As per the case facts, a partnership firm challenged the High Court's dismissal of income tax appeals, which confirmed orders by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleting short-term capital gains. ... The Commissioner of Income Tax is the appellant in this case. The appeal to the Supreme Court challenges the High Court's judgment and order. The question arose whether the High Court was correct in its interpretation of the amended Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, particularly in light of previous judicial pronouncements, and whether the deletion of short-term capital gains by the tribunal and High Court was sustainable. Finally, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's and the ITAT's judgments and orders were unsustainable and quashed them, restoring the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Court clarified that the decision in Hind Construction Ltd. (supra) was rendered before the insertion of Section 45(4) into the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 1987, and thus, it did not consider the word "OTHERWISE" which was absent in the earlier regime. Therefore, the precedent of Hind Construction Ltd. was deemed inapplicable for interpreting the newly inserted Section 45(4). The Supreme Court fully agreed with and affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of A.N. Naik Associates and Ors., which correctly applied the amended law.