S. 44AD : Civil construction–Computation–Even while passing order u/s 144 the AO cannot go beyond the provision-Addition on account of interest and VAT payable is held to be not valid. [S. 144, 154]

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source–Payment of Honorarium to directors-Company director is different from director of Co operative Society–Not liable to deduct tax at source- Recipient has offered the honorarium as income-No disallowance can be made .[ S. 2(7), 2(19), 192, 194J(1)(ba), 201]

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure—Purchase cost of programs and film rights—Amortisation of inventories–Consistent method of accounting–AO is not justified in treating programs and film rights as intangible assets and allowing deprecation @ 25%. [S. 32(2)(ii)]

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission expenses– Documentary evidences to prove genuineness of commission transaction was produced–Statement recorded cannot be used against the asseessee without giving an opportunity of cross examination. [S. 131]

S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services-Income arising from rendering of advisory services in a foreign country cannot be taxed as fees for technical service where the assesse does not have a permanent establishment in India- Reimbursement cannot be asseees as income – DTAA-India- USA. [S. 92, Art, 7, 12]

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Royalty- Purchase of software does not fall in realm of ‘royalty’-No liability to withhold tax-Cannot be held to be in default-DTAA-India–USA-Singapore–Germany. [S. 90(2), 194, 195, 201(1), 201(IA)].

S. 2(9) : Benami transaction–Burden of proof-Property was purchased out of loan proceeds -Burden of proof on revenue-Appeal of revenue was dismissed. [S. 24(3)]

S. 4 : Dharmada cannot be considered as trading receipts and was not part of the assessable value-No duty was payable on the component of Dharmada. [S. 5, 11AA, 173Q]

S. 261 : Appeal-Supreme Court-Binding precedent–Merger-Interpretation-Review-Special leave petition was dismissed against High Court order in limine without giving any reasons, review petition filed by appellant, in High Court would be maintainable. [Art. 136, 141]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Penalty -Though the High Court observed that Tribunal’s decision of reducing the penalty as a “way to bypass the minimum limit” and the Tribunal was in error in granting the relief, the same does not constitute a “mistake apparent from the record” so as to enable the Tribunal to revisit its decision. [S.271(1)(c)]