“Section 143(8)”

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

Income cannot be assessed on purely notional figures or mere suspicion; it must be based on actual evidence and supporting material demonstrating its accrual or receipt by the assessee. Assessments made without such evidence are bad-in-law.

The sale of 'canned software' in physical form is the sale of a copyrighted article and constitutes 'goods,' distinct from the underlying copyright. This case provides foundational principles for distinguishing copyrighted works from copyrighted articles and for what qualifies as 'production or manufacturing of goods or articles' under tax laws.

A statute or amendment can apply retrospectively even without an express provision, if such application is a necessary implication from the language used, especially for clarificatory amendments or those intended to cure an acknowledged evil for the community's benefit.

No substantial question of law arises regarding a subsidy granted for setting up a new industrial unit in a backward area for employment generation, as held by the Bombay High Court. This decision was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court.