S.28(i) : Business loss – Government deposits written off is held to be allowable as business loss .[ S.37 (i)]

S.28(i) : Business loss – Retention money – Advances to the companies which are in nature of irrevocable which are written off in the books is allowable as business loss.

S.28(i) : Business loss -Advance to purchase of land- loss incurred on account of irrevocable advance paid for purchase of land for construction of office is held to be allowable as business loss .

S.14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – AO has neither considered contention of the assessee nor recorded the satisfaction, hence disallowance is not justified.[ R.8D ]

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Amount received from settler company and same was given as donation to another charitable institution , refusal of registration is held to be justified ,as the assessee has not carried out any charitable activities [ S. 2(15) ]

S. 271D : Penalty -Takes or accepts any loan or deposit –Journal entries – Penalty cannot be levied if the transactions are bona fide ,genuine and reasonable cause.No substantial question of law [ S. 260A,269SS, 269T, 273B ]

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years- Carry forward the loss- No failure to disclose all material facts -Reassessment is bad in law [ S.79, 148 ]

S. 143(3): Assessment – Estimate of cost of construction- Books of account not rejected – Assessing Officer cannot refer the matter to District valuation Officer .

S.260A: Appeal -High Court -Departmental Counsel- CBDT should re consider the practice of appointing retired revenue officers as panel counsel. CBDT should lay down a standard procedure in respect of manner in which the Departmental Officer/ Assessing Officer assist the Counsel for the Revenue while promoting/ protecting Revenue’s cause so that the Revenue’s Counsel are not left to fend for themselves. Copy of the judgement was forwarded to Chairman CBDT.

S. 253: Appellate Tribunal -Registrar’s Court -The Registrar of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider and decide on applications for condonation of delay. Only the Court/ Tribunal have the power. The order passed by the Registrar is ultra vires his power and non est in law. He should desist from passing such orders [ S. 152(1).253(5) ]