“Section 27(1)(c)”

Subsidies granted under a Government Industrial Scheme to accelerate industrial development and generate employment are capital in nature, determined by the 'purpose test', regardless of the timing, source, or form of the subsidy.

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Where civil or evil consequences ensue from the action of a statutory authority, the principles of natural justice must be followed, even if not explicitly stated in the statute. Failure to comply with these principles may render a statute ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies the modes for serving notices, including by post or summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. A valid service of notice is essential for assessment or reassessment proceedings, and its absence renders such proceedings bad in law.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is liable to be deleted if the Assessing Officer levies it without specifying any particular charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

An assessee is entitled to claim deductions under Section 80IC (and other similar sections like 80IB) for profits derived from job work charges, as carrying out such work is considered part of the manufacturing process of an industrial undertaking.

When a notice is sent by registered post to the correct address, it is deemed to have been served at the time it would ordinarily be delivered, unless the contrary is proven by the addressee. This principle applies even if the notice is returned unserved.

Penalty proceedings can be vitiated if the notice issued under section 274 contains inapplicable portions, requiring deletion to ensure clarity and fairness, as distinguished from judgments like CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt).