S.260A:Appeal -High Court- Bogus purchases – Tribunal restricted addition to 25 per cent of value of alleged purchases as against 100% of disallowances made by the Assessing Officer – On appeal by the revenue following question of law is admitted “ Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in restricting the addition to 25% of the value of alleged purchases after categorically finding it to be bogus “ [ S.37(1)]

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default -Stay- when the stay application is pending before CIT (A) directing the assessee to pay 20 per cent of tax demand without considering as to whether assessee had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief, same was not justified [ S.157 ]

S. 194C : Deduction at source – Contractors –Persons responsible for paying- As per the agreement between said company and assessee that freight payment would be made by said company directly to truck owners and TDS deduction as applicable would be made by said company; since payment was not made by assessee, default in TDS was that of other company and not assessee – No disallowance can be made in the assessment of the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source .[ S. 40(a)(ia),204(iii) ]

S. 159 : Legal representatives -Reassessment-Notice issued in name of dead person is not enforceable in law- There is no statutory obligation on part of legal representative of deceased to immediately intimate death of assessee or take steps to cancel PAN registration- The proceedings under S. 159 can be invoked only if the proceedings have already been initiated when the assessee was alive and was permitted for the proceedings to be continued as against the legal heirs- The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the revenue to invoke S. 292B. Accordingly the Court held the impugned notice is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be enforced against the assessee. [ S. 147,148, 292BB ]

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake -Business expenditure- Commencement of business- When the assessee admitted to have not commenced business there was no debatable issue – Disallowance of expenditure is held to be valid .[ S.37(1) ]

S. 153D : Assessment – Search – Approval -There is no requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing to assessee by Joint Commissioner prior to giving approval as per S. 153D to order of assessment or reassessment under S. 153A of the Act [ S.153A ]

S.147: Reassessment -Notice is issued on the basis of assessment order of earlier year-Earlier year order was set aside by CIT(A) before issue of reassessment notice –Reassessment notice is held to be bad in law . [ S.143(1),148 ]

S.147: Reassessment- Block assessment-Gift -Once gifts are assessed in block assessment proceedings, same cannot be subject matter of assessment in regular assessment; whether in block assessment, Assessing Officer has found gift to be genuine or non-genuine can be of no consequence [ S.68,143(1) 148 , 158BC ]

S.143(3): Assessment- Estimation of sales and gross profit -Additions on account of suppressed sales were solely based on information received by Assessing Officer from Central Excise department without bringing any independent material on record to justify same, additions were unjustified

S.143(3): Assessment – Balance sheet and profit and loss account certified by a chartered accountant in Form 3CB in accordance with rule 6G(1)(b) for obtaining loan from bank- AO is justified in making the additions on basis of window dressed financial statement to make it attractive for bankers to rely thereupon and all gloss and sheen removed thereafter when it was time to pay tax – The doctrine of pari delicto would apply and preclude the appellant herein from detracting from the figures contained in the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts certified on 18-7-2005 at any subsequent stage-Appellate Tribunal may only be faulted for not reporting the chartered accountants to the Institute of Chartered Accountants for having apparently abetted in the commission of a colossal act of misrepresentation which the appellant assessee undertook before his bankers for the purpose of obtaining credit facilities by indicating a financial position that was not warranted by the books of the assessee. [S.44AB , R. 6G]