S. 56 : Income from other sources –HUF –Relative – Amounts received by a member from the ‘HUF’ cannot be said to be income of the member exigible to taxation- Revision is held to be not valid [ S.56(2) (vii), 263 ].

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration- stamp valuation- Though the 3rd Proviso to S. 50C, which provides a safe harbour of 5%, applies w.e.f. 01.04.2019, it must be interpreted to apply since the insertion of s. 50C (01.04.2003) because it is curative and removes an incongruity and avoids undue hardship to assessees. [ S. 43CA, 45 ]

S. 45 : Capital gains – Penny stocks- Bogus capital gains- 282 times gain in 12 months- The meticulous paper work of routing the transaction through banking channel is futile because the results are altogether beyond human probabilities. [ S.10(38) ]

S. 45 :Capital gains- -Penny stocks- Long term capital gains from penny stocks cannot be treated as bogus if the documentation is in order and no fault is found by the AO- Addition is deleted. [ S.38, 111A ]

S. 37(1): Business expenditure- Capital or revenue – Expenditure on scholarship – Held to be revenue expenditure.

S.14A:Digest – Expenditure incurred for earning exempt income – Guide . R.8D

Interpretation of taxing statutes –Retrospectivity-Power of Courts – Intention of legislature to be seen . [ S.43(5) , 73 ]

S. 85 : Legislative Powers-Cannot be exercised prior to date of coming into force of Act expressly stipulated in enactment-initiation of proceedings by authorities by issuing orders pursuant to notifications is not sustainable—Authorities restrained from taking or continuing any action pursuant to notifications [S. 1(3), 10(1), 85, 86]

S. 293 : Bar of suits in civil courts–Review general principles-If the civil suit was not maintainable in view of S. 293 of the Act and this was the purported defence of the respondents and of the Department and consequential effect of the order dated September 8, 1965, no party could be left remediless and the grievance raised before the court of law, had to be examined on its own merits- There was no error committed by the High Court in its judgment rendered in exercise of its review jurisdiction calling for interference-.Decision of the Calcutta High Court affirmed. [ S. 260 ]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Explanation 5-Disclosed undisclosed income in the course of the statements under section 132(4), specifying the manner of earning it from real estate business and paid tax with interest for which no time frame is fixed in Explanation 5(2)-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 132(4), 158BC]