S.28(i):Business loss —Fluctuation in rate of foreign exchange — Allowable as business loss . [ S.37(1) ]

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Charging certain goods and services – Not commercial activities – Onus on department to prove profit motive – No change in nature of activities from earlier years – Principle of consistency is applicable- Entitle to exemption [ S.2(15) 12 , 13 80G(5)(v)]

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Business income- Income from other sources – Interest income – Assessable as business income – Real income theory – Diversion by overriding title – Assessee for preceding years not claiming adjustments does not preclude right of assessee to make out case of mistake at a subsequent date- Disbursements of grants was held to be core business of appellant expenditure incurred in course of business and for purpose of business is allowable as deduction -Recommendation-
A Committee of legal experts presided by a retired Judge can give its imprimatur to the settlement -A vibrant system of Advance Ruling can go a long way in reducing taxation litigation.- This is true even of disputes between the taxation department and private persons, who are more than willing to comply with the law of the land but find some ambiguity- A council for Advance Tax Ruling based on the Swedish model and the New Zealand system may be a possible way forward. [ S.4, 28(i), 56 ]

S. 68: Cash credits – Survey- Demonetization – Purchase of gold from sale proceeds – Sales cannot be assessed as undisclosed income – Only profit thereon could be taxed as income- Entire sales cannot be assessed as undislosed income – Provision of section 115BBE is cannot be made retrospectively – For the assessment year 2017-18 only net profit was directed to be taxed . [ S.115BBE 132 , 133A ]

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax –Concealment of income- Appeal- Failure to produce documents to prove there was no willful default -Additional evidence – Appellate Court has the power to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice . [ S.271(1) (c ) , 278B(3 ) , Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 , S. 190, 200 , 391 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Estimate of income- Possible view – Revision is held to be not justified – Dropping of concealment penalty by the Assessing Officer – Revision order directing to levy of 300% – Tribunal affirming 200% levy of penalty – Order of tribunal is affirmed . [S.133A, 271(1) (c ) ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Provision for warranty – Revision order is held to be not valid .[ S.143(3) ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Assessing Officer making enquiries pertaining to remuneration of partners and expenses and receipts – Order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interests of revenue .

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Bogus purchases —Statement by Investigation Wing- Disallowance of 15% of unverifiable purchases – Order of Tribunal is affirmed – Rejection of rectification is held to be justified [ S. 69C , 132 ,147 , 148, Art , 226 ]

251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Powers of Appellate Authorities — Appellate Authorities can consider claim not raised before Assessing Officer Education cess is held to be deductible . [ S. 40(a)(ii) 254(1) ]