S. 28(i) : Business loss-Under invoicing of sales to sister concern-Books of account not rejected-Order of Tribunal is affirmed.[S. 4, 69, 145]

S. 10(26) : Schedule Tribes-Income of member of Scheduled Tribe-Individual-Special Bench-Family-Matter remanded to the Tribunal with a request to the President of the Tribunal to constitute a Larger Bench without including either member who was a party to the order for the consideration of the entire gamut of the matter. [S. 2(31), 184, 254(1), 255, 260A]

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Interest earned on grants-Quantifying amount of grant-in-aid-Eligible to claim exemption. [10(23C) (iiiac), 11, 13, R. 2BBB]

S. 10(1) : Agricultural income-Apportionment of expenses-Agricultural and trading-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 260A]

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-External development charges to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA)-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Levy of penalty is not justified.

S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Builder and developer-Percentage completion of accounts-Gross receipts of were more than Rs. one crore-Levy of penalty is justified.[S.44AB]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Insurance business-Income/funds in shareholders account was taxable separately at rate of 30 per cent instead of 12 per cent-Revision order is quashed. [S.44, 115B]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Civil contractor-Revision order is quashed. [S. 37(1)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Real estate developer-Annual value-Deemed rent-Unsold flats as stock-in-trade for more than one year-Revision is not justified-Amendment to section 23 vide introduction of sub-section (5) by Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 1-4-2018 whereby property held as stock-in-trade was brought to tax, would be effective prospectively.[S. 22, 23]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposited-Demonetization-No enquiry was made in the assessment proceedings-Commissioner remanding the matter to Assessing Officer for de novo consideration is justified. [S.69A]