Section 35 of the Income Tax Act

The case distinguishes between legitimate tax planning and transactions that are colourable devices or shams, affirming that while legal arrangements to reduce tax are permissible, transactions lacking legitimacy and designed purely to evade tax are not.

Amortization claimed on capitalized leasehold land, which is reported as an asset in the balance sheet, is an allowable deduction for income-tax purposes.

Expenditure qualifies as 'current repairs' if it maintains existing machinery without replacement, creates no new asset, restores functional efficiency without increasing capacity, and is not an independent unit. Conversely, the cost of replacing machinery, especially independent units, constitutes capital expenditure.

Legitimate tax planning, executed within the framework of law, is permissible and distinct from tax avoidance through colourable devices or sham transactions. The concept of 'colourable device' or 'sham' cannot be applied to defeat a legal situation unless the acts are of a doubtful or questionable bona fide character.

Penalty charges recovered from suppliers of capital goods are to be treated as capital receipts. Compensation related to delay in the procurement of capital assets, or for the sterilization of a profit-earning source, is a capital receipt.

An asset kept ready for use in a business is considered to be 'used' for the purpose of business, entitling the assessee to depreciation, even if it is not actively operated or was not used in prior years. Passive usage of an asset also qualifies for depreciation.

Income from a new industrial undertaking cannot be recomputed by setting off carry forward unabsorbed depreciation or depreciation allowance from previous years if there were no carry forward losses from the prior year to be set off against the current year's income.

The High Court's direction to the CIT(Appeals) to consider specific Supreme Court judgments implies that cases may be decided on merits by appellate authorities based on relevant precedents without necessarily remanding them to the Assessing Officer.

Decisions of the Tribunal, including Special Benches, that have followed earlier decisions in the assessee's own case or the case of Hero Exports v. CIT, are binding on coordinate benches, especially when the revenue cannot controvert the findings. This principle of consistency is applied to allow additional grounds of appeal.

Premium paid for obtaining a lease on land is a capital expenditure, even if paid in annual installments.