S. 144C empowers the DRP to issue directions for the guidance of the AO to enable him to complete the assessment. It can confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order. However, as against the provisions of s. 144C, the DRP has passed a very laconic order. Though voluminous submissions were made before the DRP against the draft assessment order, the DRP brushed aside everything without even a whisper of the assessee’s objections and submissions. The directions of the DRP are too laconic to be left uncommented. The directions given by the DRP almost tantamounts to supervising the AO’s draft order and in that sense it can be equated that appellate jurisdiction being exercised. It was held in Sahara India (Farms) vs. CIT 300 ITR 403 (SC) that even “an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice”

The Supreme Court’s observations in Dunlop cannot be interpreted to mean that the Tribunal is denuded of the powers to grant stay until case for financial stringency is successfully made out by the applicant. There is no conflict in holding this view as also adhering to the settled principles governing grant of stay which lay down that financial constraints of the applicant are important, even if not sole of qualifying, consideration in entertaining a stay application, besides considerations like existence of strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and possibilities of Revenue’s rights of recovery being prejudiced by waiting till the outcome of appeals

The argument that transfer of development rights does not amount to transfer of land or building and therefore s. 50C is not applicable is not acceptable because u/s 2(47)(v) the giving of possession in part performance of a contract as per s. 53A of the Transfer of property Act is deemed to be a “transfer”. When the assessee received the sale consideration and handed over possession of the property vide the development agreement, the condition prescribed in s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was satisfied and u/s 2 (47) (v) the transaction of transfer was completed. The fact that the assessee’s name stands in the municipal records does not change the nature of the transaction

one limb of the Government cannot be allowed to defeat the operation of the other limb. While s. 10B requires the foreign exchange to be brought to India within the prescribed period, the RBI permits the assessee to retain the said foreign exchange abroad for specific purposes. RBI is the competent authority for s. 10B as well. The result is that the reinvestment of export earning is deemed to have been received in India and thereafter to have been repatriated abroad (principle in J.B. Boda & Co 223 ITR 271 followed)

The AO had not correctly calculated the number of transactions because sometimes a single transaction is split by the computers trading of the stock exchanges into many smaller transactions but that does not mean that assessee has carried so many transactions. If someone places an order for purchase of 1000 shares and the same is executed by the electronic trading system of stock exchange into 100 smaller transactions, it does not mean that 100 transactions have been entered into. The assessee had carried out only 31 purchase and 25 sale transactions which cannot be said to be a great volume of transactions