : Ram lakhan vs. Ito
Citation :  47 itr 311 (all.)
Court : Allahabad high court
Section : 159 to 179
Meaning : The word ‘assets’ in section 24b(1) of the 1922 act should be interpreted to include not merely the corpus but also the usufruct of the asset left by the deceased and it should make no difference that the usufruct accrued only after the date of the death of the deceased.