S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue–Royalty-Technical know-how payment to secure technical know how–Held to be revenue expenditure.

S. 36(1)(va) : Any sum received from employees–Failure to deposit employees contribution on account of PF and ESI with concerned department on or before due date prescribed under relevant statutes-Not entitle to deduction.

S. 32 : Depreciation-Good will-Amalgamation-Second year of amalgamation. Claim for depreciation had been allowed in first year of amalgamation, following principle of consistency, assessee’s claim was to be allowed in assessment year in question as well. [S. 43(1), Ex. 7]

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Foreign currency loss on foreign exchange forward contracts–Allowable as business loss.

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Recording satisfaction-Suo-moto disallowance of certain expenditure–Not justified in recomputing disallowance by the AO-Interest-Own funds were more than investment made to earn exempted dividend income, there could be no disallowance of interest expenses-Only such investments are to be taken into account which yield tax exempt income-Disallowance made under section 14A read with rule 8D cannot be resorted while determining the expenses as mentioned under clause (f) to Explanation 1 to section 115JB. [S. 115JB, R. 8D]

S. 271G : Penalty – Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing – Unless and until a specific defect is pointed out in documents submitted, penalty cannot be levied. [S.92D(3), R.10D(i)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Provision for expenditure – Contingent-provision was certified by auditors as well as approved by shareholders of company-Revision to disallow the provision as contingent id held to be not valid. [S. 37(1), 145]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence– Revision is held to be valid as the conditions of S. 54(2) had been violated as the assessee had not invested the capital gain in purchasing a new residential house before the due date of filing of return under S. 139(1) of the Act-Judgement of jurisdictional High Court is followed. [S.45, 54, 139(1), 139(4), 139(5)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Investment in residential house-Position prior to 1-4-2015: Multiple residential units are included within sphere of S. 54F of the Act-Revision is held to be not justified. [S. 54F]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Review of order is not permissible-Rectification application of the revenue is dismissed.[S.40A(3)]