Section 10B(8) of the Income Tax Act

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.

An employer is not statutorily obligated to collect evidence from employees regarding the actual utilization of amounts paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance, unless specific requirements are mandated by law or a CBDT circular.

The Calcutta High Court held that a lump sum revenue expenditure, which is of a significant amount and provides benefits spread over several years, can be allowed as a deduction proportionately over the period of benefit. This approach prevents distortion of the profits of a single assessment year.

An Income Tax Officer assessing income must determine the assessee's system of accountancy and, for the mercantile system, ascertain when the right to receive the income legally accrued.

Assessing Officers and appellate authorities must consider and grant correct deductions for fresh legal claims or revised computations made during assessment or appellate proceedings, subject to due verification.

Expenditure incurred in respect of abandoned cell towers is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially when no new business was being set up by the assessee.

Expenditure incurred for the expansion of an existing business is revenue in nature and allowable as a deduction if it does not create a new asset. Accounting entries in books of accounts do not solely determine the allowability of an expenditure for income tax purposes.

Section 153A proceedings encompass the scope of abated proceedings, allowing for fresh legal claims that could have been raised in regular assessment proceedings.

Expenditure is allowable as a deduction if it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. This reiterates the view taken in Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Ltd.'s case.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the first time before it, provided it is permissible under the law.