S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Supervisory Permanent Establishment in India-Merely providing access to the premises of joint venture Company for the purpose of providing agreed services by the assessee would not amount to the place being at the disposal of the assessee-DTAA-India-Japan. [Art. 5(1), 5(4)]

S. 5 : Scope of total income-Accrual-Interest Income qua ICDs whose recovery is doubtful and legal proceedings have been initiated-Held, addition of Interest on ICDs cannot be sustained. [S. 4, 145]

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Business income-Sales tax subsidy-West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999-Capital Receipt-Not taxable. [S. 28(i), West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999]

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Finance company-Advance loan-Not assessable as deemed dividend.

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Amount received in previous year from an entity in which the assessee was having more than 25% shareholding-No evidence to show that amount received in current year-Addition is not valid.

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – Long term capital gains -Penny stock – Denial of exemption is not valid . [ S. 10(38), 45, 131 , 133A ]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Approval-Procedure-Tribunal was not justified in quashing penalty order passed by Assessing Officer on mere premises that Additional Commissioner did not find place in section 274(2)(b) of the Act. [S. 2(28C), 274(2)]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Offshore bank accounts-Voluntary declaration-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 143(3), 147, 148]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Pendency of appeal before ITAT-Assessing Officer can complete the assessment-No demand can be enforced till the appeal is decided by the Appellate Tribunal. [S. 254(1), Art. 226]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Work in progress-Method of accounting-Valuation of stock-Merely to remand matter to AO to verify correctness of submission made by assessee that profit element was accounted for in its income was held to be not valid. [S. 145]