S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Affidavit-Old age-Undertook to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 as costs-Delay of 38 days and 69 days in filing for 10B and Form No. 10-Delay was condoned-Respondent was directed to grant exemption as per law. [S.11,139(4), 143(1), Form No 10, Form No 10B, Art. 226]

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Delay of 523 days in filing Form No.10-Mistake of Chartered Accountant-Delay was condoned-Court directed the CIT(E) to grant relief as per the law. [S.11(2), 119(2)(b), 143(1), Art. 226, Form No.10]

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Property held for charitable purposes-Received a grant eight days before year-end-Form No 9A-There was no requirement to file Form 9A-It could not be said that assessee had delayed filing of Form 9A, and the order was set aside. [S. 11(1), Form 9A, Form 10B, Art. 226]

S. 80G: Donation-Charitable activities, especially for the welfare of downtrodden, poor and destitute sections of society-Rejection order of CIT(E) was set aside by the High Court-SLP of the revenue was dismissed due to delay of 383 days and also on merits.[S. 12AAA, 80G(5), Art. 136]

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application money-Summons-Non-appearance of directors of assessee before Assessing Officer-Addition is not justified. [S. 131, 260A]

S. 68 : Cash credits-Search-Statement on oath-Share application money-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition was affirmed.[S. 131, 132, 260A]

S. 68 : Cash credits-Failure to produce documentary evidence-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP of assessee dismissed.[Art. 136]

S. 56: Income from other sources-Search-Share premium-Since the Assessing Officer had not found any specific fault in rejecting or not being satisfied with the valuation made by the assessee, addition under section 56(2)(viib) was not justified. [S. 56(2)(viib), R.11UA]

S. 50B: Capital gains-Slump sale-Coca-Cola brand-Transfer of its entire bottling and marketing business as a going concern-Lump-sum basis-Revenue could not artificially fragment the transaction to tax portions thereof under different heads-Order of the Tribunal affirmed.[S.2(42C, 41(2), 260A]

S. 48: Capital gains-Mode of Computation-Amount paid for termination of agreement-No legal obligation to pay the amount-Disallowance was affirmed-Commission paid-No evidence was produced-Disallowance was affirmed.[S. 260A]