S. 35: Scientific research-Agreement was granted on 17-6-2009 from 1-4-2007-Order of the High Court affirming the disallowance is affirmed-SLP dismissed earlier and refiled once again by a delay of 1251 days is also dismissed. [S. 35(2AB), Art. 136]

S. 32 : Depreciation-Assets discarded-Entitle to depreciation-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 260A]

S. 32 : Depreciation-lease of plot-Long-term lease of 99 years-Plot deposit-Depreciation not allowable. [S. 32(1)(ii), 260A]

S. 28(i): Business income-Income from other sources-Interest income on a loan given to staff-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer-Order of Tribunal affirmed.[S. 56, 260A]

S. 12A : Registration-Trust or institution-Benefit of a particular religious community or caste, i.e., ‘Leuva Patel’ community-Provisions of section 13 could be invoked only at the time of assessment and not at the time of grant of registration-Remanded matter back to Commissioner (E) for reconsideration-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.12AB, 13, 260A]

S. 2(1A) : Agricultural income-Cultivation and sale of white button mushrooms-High court held that the assessee is not entitled to exemption-Notice was to be issued in SLP filed by assessee against the order of High Court. [S. 10(1)]

Interpretation of taxing statutes-Strict interpretation-Precedent-Judgment based on old, broader law cannot be used to interpret new, stricter provision.[S.36(1)(vii)]

Interpretation of taxing statues-Strict interpretation-Where words are plain and unambiguous, court bound to give effect to their plain meaning-Whether language is “plain and unambiguous” to be determined within context-Legislative intent-Crucial where language is ambiguous and capable of multiple constructions-Legislative purpose primarily to be gathered from specific words used by Legislature-Where language plain and unambiguous, court cannot read words into statute on notion that they would better serve legislative purpose-Aids to construction-Memorandum Explaining Provisions of Bill can be used to derive meaning of provision.[S.44C, 37 (1)]

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Block assessment-Search and seizure-Review of order-Substantial question of law framed as regards applicability of correct clause/sub-clause of any section/sub-section of section 158BB was not answered by the court while deciding the appeal; the same, in itself, could not be a ground to review the order. [S. 143, 158BB(1) 158BC, CPC, 1908, O XLVII, R 1]

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Substantial question of law-Question of law not earlier framed-Power to deal with necessary or incidental questions that arise-If parties had opportunity to address issues in dispute-Substantial question of law can be reframed. [Art. 136]