S.43B: Deductions on actual payment – Employees’ State insurance -Evidence not produced – Disallowance justified .

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Gold purchase – Making cash payments in different dates – Inserting some entries – Complete bills and vouchers not produced – Disallowance is held to be justified . [ R.6DD(J) , 6DD(k) ]

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Exhibitor of film – Payment to distributor on revenue shared basis – Neither Contractual payment nor rent – Not liable to deduct tax at source [S.194C(1) , 201 (1) ]

S. 32 : Depreciation – Actual cost -Trade Mark — Revaluation — Depreciation to be claimed on cost incurred and not on revaluation figure —Total amount of depreciation cannot exceed depreciation to which assessee would be entitled if succession had not taken place [ S.43(1), Explanation 3, 47(xiii) ]

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Transfer of shares – Gains derived from alienation of any property taxable only in contracting state of which alienator is resident- Provisions of Act cannot override provisions of agreement – Gains from transfer of shares taxable in Belgium and not in India- DTAA – India – Belgium [ Art . 13(5) 13(6 ) ]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Not specifying the charge- Valuation estimation- Levy of penalty is not justified- Below monetary limit –Department is precluded from filing an appeal before Appellate Tribunal [ S.253, 274 ]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – No detailed finding – Matter remanded to CIT (A) to decide the issue by passing a reasoned order.

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Addition set aside Levy of penalty is held to be not valid – Not specifying the charge – Levy of penalty is not valid – Penalty on account of deemed concealment is unsustainable as the Assessing Officer has not made any reference to any incriminating material or income declared by the assesssee [ S. 132(4) , 153A, Explanation 5, 274 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Limitation -Reassessment – Issue subject of revision pertaining to original assessment – Original assessment passed on 16-1 2014 – Revision order on 26- 2 -2019 – Revision is barred by limitation , revision could have been taken up to 31 -3 -2016 [ S. 80IA ,80IB 143(3), 147 , 148, 263(2) ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Accommodation entry -Principal Commissioner not agreeing with manner of enquiry conducted by Assessing Officer — PCIT cannot substitute his own reasons- Revision is held to be not valid [ S.143(3) ]