S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Delay of 521 days-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 136]

S. 40A(2) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Excessive or unreasonable-Matter remanded back to the Assessing Officer. [S. 37(1), 40A(2)(a), Art. 136]

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Fes for technical services-Reimbursement of expenses-Revenue had failed to establish that said remitted fee would fall within ambit of any technical, managerial or consultative service that had been rendered-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Order of Tribunal deleting the disallowance is affirmed-OECD Model Convention, art 7. [S.9(1)(vi), 195, 260A]

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Purchase of software-Not necessary that income must be earned because of such expenditure-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 28(i), Art. 136]

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Software development solution and management-Capital or revenue-Software abandoned-Work in progress-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[Art. 136]

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Expansion of existing business-Revenue expenditure-Tax effect is below threshold limits-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 268A, Art. 136]

S. 32 : Depreciation-Carry forward and set off-Unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to assessment year 1997-98 could be allowed to be carried forward and set off after a period of eight years without any limit whatsoever in accordance with section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 32(2), Art. 136]

S. 28(i) : Business income-Rental income-Sub-letting of mall could not be assessed as income from house property and same was to be assessed as income from business. [S. 22]

S. 17(2) : Salary-Perquisite-Stock options were merely held by assessee and same had not been exercised till date, same would not constitute income chargeable to tax in hands of assessee as none of contingencies specified in section 17(2)(vi) had occurred-Payment in question was not linked to employment, rather it was a onetime voluntary payment to all option holders of ESOP, compensation would not tantamount to perquisite under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act.[S.17(2)(vi), 197, Art. 226]

S. 17(2) : Salary-Perquisite-Employer’s grant of interest-free loans or loans at concessional rate would qualify as a ‘fringe benefit’ and ‘perquisite’ as understood through its natural usage in common parlance-Enactment of subordinate legislation for levying tax on interest-free/concessional loans as a fringe benefit is within rule making power under section 17(2)(viii) and enactment of rule 3(7)(i) is not a case of excessive delegation and falls within parameters of permissible delegation. Rule 3(7)(i) is intra vires section 17(2)(viii) and therefore, section 17(2)(viii) does not lead to an excessive delegation of ‘essential legislative function’ to CBDT-Fixation of SBI’s rate of interest, i.e., PLR, as benchmark to determine value of benefit to assessee in comparison to rate of interest charged by other individual banks under rule 3(7)(i) is neither an arbitrary nor unequal exercise of power and is intra vires article 14 of constitution of India. [S.17(2)(viii), Rule 3(7)(i), Art. 14, 136]