S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment – Provision for leave encashment- Not allowable as deduction .[ S.43B(f) ]

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – AO cannot blow hot & cold by disallowing the purchases from a party as bogus while treating sales to same party as genuine-Entire purchases cannot be disallowed – Percentage of addition to gross profit is held to be justified.

S. 68 : Cash credits – Share capital – Share premium- Additional grounds -Photocopies of blank share transfer forms, blank signed receipts etc necessary for transfer of shares found with assessee are not admissible as evidence u/s 61 of Evidence Act and not incriminating in nature- All investors are assessed & have filed confirmations with trail of funds- AO did not make further inquiry into the documentary evidences or verify the trail of source of funds-Addition is held to be not justified . [ S.132(4) ,145A, 153A Evidence Act ,S.61 ].

S. 56 : Income from other sources –Foreign company –DCF Method- Receipt of property less than aggregate fair value of the property – S. 56(2)(viia) cannot apply to a foreign company as Rule 11U(b)(ii) (prior to 01.04.2019) which defines “balance sheet‟ was not applicable to a foreign company-If the computation provisions cannot apply, the charging section cannot apply. The amendment to Rule 11U with effect from 1.4.19 is prospective in nature –Rejection of DCF method is held to be not proper. [ S.56(2) (viia), Rule 11UA(b) (ii) ]

S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders – Revision petition seeking rectification of return accepted by department in respect of which intimation is sent under section 143(1) is maintainable-DTAA- India Spain [ S. 9(1)(i),143(1) , 154 Art .12, 13 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -AO had taken a broad view by accepting cost of fixed assets as recorded in books of account which were also supported by valuation report, then order of Assessing Officer could not be held to be erroneous on ground of lack of enquiry- Estimated cost of valuation for availing bank loan cannot constitute actual cost – It was not mandatory for Assessing Officer to refer valuation to DVO once he was satisfied with cost of construction and cost of fixed assets as recorded in books of account- Revision is held to be not valid . [ S.142A ]

S. 239 : Refunds – Limitation – Condonation of delay -Delay in pronouncement of judgement by AAR -Return claiming the return belatedly – Revenue authorities were to be directed to condone delay in filing return subject to payment of cost and, thereupon, assessee’s claim for refund would be decided in accordance with law .

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Stay of demand – Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) – Demand of payment of tax is reduced from 20% to 10 % .

S. 194A : Deduction at source – Interest other than interest on securities – Branches of Bank -Deduction of tax at source- Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer- Branches of bank were spread over many districts, Assessing Officer (TDS) of district, where in Head Office was situated, had no jurisdiction in respect of branches spread over other districts. [ S.133A, 201, 260A ]

S. 179 : Private company – Liability of directors – There was nothing on record to suggest that tax dues could not be recovered from company and same could be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on part of assessee in relation to affairs of company, impugned recovery proceedings deserved to be quashed .