S. 68: Cash credits- Bogus share capital- Shell company –Huge premium- Failure to produce the subscribers and based on the statement of the Director that entire invest was bogus- Addition is held to be justified .[ S.132(4) ]

S. 37(1): Business expenditure- Cash credits- Bogus purchases-Despite admission by the assessee that the purchases were mere accommodation entries, the entire expenditure cannot be disallowed. Only the profit embedded in the purchases covered by the bogus bills can be taxed. The GP rate disclosed by the assessee cannot be disturbed in the absence of incriminating material to discard the book results. [ S.68, 69, 143(3) ]

S.35AC:Expenditue on eligible projects – Schemes –Promissory estoppel is not available to an assessee against the exercise of legislative power nor any vested right accrues to an assessee in the matter of grant of any tax concession to him- In a taxing statute, a plea based on equity or/and hardship is not legally sustainable –Withdrawal of exemption is valid . S. 35AC(7) is prospective in nature- Provision is valid in law . [ S.35AC(7) ]

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-Undisclosed income – Additional amount declared – Penalty levied at 60% on the amount surrendered is not valid penalty can be levied only at 10% of surrendered income – Additions made in respect of debatable issue levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 132(4), 271AAB(1)(a), 271AAB(c), 274]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Income from other sources- Order passed by the AO following the decision of Appellate Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous – Amount received by a member of HUF from HUF is not taxable as income from other sources -Amount received is not a gift without consideration because the member has a pre-existing right in the property hence capital receipt – Revision is not valid. [S. 4, 10(2) 56(2)(vii)]

S. 4 : Suit for declaration of title with respect to premises – Plea raised by appellant was barred under S. 4 or not could not have been subject matter of assessment at stage when application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was taken up for consideration -Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the matter and dispose of the pending suit as early as possible and preferably within six months. [Code of Civil Procedure, Order 1908 VII Rule 11]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Quantum deleted-Levy of penalty was quashed.

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Excess stock–Deletion of penalty and also quantum of addition is held to be valid. [S. 145]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–On money-Order passed by the AO after detailed enquiries-Revision is held to be bad in law. [S. 69]

S. 260A : High Court-Question of law-Reassessment-Book profit– Provisions-High Court was not justified in dismissing appeal on ground that appeal did not Involve any substantial question of law and case was remanded to High Court for deciding revenue’s appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after framing substantial question of law in accordance with law. [S. 115JB, 147, 148]