S. 90 : Double taxation relief – India – Mauritius DTAA – Circular No. 789 ( 2000) 243 ITR (St) 57 , not ultra vires the provisions of the Income-tax Act [S.2(17, 5(2) , 6(3) , 119 , Art .3, 4, 13(4) ]

S. 90 : Double taxation relief – Business income arising out of rubber plantations in Malaysia cannot be taxed in India – capital gains derived from immovable property is not taxable in India as the property being situated in Malaysia – In case of conflict between Income-tax Act and the provisions of DTAA, provisions of DTAA would prevail over the provisions of Income-tax Act – DTAA India – Malaysia [S. 4, 5, 28(i), 45, Art . 4, 5, 6, 7 & 22]

S. 80IB(10) : Housing Projects – If the project is approved by local authority as housing project with convenience shopping the assessee is entitled to deduction – Prior to
1-4-2005 – Clause (d) inserted to Section 80IB(10) with effect from 1-4-2005 is prospective and not retrospective and hence cannot be applied for the period prior to 1-4-2005.

S. 80IA: Industrial undertaking – Conversion of a partnership firm into a company – Part IX of Companies Act – As per S. 575 of the Companies Act, the conversion of a partnership firm into a company under Part IX causes a statutory vesting of all assets of the firm into the company without the need for a conveyance – The business of the firm is carried on by the company and the latter is eligible for the benefits of S. 80IA(4) of the Act. [S. 80IA(4), Companies Act, 1956 , S. 575 ]

S. 80HH: Newly established industrial undertakings – Backward areas – Manufacture – Conversion of Jumbo rolls into small flat and rolls amounts to manufacture . [S. 2(29B), 32AB ,80I]

S. 80HH: Newly established industrial undertakings – Maintenance of separate books of accounts unit wise is not mandatory – Neither section 80HH, nor section 80I statutorily obliged assessee to maintain accounts unit wise – Consolidated accounts held to be valid and revision held not valid. [S. 80I, 263]

S. 69 : Unexplained investments – Income from undisclosed sources – Non-Resident – Deposit in NRI Accounts – Deletion of addition by the Tribunal based on the evidences – Reversal of the order of Tribunal by the High Court is held to be not valid – Oder of the Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 158BB, 158BC 260A, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, S.13]

S. 68 : Cash credits-Bogus share capital / premium-The assessee is under legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital / premium to the satisfaction of the Assessing officer , failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the assessee-Mere mention of income tax file number of an investor is not sufficient to discharge the onus-Credit worthiness of the investor companies was not discharged- In present case in wake of field inquiries made by ‘AO’ revealing non existence of investor companies and the onus to establish the identity of the investor companies, was not discharged by the assessee– Addition under section 68 of Rs. 17,60,00,000 was restored. [ S. 131 ]

S.64: Clubbing of income – Clubbing of the share of ‘income’ of wife and minor children – Income include loss- Loss can be clubbed and carried forward like income – Though equity and taxation are often strangers, attempts should be made that these do not remain always so and if a construction results in equity rather than in in-justice, then such construction should be preferred to the literal construction if strict literal construction leads to an absurd result i.e. result not intended to be subserved by the object of the legislation found out in the manner indicated before, and if another construction is possible apart from strict literal construction then that construction should be preferred to the strict literal construction- The scheme of the Act has to be considered in holistic manner which in this case is, to counteract, the effect of the transfer of assets so far as computation of income of the assessee is concerned .[S. 70 , 71 , 72 , Income tax Act, 1922 , S. 16(3) 24(2) ]

S.52(2): Consideration for transfer of cases of under statement -Additions cannot be made on presumptions- Capital gains- Where the consideration for the transfer is under-stated or in other words, the assessee has actually received a larger consideration for the transfer than what is declared in the instrument of transfer and it would have no application in case of a bonafide transaction where the full value of the consideration for the transfer is correctly declared by the assessee- Burden is on revenue to prove that under consideration is received by the assessee. – Task of interpretation of a statutory enactment is not a mechanical task and it is more than a mere reading of mathematical formulae where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the legislature, the court may modify the language used by the legislature or even ‘do some violence’ to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a rational construction [ S.45 ]