having regard to sub clause (i) of Clause 8 of Circular issued by Government of India, if petitioner’s submission to effect that he was aged 70 years was correct then proceedings against him could be dropped

Kishan Lal (All) 179 ITR 206

Pre operative expenses of extension of business are revenue in nature in case of existing business

SRF Ltd HIGH COURT OF DELHI [2015] 59 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) JANUARY  15, 2015 (FY  2005-06) relying on Jay Engg. Works Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 311 ITR 405/[2008] 166 Taxman 115 (Delhi). further relying on  Veecumsees v. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 185 (SC) where the assessee ran a jewellery business and then commenced business in the exhibition of cinematographic films. The assessee obtained loans for building a cinema theatre and the question was whether the interest payable on the loans borrowed for the new business was a revenue expenditure or not. While answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Supreme Court found that the two businesses were composite in the sense that there was interconnection, interlacing or interdependence between the jewellery business and the cinema business. 
However w.e.f AY 2004-05 proviso to section 36(1)(iii) inserted a proviso:
"Provided that any amount of the interest paid, in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business or profession (whether capitalised in the books of account or not); for any period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, shall not be allowed as deduction" 

Since SC Judgement  itself is not applicable hence whether Delhi high court judgement relying upon that judgement can be relied ? Interestingly Delhi High Court in Jay Engg distinguished SC Judgement in Challapali Sugar which is itself a judgement holding that pre-operative interest to be capitalized

Section 115BBC is not applicable to institutions like that of assessee trust being a temple or shrine; provisions of this section are meant to check inflow of unaccounted/black money into system with a modus operandi to make out as a part of accounts of institutions like university, medical institutions where problem relating to receipt of capitation fees, etc. is generally highlighted.

Such type of offerings are made/put into the donation box by numerous visitors and its generally not possible for any such type of institutions to make and keep record of each of the donor with his name address etc. Even sometimes the donors out of their esteem, respect and regard and selflessness they do not want that their name be registered as a donor before the deity for whom them make the prayer in the belief that the deity is the ultimate giver of all the worth and virtues of their life.

Gurudev Siddha Peeth JULY  22, 2015  ITAT MUMBAI IT APPEAL NOS. 3466 AND 3467 (MUM.) OF 2012

Unreasoned Order of ITAT reducing addition for bogus purchases to 10% relying upon Coordinate Bench decision upheld by Gujrat High Court

Premkumar B. Rathi [2015] 59 taxmann.com 203 (Gujarat)

Case Laws on Requirement to pass reasoned order by ITAT: Gujrat High Court in Premkumar B. Rathi [2015] 59 taxmann.com 203 (Gujarat)

(1)		Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 TR 151 (SC).
(2)		Board of Trustees of Martyrs Memorial Trust v. Union of India [2012] 10 SCC 734.
(3)		Real Estate Agencies v. State of Goa [2012] 12 SCC 170.

Hindustan Steel (1970) 25 STC 211 (SC) on Penalty

" ..................An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in concious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will also not be imposed because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if minimum penalty is prescribed , the authority competent to impose penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute......."

Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics (1994) (SC)FB has held that if a dealer has deposited full amount of tax without willfully omitting any information but later an amount is found to be payable dealer would not be liable to pay interest on additional amount of tax deposited by him

Quoted in Suder Nagar Integrated Rural Development Associaiton 51 PHT 411 (HP TT)

Duplicate C forms request can not be rejected on account of delay .

In case of Amba Shakti Ispat Ltd. 51 PHT 408(HP TT) while dealing with issue of duplicate C forms, Tribunal held that request for duplicate C forms can not be rejected merely on the ground that application is made with delay of 3 to 5 years from date of transactions. C forms are required usually only at the time of assessment of selling dealer. The Court also made following observations:

a) Genuiness of transactions can be verified from entry at the barrier.

b) There is no PAN Indian Computer Network of verification of Statutory forms and verification is done through inquiry or correspondence.

c) Factor to be considered is genuiness of transaction and not the factor of delay in applying for C forms as the need arises at the time of assessment

Held by Supreme Court in Delhi Automobiles (P) Ltd. (1997) 104 STC 75 that where sufficient compliance with the provisions of Rule 12(3) has taken place, C forms should be Issued

Quoted in Amba Shakti Ispat Ltd. 51 PHT 408, 410(HP TT)