S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty or business profits – Income from supply of software embedded in hardware – Income relatable to supply of software cannot be treated as royalty income.[S.9(1)(i)]

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Sales tax incentive-Remanded to the file of AO .

S. 4:Charge of income- tax – Subsidy received from Government for setting up of an industry in the backward area was to be treated as a capital receipt.

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Receipt arising on extra sale value of sugar did not arise to Assessee since the receipt was cast with the obligation to pay the same to sugar factories and hence, it had to be diverted by overriding title—Difference in profit was not to be included as income in hands of assessee.

Interpretation-Precedent- Merely filing of an SLP would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in abeyance.

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction- Sanction granted by writing “Yes, I am satisfied” is not sufficient to comply with the requirement of s. 151 because it means that the approving authority has recorded satisfaction in a mechanical manner and without application of mind-Reassessment is bad in law . [ S.147, 148, 292B ]

S.147:Reassessment -If information is received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by AO, said information cannot be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis is not justified.[ S.148, 151 ]

S. 68: Cash credits- Produced sufficient documentary evidence before AO, at the assessment as well as appellate stage to prove the genuineness of the transaction- Share capital, share premium received by a Company from investors can not be assessed as unexplained cash credit – The valuation report filed by the assessee support explanation of assessee that shares were issued at premium which were below the fair market value -Addition cannot be made as income from other sources.[ S.56(2)(viib), R.11UA(2)(a) ]

S.45: Capital gains- Allotment letter- Period of holdings- The law laid down in CIT v Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt Ltd ( 2012 ) 340 ITR 1 (SC) that transfer of immovable property is effective only on registration of conveyance deed is not applicable for computing the holding period of property. Holding period should be computed from the date of issue of the allotment letter and not from the date of the conveyance deed, ratio in Rasiklal M. Parikh v. ACIT (2017 ) 393 ITR 536 (Bom)(HC) is explained [ S.2(42A ), 2(47) 54 ]

S. 32 : Depreciation – Carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of Assessment Year 1999-2000 and Assessment Year 2000-2001 against the profits of Assessment Year 2009- 2010 without appreciating that as per the provisions of S.32(2) as they stood prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2002, such unabsorbed depreciation was eligible for carry forward and set-off . There is no conflict between CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 73 (Bom) & CIT v. Milton Pvt Ltd, CIT v. Confidence Petroleum India Ltd, because while the former is at the stage of final hearing, the latter is at the stage of admission. Accordingly, the request for reference to a larger Bench is not acceptable. Merely filing of an SLP would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in abeyance. Unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to be set off . [ S.32(2) ]