S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue-Assessee did not purchase and acquire title in the trademark or retain any rights in the mark – Lump-sum payment was for obtaining an advantage in carrying on its business as it merely facilitated the assessee’s business in India and hence of revenue nature.

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution –Genuineness of trust and its activities are not doubted – Registration cannot be refused. [ S.2(15), 11]

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Application of income – Any excess expenditure incurred by the trust/charitable institution in earlier assessment year could be allowed to be set off against income of subsequent years.

S. 100 : of the Chapter VII of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 – Collection and recovery of Securities transaction tax ( STT)–Derivatives- Securities Transaction Tax (STT) at rate of 0.10 per cent on settlement price to be paid by purchaser of futures contract which were settled by way of physical delivery- No different from transaction in equity shares where contract is settled actual delivery or transfer of shares and rates of STT as applicable to such delivery based equity transactions would also be applicable to such derivative transactions.

Benami Property Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.
S. 2(9) : Benami Transactions- Purchase of property from known source in the name of wife will not be a benami property- Husband will be de jure owner and not of his wife who will be de facto owner in whose name title deed exists, it is legally permissible for a person to purchase an immovable property in name of his spouse from his known sources. [ S.2(9)(A)(b)]

S.17: Reassessment –Protective basis –Assets-Immovable property- Assessment could not be reopened on basis of certain stand of assessee taken before Assessing Officer in income-tax proceedings [S. 2(ea), 16(3)]

S. 271(1)(c) :Penalty – Concealment –Disallowance of expenditure-merely because said claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty.

S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders -Cash credits –In the revision order the Commissioner did not make any addition to assessee’s income and held that addition of a sum of Rs. 20 crores being a serious matter, same should be examined again –Order of Commissioner is set aside by observing that it was not quantum of additions but justification thereof which would be germane for deciding to exercise revisional powers –Remanded the matter for fresh disposal. [ S.68 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Residence in India –Amendment to S.6(6)(a) has been brought into effect from 1-4-2004; which is not applicable for the Asst year 2003-04- Judgement of Supreme Court is binding on Assessing officer -Revision is held to be bad in law .[S.6(6)(a) ]

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –No satisfactory reason has been provided for delay of 439 days in filing an appeal – Pendency of rectification application before Tribunal cannot be the reason for codonation of delay .[ S.254(2)]