S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Civil contractor-Widening and strengthening of existing road-Purchase of marble for construction of High way Authority-Parties whose name cheques were alleged to be issued had deposed on oath that they had neither encashed cheque nor received amount-Order of Tribunal affirming the disallowance is affirmed-SLP of assessee is dismissed.[Art. 136]

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Broken period Interest –Stock in trade-Allowable as revenue expenditure. [S.28(i)]

S. 35D : Amortization of Preliminary expenses (General)-Claim of was granted by Assessing Officer-Claim could not be disallowed in subsequent year by Commissioner through his revisionary powers without disturbing decision in initial year —No challenge is made against the rectification. order passed by revenue-SLP disposed as infructuous.[S. 154,263, Art. 136]

S. 35ABB : Licence to operate telecommunication services-Classification of royalty payment as revenue expenditure-Appeal de-tagged for specific consideration. [S. 37(1)]

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Revenue from software sales to Indian clients, said revenue could not be treated as royalty and subjected to Indian taxation-DTAA-India-USA [S.9(1)(vii), 195, art. 12, Art.136]

S. 9(1)(v) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Interest-Other income-Guarantee to various banks to extend credit facilities to its Indian subsidiaries-Guarantee charges were not received by assessee in respect of any debt owed to it by its Indian subsidiary-Guarantee fee would not fall within expression ‘interest’ in article 12 of India UK DTAA –Accrue-Arise-Income-SLP of assessee is dismissed-DTAA-India-UK-Northern Ireland / [S. 2(28A), 5(2), 260A, Art.7, 12(5), 23(3), Art. 136]

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Book profit – Decapitalization of interest- Failure of Assessing Officer to examine computation of book profits – Order of Tribunal affirming the revision order of Commissioner is affirmed . [S. 32AB, 115J, 260A]

S. 271(1): Penalty – Concealment – Revaluing the asset, introducing it into the partnership, and withdrawing substantial funds, amounted to a device to evade tax rather than a genuine business transaction- The Explanation offered by the Appellant was found to be patently false – Levy of concealment penalty is affirmed . [ S.260A ]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of claim-Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Tribunal in quantum appeal partially allowed deduction under section 54F, Assessing Officer is directed to recompute quantum of penalty. [S. 54EC, 54F]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Corporate social responsibility (CSR)-Allowed deduction under Section 80G-AO’s view is backed by various decisions of Tribunal-Assessment order can not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.[S.37(1), 80G, 143(3), Companies Act, S. 135]