S. 43(5) : Speculative transaction -Derivative -Both delivery based transaction and derivative transactions are non-speculative as far as S. 43(5) is concerned and, thus, they will have same treatment as regards application of Explanation to S. 73 of the Act, matter was remanded back to Assessing Officer to bifurcate speculative loss and normal business loss [ S. 43(5) (d), 73 ]

S. 28(i) : Business income -Providing warehousing services along with other facilities such as security service and other services to keep goods safe and under hygienic conditions, said activity systematically undertaken by assessee is assessable as business income and not as income from house property ,wrongly deduction of tax at source would not change character of income to rental income .As regards rejection of books of account and estimation of income was set a side to CIT(A) for re adjudication [ S. 22, 194I ]

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Mainly on ground that it was charging hefty fee from students registration cannot be refused as society is providing free education to needy students and free medical aid to needy patients [ S.2(15) ]

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Providing knowledge, information, awareness, demonstrations, etc., to members of Fragrance and Flavours industry is charitable purpose hence entitle to exemption [ S.2(15) ]

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice -Reassessment proceedings couldn’t be quashed just because AO had obtained prior approval from higher authority [ S. 147, 148 ]

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Income -tax -General principles -Taxing provisions must be construed strictly so that no person who is otherwise not liable to pay tax , be liable to pay tax

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Principles of Natural Justice – Judgments relied upon by the ITAT were not confronted to any of the parties – Mistake apparent on record – Ordewr recalled.

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Mistake of Tax Practitioner – Human error – Reasonable cause – Penalty deleted.

S. 254(2A):Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Recovery-It is painful to note that the Dept officials in order to achieve targets at the close of the FY not only are tempted to ignore the principles of law and natural justice but cross their limits, in complete violation of the orders issued by judicial authorities. They are pressurised by higher officials to do so and they have to choose the lesser risky option of the two i.e. either to face the departmental action for not achieving targets or to face contempt proceedings. They choose the later option because perhaps they think that courts will not opt for strict view in case the amount coercively recovered is refunded after passing of the cut off date i.e. 31st March, and an apology tendered to the Court. [ S 226,254(1) ]

S. 147: Reassessment- If the reopening is based on information received from the investigation dept, the reasons must show that the AO independently applied his mind to the information and formed his own opinion. If the reopening is done mechanically, it is void. Also, if the reasons refer to any document, a copy should be provided to the assessee. Failure to do so results in breach of natural justice and renders the reopening void.[ S.148 ]