Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act

Employees' contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B if deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, even if deposited after the expiry of the statutory time period specified in the applicable fund's statute.

Tax laws must be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice, even though equitable considerations are generally irrelevant in their interpretation.

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities under repealed statutes, does not automatically apply to a mere omission of a statutory provision unless the omitting enactment specifically provides for it, thereby affecting the continuation of pending proceedings.

An investment retains its capital nature even if its resale was foreseen and contemplated when made, and the possibility of enhanced values motivated the investment. The classification as a capital asset or stock-in-trade depends on factors like the assessee's intention, frequency of transactions, and acquisition funding.

Liability for interest cannot be disallowed merely because it is treated as unascertained expenditure. The case also clarifies the distinction between interest expenditure as revenue versus capital in nature, generally allowing its deduction as revenue expenditure.

The principle of res judicata or estoppel does not strictly apply to Income Tax authorities, including the Tribunal. However, an earlier decision on the same question should not be reopened if it was arrived at after due inquiry, was not arbitrary or perverse, and no fresh facts are presented.

Income from letting out immovable property, even with ancillary services, is taxable as 'Income from House Property' if the dominant intention is to exploit the property itself, not to run a complex business providing integrated services. The classification depends on the assessee's primary object in exploiting the property.

For reassessment beyond four years, the assessing officer must demonstrate the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. A mere change of opinion by the officer is insufficient.

The retrospective insertion of an Explanation to Section 80IB(9) of the Income Tax Act is unconstitutional. Blocks licensed under a single contract cannot be treated as a single undertaking for the purpose of deduction under Section 80IB(9).

An assessment is invalid if the Assessing Officer (AO) seeks only to ascertain the source of funds without forming a belief, based on tangible material, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. A mere expression of doubt or a need for deeper scrutiny without any supporting evidence does not justify invoking reassessment powers.