Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016- Finance Act , 2016
S.208: Scheme not to apply in certain cases -Acceptance of loans or deposits-Penalty under S. 271D and 271E for contravention of S. 269SS will be entitled to have their applications processed for benefit of Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016. [ ITA, S. 269SS,271D, 271E ]

S. 277 : Offences and prosecutions – False statement – Verification – Principal Assessing Officer-Bogus claim of brokerage- Subscribed her signature in profit and loss account and balance sheet of company for relevant assessment year which were filed along with returns-Assessing Officer was justified in naming her as Principal Officer and accordingly she could not be exonerated for offence under S. 277 of the Act. [ S. 2(35), 204(iii), 276C, 278B , CRPC, S.245 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Capital gains- Firm- Investment in specified assets- Revision up held -On merit , deduction is allowed where assessee invested sale proceeds of hospital business in UTI within prescribed time period- Share of daughter received by way of release , the matter was remanded to verify whether period exceeded 36 months and decide according to law . [ 45(4) 54EA ]

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Power of enhancement -In penalty appeal the CIT(A) cannot issue direction to the Assessing Officer for exploring the addition in assessment . [ S.271(1) (c )]

S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Appealable orders -Deduction at source- Denying the liability is appeasable -Order determining amount of tax deduction at source is appealable order- Tribunal has failed to consider S.248 of the Act therefore suffers from infirmity and is per incuriam – Matter set aside to decide in accordance with law.[ S.195(2) , 248, 254(1) ]

S. 222 : Collection and recovery – Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer – Arrest- Notice under rule 73 of Schedule II having been issued for recovery of tax dues did not give rise to any apprehension of immediate arrest-Petition under S. 438 of Cr.P.C. against said show-cause notice would not be maintainable. [ S. 276C, Cr .P.C. S.438 ]

S.147: Reassessment- Tax evasion petition- Recording of reasons- Bogus entries- Tax evasion petitions received for previous years cannot be basis for reopening of assessment for relevant year, as Assessing Officer had not referred in recording reasons for the year under consideration- Reports submitted by the Income tax Officer who is not authorised to exercise the power cannot be the basis for reopening of assessment [ S.69A, 131(IA), 148 ]

S. 139AA: Return of income – Quoting of Aadhaar Number -Deadline for PAN-Aadhaar linkage having been extended to 31-3-2019,assessees were be permitted to file their returns for relevant year without any insistence of linkage of their Aadhaar with their PAN numbers. [ S.119 ]

S. 131 : Power – Discovery – Production of evidence -Reports submitted by the Income tax Officer who is not authorised to exercise the power cannot be the basis for reopening of assessment .[ S.131(IA), 147, 148 ]

S.92C: Transfer pricing- Arm’s length -Comparable – Customer profile of comparable is completely different-Incomparable-company engaged in developing software products, development of software services and also engaged in running a training centre for software professional on online projects, was incomparable -Business model of comparable being of outsourcing its service being different from in-house business model of providing services, said company was not was a comparable- Data of company was for a financial year, that did not correspond to financial year of assessee, it could not be selected as comparable -Huge difference in turnover between tested party and comparable would necessarily require proposed comparable to be excluded from list of comparables.