S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment–Debatable issue-Merely because the addition is confirmed levy of penalty is not justified- Deletion of penalty on the sole ground that the High Court has admitted the Appeal and framed substantial questions of law, it cannot be said that the entire issue is debatable one and under no circumstances, penalty could be imposed.

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Ex-servicemen Corporation-Registered under Companies Act as any other company- Not entitle to exemption–Revision is held to be valid–On merit also it was held that not entitle the exemption u/s 10(26BBB] [S.10(26BBB)].

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– unsold flats held as stock in trade-Notional value-In view of contrary decisions of High Court, issue as to whether notional income on unsold flat held by assessee-builder as stock-in-trade in its books of account should be assessed as income from house property is a debatable issue, and hence order of Assessing Officer for not bringing unsold flats to tax at notional letting value under head ‘income from other sources’ which was one of possible views- Revision is not valid. [S. 22, 23, 28(i)]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record -Employees of statutory corporations cannot be regarded as employees of State or Central Government- Failure to deduct tax at source under bonafide belief-Held not liable to pay penalty – AO filed miscellaneous application-Held miscellaneous application is not maintainable–Tribunal cannot recall its previous order in an attempt to rewrite the same. [S.10(10AA), 192, 201(1), 201(IA)]

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and The power conferred upon the CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of appeal is to alleviate genuine suffering of taxpayers-He has the power and corresponding duty to exercise the power when circumstances so warrant-U/s. 14 of the Limitation Act, delay caused due to proceeding in a wrong forum has to be condoned- [ S.249(3)]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Even if the assessee does not report the specified transaction & the AO has no occasion to notice it, the TPO has no jurisdiction to suo moto determine the ALP-He has to call for a reference from the AO-.Alternate remedy is not a bar if the action is without jurisdiction & can be severed from the rest. [S. 40A (3A), 92BA(i), 92CA, 92E, Art. 226]

S. 90 : Double taxation relief-Interest-Royalty–Levy of surcharge and 3% education cess on tax computed-Held to be not valid- DTAA-India-UAE. [Art. 2(1), 11, 12]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Change of opinion-Reassessment proceedings on ground that loss arising from switching over from one plan of mutual funds to another was of capital nature when he himself had treated profits from sale of mutual funds as business income – Reassessment is held to be not valid. [S.28(1), 43(5), 148]

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Obtaining occupation certificate is not a mandatory requirement in order to ascertain whether building was completed or not for purpose of deduction under section 80-IB(10)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Bogus Share Capital-Merely because the investment was considerably large and several corporate structures were either created or came into play in routing the investment in the assessee through a Mauritius entity would not be sufficient to brand the transaction as colourable device-The assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of source.