S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Sales commission paid to agent in Iraq in relation to sale of trucks and particular person to be treated as allowable business expenditure – Capital or revenue-Drawings and designing charges related to computer software – Cannot be treated as capital asset.

S. 32 : Depreciation – Tribunal’s observation that transaction lacks bonafides – No material to dislodge factual findings recorded by Tribunal – Matter remanded to AO by Tribunal justified .

S. 32 : Depreciation – Higher rate – Transportation- Motor lorries used for providing specialized equipments and trained manpower for mining and transportation of excavated minerals on hire is eligible for higher rate of depreciation

S. 10(23A) : Professional association or institution – Approval for exemption granted by Central Government to undivided State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh vide notification dated 09-08-1966 – Notification and exemption would equally apply to the State Bar Council of Chattisgarh by virtue of provisions of S. 78 and 79 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (‘the Act of 2000’) wef 01-11-2000.

S. 4 :Charge of income-tax – Legislative power of retrospective amendment – Legislature cannot by way of introducing an amendment overturn a judicial pronouncement to declare it to be wrong or nullity – Rather Legislature can amend provisions of any statute to remove basis of judgment- Clause in statute – Prohibiting payment of interest on amount of security deposit is not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.[ Art. 14 ]

S. 260A: Appeal –High Court -Transfer pricing- Appeals against exclusion or inclusion of comparables to determine ALP of tested parties should not be filed in a ritualistic manner. Any inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal or any other lower authority took into account irrelevant consideration or excluded relevant factors in the ALP determination that impact significantly- The counsel of the Revenue is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax within the State of Maharashtra for necessary action [ S.92C ]

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Advocate -Objection taken to SMS from Dept Advocate that what Court is “pressurising me to do is both wrong and unethical. No Advocate of any worth would stoop so low. Sorry I am not able to comply with this rather unusual demand”. The SMS is contrary to the statement made by the learned Additional Solicitor General. The SMS either stems from not understanding our view or it is a made up indignation so as to accuse of us of pressurizing him to do an activity not expected of an Advocate. It appears to be in the second category as the SMS appears to give a completely different twist to the facts as stated to him by Associate. Copy of order sent to CBDT Chairman.

S. 254(2):Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –If there is no discussion whatsoever by the Tribunal of the various case laws detailed in the submissions filed by the assessee, the order is non-speaking and has to be recalled. The Tribunal should take into account the material and case laws relied upon by the assessee during the hearing.

S. 153A : Assessment – Search- When search operations are conducted u/s 132, the obligation of the assessee to file any return remains suspended till such time that a notice is issued for such purpose u/s 153A(1)(a). If the return is filed within the reasonable time permitted by such notice u/s 153A(1)(a), the return is deemed to have been filed within the time permitted u/s 139 (1)/ 139(3) and loss can be carried forward .[ S.72, 80,139(1) , 139(3)]

S.145:Method of accounting – Real estate construction contracts –Consistency method of accounting- Completed contract- Percentage completion- Accounting Standards AS-7 and AS-9- AO was not justified in applying the percentage completion method on the assessee merely on the basis that it was followed by the developer JSM DPL and arbitrarily making addition to the income ignored the fact that project completion method/ completed contract method of accounting has been consistently adopted by the assessee . [ S. 5,43C]