S. 271AAB:Penalty -Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012- Amount offered was not undisclosed income -Levy of penalty was held to be not justified .[ S.132 ]

S.271(1) (c ):Penalty — Concealment- Quantum appeal the relief was allowed -Levy of penalty was held to be not valid .

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Share application money -No finding that assessee’s unaccounted money routed through circuitous manner — Assessment order accepting share capital/share premium is not prejudicial to interests of revenue — No Adverse finding or comment by Commissioner as why work-in-progress shown by assessee at nil is not correct or requires further inquiry or verification — Revision was held to be not valid [ S.68 , 145 ]

S.147: Reassessment – No return was filed before issue of notice – Un explained deposit in the Bank – Specific information with the AO – Reassessment is held to be valid [ S.148 ]

S.147: Reassessment – Capital gains on sale of land – Sale executed and registered 12-1-2007 – Escapement of capital gains in AY. 2007 -08 -Reopening of assessment for the AY .2006 -07- No nexus between material and the formation of prima facie belief that income had escaped taxation for the AY. 2006 -07 – Reassessment is held to be bad in law [ S.148 ]

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Bogus purchases- No tangible material before the AO to come to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment – Reassessment was held to be not valid . Notice based on information from Sales Tax Department that assessee obtained accommodation entries-Recorded reasons have a live link with formation of belief – Failure to disclose primary facts – Reassessment was held to be valid – Matter was remanded to the AO to give fair opportunity of hearing and opportunity of cross examination [ S.148 ]

S.142(2A): Inquiry before assessment– Special audit– AO not giving any finding about nature and complexity of accounts, volume of accounts, multiplicity of transactions, specialised nature of business activity of assessee —Order being no speaking order for special audit was held to be not valid -Since the direction for special audit was without proper jurisdiction the time so taken could not be counted and the period did not get extended. Since the order was passed on July 28, 2010, it was time barred. Therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer was therefore, bad in law. [ S.153C ]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Exclusion of comparable was held to be justified where ;difference between business model of earning Commission, only providing marketing support services to its head office ,company apart from corporate Advisory Practices also establishing two specialised divisions, Viz., Information Technology and Research activities which is not close to assessee in functionality Company dealing in research and survey Services And Products , Company, functionally different from assessee , no similarity between nature of services rendered by Company Vis-A-Vis Assessee ,diverse nature of services rendered by Company , difference business model of assessee . As regards working capital adjustment is concerned , in sufficient material is available for calculation of working capital adjustment in respect of comparable , AO was directed to compute working capital adjustment in terms of law .

S.68: Cash credit – Deposit of cash in bank- Advance received for sale of land which was deposited in bank and which was returned back due to cancellation of deal- Addition cannot be made as income from undisclosed sources .

S.68: Cash credit — Gift from relatives -Depositors mostly labourers – Failure to prove creditworthiness -Addition is held to be justified .