S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation of trading liability – Merely because period of three years expired from arising of the liability would not automatically mean that the liability has ceased – Order of Tribunal is affirmed .

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation of trading liability – Old unpaid liability for sundry creditors- Exhaustion of period of limitation may prevent filing of recovery proceedings in a Court of law, nevertheless it cannot be stated by itself that the liability to repay the amount had ceased- Addition cannot be made .

S.32: Depreciation –Installation of windmill – 80% depreciation allowed on Civil Construction ,electrical and other non integral part of installations – Held to be allowable .

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Equity or hardship not factor to be considered in deciding validity of provision- Promissory estoppel- No estoppel against legislature . [ S.35AC, Art .142 ]

S. 10A : Free trade zone – Computer software – Expenses which are to be excluded from the export turnover would also have to be excluded for the purpose of computing total turnover- Deduction rightly claimed u/s 10A instead of S.80HHE of the Act . [ S.80HHE ]

Natural Justice-Right of cross examination is not required to be granted when the statement is not used against the assessee and matter is decided on other evidence-Non furnishing of the documents on which the reliance is being made, principle of natural justice is violated-Matter remanded.

Interpretation -Precedent -Recalled order cannot be relied upon as precedent.

S. 295(4) : Directors-Professionals-Liability of professionals acting as Non-executive directors-cannot be prosecuted for offenses committed by the company.

S. 85 : Prosecution-Operation of impugned restraining order of High Court is stayed-Petitioners are free to prosecute respondent and proceed further in accordance with law, subject to the final decision of this matter. [S. 86]

S. 2(ea)(v) of : Urban Land-Expression “the construction of building not permissible under any law in force” cannot be equated with regulatory requirement of any statutory provision which mandates obtaining of permission from the Competent Authority-Restriction and prohibition are two different concepts- Tribunal was right in holding that lands were includible in net wealth as ‘urban land’.