S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects- Two flats excess of the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft – Pro rata deduction in respect of eligible flats not exceeding prescribed limit is eligible – Interpretation of taxing Statutes – When the language of a statute is unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, no question of construction of a statute then arises .[ S. 260A ]

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure –Income from undisclosed sources – Bogus purchases -Civil works – Road construction -Information from Sales Tax Department – Order of Tribunal estimated profit of 12.5% on unexplained and non -genuine purchases is affirmed by High Court .[ S. 37(1), 143(3), 260A]

S. 36(1)(vii) :Bad debt – Pendency of dispute – Lease rental – Depreciation -Once a business decision has taken to write off a debt as a bad debt in books of account should sufficient to allow the claim as bad debt [ S. 36(2) ]

S. 68 : Cash credits –lenders are assessed to tax- Confirmation was filed – Interest was paid ,TDS was deducted – Notice issued u/s 133(6) were acknowledged – Order of Tribunal deletion of addition was affirmed – Court observed that the Assessing officer should have desisted from using the general observation and expression “money Laundering” when it was never the case that there was any allegations of money laundering . [ S. 133(6) ]

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Assessee must be given opportunity to compound offence. [S. 139, 279, Art, 226]

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Mens rea must be proved-Penalty Levied and paid for furnishing incorrect particulars in Income-Tax Return-Prosecution was not valid. [S. 132(4)(a), 277]

S. 269UD : Purchase by Central Government of immoveable properties-Notice must give details which led to inference of undervaluation-Order pf Pre-Emptive purchase not valid-Transferee has a right to challenge order of purchase. [Art, 226]

S. 269UD : Purchase by Central Government of immoveable properties-Valuation of property should be just and reasonable-Rent capitalisation method-Adequate opportunity to be heard not given-Order of purchase of property-Not valid. [Form No. 37I, Art, 226]

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Order of dismissal by Single judge is held to be not proper-Order of Principal Commissioner set aside-Matter remanded to Principal Commissioner. [S. 143(3), 246A, Art, 226]

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Limitation-Pursuing appeal mistakenly-Delay in filing revision petition-Period spent in prosecuting appeal excluded-Matter remanded to Commissioner. [S. 246A, 248, Limitation Act, 1963, S. 14, Art, 226]