S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Lack of proper enquiry-Long-term capital gains-PCIT has failed to establish the erroneous character of the assessment order and that too in such a manner that it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue-Revision order is quashed and set aside. [S. 45, 143(3)]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Assessment order passed pursuant to invalid satisfaction note-PCIT was not empowered to revise the assessment orders by relying on seized documents in respect of which the AO did not record any satisfaction in the satisfaction note-The assessment orders are ab initio void-Invalid orders cannot be subjected to revision-The order passed by the Principal CIT is not sustainable-The revision order was quashed and set aside. [S. 153C]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Cost of acquisition-Based on FMV as on 1st April, 2001-Revision order is not valid. [S. 48, 49,55(1)(b)]

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Opportunity of being heard-failure to decide on merits-Order of CIT(A) was set aside, and Notices sent to wrong e-mail IDs-The issue is restored to the AO to decide in accordance with law. [S. 69A, 251]

S. 251: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Additional claim-CIT(A) can entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee, even if such a claim was not made in the return of income or by way of a revised return.[S. 139]

S.156A: Modification and revision of notice in certain cases-Assessment-Bar of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016-National Company Law Tribunal passed the orders in the insolvency resolution proceedings against the assessee-The Assessing Officer is directed to take necessary action as per law. [S. 156, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S.5]

S. 153C: Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Recording of satisfaction-Assessment for the Assessment year 2009-10 was not pending at the time of recording of the satisfaction by the Assessing Officer-Joint development agreement entered into between the assessee and other codeveloper cannot be held as incriminating material as the amount received by the assessee as the refundable security under the JDA is reported in the assessee’s balance sheet as well as in the cash book and bank account-Proceedings initiated on the basis of invalid satisfaction are not sustainable. [S. 2(47)(v), 132, 153A]

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-No incriminating material-Addition was deleted.[S. 132]

S. 153C: Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-loose sheets seized from the locker of a third party-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed.

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Approval should not be rubber-stamping and mere ritual formality and should not suffer from lack of application of mind-The Addl. CIT also granted approval under s. 1 on the very same day, in the other 12 cases-The approving authority has not applied his mind and granted the approval in a mechanical and hasty manner-Approval suffers from perversity and impropriety-The approval is invalid in the eyes of law, and consequently the assessment order is also invalid.[S. 153D]