S. 92C : Transfer pricing -Comparable- when the Tribunal accepted the plea that functionally dissimilarity, remanding the matter to TPO was held to be not justified – Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merit [ S.254(1) ]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing -Arm’s length price- When there is a difference in level of capacity utilization of assessee and level of capacity utilization of comparable, then adjustment would be required to be made to profit margin of comparable on account of difference in capacity utilization in terms of rule 10-B (1)(e)(iii)

S.37(1):Business expenditure – Capital or revenue – Expenses on restructuring of business is held to be allowable as revenue expenditure.Sale of one of unit- Expendiure is allowable .

S.37(1):Business expenditure-Capital or revenue – Software -Expenditure incurred on acquiring licences to use software which did not confer any enduring benefit hence allowable as revenue expenditure.

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Amount paid to cane growers in excess of price determined in Sugarcane Control order, to be allowed as deduction.

S.32:Depreciation-Printer being a part of computer, is eligible for depreciation at higher rate of 60 per cent.

S. 5 : Scope of total income – Co –operative society- Banking business- Accrual- Interest on doubtful debts or Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) without such interest being actually received or credited in profit & loss account of assessee- Not required to pay tax on interest income .[ S.43D ]

S. 271AAB:Penalty -Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012- Amount offered was not undisclosed income -Levy of penalty was held to be not justified .[ S.132 ]

S.271(1) (c ):Penalty — Concealment- Quantum appeal the relief was allowed -Levy of penalty was held to be not valid .

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Share application money -No finding that assessee’s unaccounted money routed through circuitous manner — Assessment order accepting share capital/share premium is not prejudicial to interests of revenue — No Adverse finding or comment by Commissioner as why work-in-progress shown by assessee at nil is not correct or requires further inquiry or verification — Revision was held to be not valid [ S.68 , 145 ]