S. 23 : Income from house property – Annual value -vacancy allowance-The words ‘property is let’ does not mean ‘property actually let out’. If property is held with an intention to let out in the relevant year coupled with efforts made for letting it out, it could be said that such a property is a let out property and the same would fall within the purview of S. 23 (1)(c) and be eligible for vacancy allowance. A reasonable approach should be taken on the assesse’s attempts to let out and infallible proof should not be demanded [ S.22, 23(1) (c )]

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -The expression “does not form part of the total income” in S. 14A envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income- If no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year, no disallowance can be made [ R.8D ]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Survey-Agreed addition- Revised return- Burden is on the assessee to show that there was an omission or wrong statement in original return must be due to bona fide inadvertence or bona fide mistake on part of assessee and even if assessee agreed to addition with a condition that penalty could not be imposed, department is not precluded from initiating penalty proceedings- levy of penalty is held to be valid [ S.69B ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Merger –When partial disallowance made by the AO is up held by the CIT(A) ,revision by the CIT to once again examine very same issue to disallow entire expenditure is not valid, as the issue is merged with the order of CIT(A) . [ S.37(1) ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Capital gains- When assessee never received anything beyond the amount which was originally agreed, question of charging capital gain from assessee on a sum larger than the said amount would not arise – Tribunal was justified in setting aside revisional order passed by commissioner .[ S.45 , 48 ]

S.260A:Appeal -High Court- Bogus purchases – Tribunal restricted addition to 25 per cent of value of alleged purchases as against 100% of disallowances made by the Assessing Officer – On appeal by the revenue following question of law is admitted “ Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in restricting the addition to 25% of the value of alleged purchases after categorically finding it to be bogus “ [ S.37(1)]

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default -Stay- when the stay application is pending before CIT (A) directing the assessee to pay 20 per cent of tax demand without considering as to whether assessee had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief, same was not justified [ S.157 ]

S. 194C : Deduction at source – Contractors –Persons responsible for paying- As per the agreement between said company and assessee that freight payment would be made by said company directly to truck owners and TDS deduction as applicable would be made by said company; since payment was not made by assessee, default in TDS was that of other company and not assessee – No disallowance can be made in the assessment of the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source .[ S. 40(a)(ia),204(iii) ]

S. 159 : Legal representatives -Reassessment-Notice issued in name of dead person is not enforceable in law- There is no statutory obligation on part of legal representative of deceased to immediately intimate death of assessee or take steps to cancel PAN registration- The proceedings under S. 159 can be invoked only if the proceedings have already been initiated when the assessee was alive and was permitted for the proceedings to be continued as against the legal heirs- The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the revenue to invoke S. 292B. Accordingly the Court held the impugned notice is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be enforced against the assessee. [ S. 147,148, 292BB ]

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake -Business expenditure- Commencement of business- When the assessee admitted to have not commenced business there was no debatable issue – Disallowance of expenditure is held to be valid .[ S.37(1) ]