S. 43(5) : Speculative transaction – Derivatives – Losses – Set off from one source against income from other source under same head of income- Loss incurred on account of derivatives would be deemed business loss under proviso to S. 43(5) and not speculation loss, Explanation to S. 73 would not be applicable- Interpretation- Two non jurisdictional High Court taking different view-View favourable to the assessee is followed . [ S.70, 73(4) ]

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation of trading liability – Outstanding sundry creditors for several years- Failure to produce correct address, PAN Numbers, or confirmations- Merely because liabilities were shown in books of account and not written back, could not be held to be subsisting liability.[ S.133(6) ]

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident – Royalty – Fes for technical services – Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Affiliation fee-One time payment to US. company, which did not provide for transfer of technology cannot be assessed as royalty –Not liable to deduct tax at source -No disallowance can be made – DTAA-India- USA [ S.9(1)(vi) ,195 ,Art .12 ]

S.37(1):Business expenditure- Capital or revenue- Depreciation-One time consolidated fee paid to holding company –Held to be capital in nature – Depreciation is allowable . [ S.32(1)(ii) ]

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Capital or revenue- Annual licence fee payable on the basis of turnover achieved is held to be allowable as revenue expenditure .

S. 28(iv) : Business income – Value of any benefit or perquisites – Converted in to money or not -Purchase of shares of a non-related company at a price less than fair value as it was a loss making concern cannot be assessed as benefit or perquisites . [ S.2(24 ) ]

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend-Non -Holding cumulative preference shares with fixed rate of dividend- Advance of loan cannot be assessed as deemed dividend .

S. 143(3) : Assessment – Assessment has to be framed as per provisions -Instruction No. 13 of 2006 would not override the provisions-Revised return claiming refund of tax deduction at source- Assessment order as framed by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the provisions of law and beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is beyond the time prescribed under the law and is illegal. Accordingly, the assessment is quashed. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the refund with interest as per law. [ S.119,143(2) ]

S. 254(2A):Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Arrest for recovery of arrears- It is a question of confinement of a person in jail due to non-payment of tax dues. Since the recovery of outstanding dues has been stayed except deposit of specified amount, the TRO is ordered to arrange for release of the assessee immediately on deposit of said amount. Income Tax Authorities are directed to promptly do the necessary formalities including issue of release warrant to the Jail officials on compliance of the directions of the Tribunal.

S. 254(2):Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Limitation-Delay of 4 months and 10 days -Though the Tribunal has no power u/s 254(2) to condone delay in filing the MA, the High Court has power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to do substantial justice by condoning the delay. Injustice was done to the assessee because the Tribunal did not follow the binding judgement in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory ( 2013) 359 ITR 565 ( Karn) (HC) on the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Accordingly, the delay in fling the MA deserves to be condoned [ S.271(1)( c ) ]