S. 43(1) : Actual cost –Depreciation-Grants towards capital fund- contribution in the form of grants could not be considered as a payment directly or indirectly to meet any portion of the actual cost and, thus, did not fall within the ambit of Explanation 10 to section 43(1)( S.32 ]

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits –Survey – cash purchases reported in the financial statements, i. e., notional entries made for the purpose of matching the unaccounted sales discovered during the search actions –No disallowance can be made by applying the provision of S.40A(3)[ S.133A]

S.37(1):Business expenditure – Ad-hoc expenditure –Company –No personal expenses – car running and telephone expenses —Disallowances cannot be made .

S.37(1):Business expenditure –Capital or revenue – Expenses on electric repairs and maintenance — consumable expenses —Fabrication charges -Revenue in nature

S. 147 : Reassessment –Delay in filing objections- -If the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose of the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints Ltd v. Dy. CIT ( 2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 weeks- A writ petition to challenge the reopening is not entertained [ S.148 ]

S.45 :Capital gains- Cash credits -Bogus long-term capital gains-Penny stocks- Filed evidences for (a) purchase of shares, (b) payment by account payee cheque, (c) balance sheet disclosing investments, (d) demat statement (e) evidence of sale of shares through stock exchange, (e) bank statement reflecting sale receipts, (f) brokers ledger, (g) Contract notes etc, the gains cannot be treated as bogus on human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises – Addition as cash credits is deleted [ S.10(38) ,68 ]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price—Comparables-Providing back office support services-Followed rule of consistency -Different business hence cannot be comparable. [S. 92CA]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arms’ length price–Selection of comparable- Functionally dissimilar companies cannot be selected as comparables-Foreign head office and Indian Branch-Requires determination of ALP on such transactions-Brightline test -Marketing support services cannot be compared with testing services, project of Emergency Transport and Infrastructure development and projects of development and hygiene education development.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arms’ length price–Resale of goods–RPM method is most appropriate – Foreign exchange gain/loss arising out of revenue transactions is required to be considered as an item of operating revenue/cost, both for assessee as well as comparables -Granting adjustment on account of import duty paid because it incurred higher import duty in comparison with comparable companies – No adjustment on account of separate items resulting into computation of gross profit can be permitted.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arms’ length price-Fluctuation margins- Rendering ITES services to AE, a company which was showing fluctuating margins, could not be accepted as comparable- Fee for advisory and other services to AE matter remanded.