“Section 153(1)(b)”

The case is cited for various issues including the definition of capital assets, reassessment procedures under sections 153A and 153C, and the effect of clarificatory amendments.

The phrase "so far as may be" in a statutory provision indicates that the referred procedures, such as those for conducting searches, are to be generally followed to the extent possible, meaning they are not mandatory in every minute detail but applied practically.

The judgment addresses situations where the assessing officer's findings might be contradictory, particularly when relying on sales based on books that have already been rejected.

Where no undisclosed income or incriminating material is found during a search, penalty under section 271AAB cannot be imposed. Additions based on alleged receivables from seized papers require direct material to establish undeclared income.

The Assessing Officer has the onus to prove that payments made to related parties under section 40A(2)(b) are excessive, by providing comparable market prices and demonstrating the unreasonableness of the payment.

Section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not mandate the imposition of penalty in every case of default; the Assessing Officer retains discretion to levy or not levy a penalty, which must be exercised judiciously considering all relevant circumstances.

An order passed by the TPO is bad in law if it is beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 92CA(3A) read with section 153 of the Act.

Payment of taxes under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS) is to be treated as an application of income for trust purposes. The Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Ganga Charity Trust Fund (1986) 162 ITR 612 (Guj) followed the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Janaki Ammal Ayya Nadar Trust (1985) 153 ITR 159 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Munna Lal and Sons v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 378.