S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal – Procedure – Cross objection- Jurisdiction issue can be raised before ITAT , without filing cross objection- Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration of appeals instituted by revenue after permitting assessee to raise issue of non-compliance with in jurisdictional parameters of section 153C of the Act .Delay of 248 days in filing cross objection was condoned . [S.153C, 253, 254 (1) , ITAT R, 27, Form . 36A ,Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rule 2 of Order II , Limitation Act, 1963 Limitation Act, 1963 , S. 5 ]

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Royalties – Double Taxation Avoidance agreements – Liberal construction- DTAA -India – Singapore [S. 9(1) (vi), 195 , Art, 3, 12 (3) , 30 ]

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Computer software not royalty – Right to reproduce and right to use computer software separate rights -Not liable to deduct tax at source – Agreement has to be read as a whole , real nature of transaction to be seen reading agreement as a whole – DTAA – India – Singapore -India -China – Japan – Kingdom -USA [S. 2(7) , 2(37A, ) 4 , 5, 90 (2),195 ,201 (IA ) , Copyright Act, 1957, S .2(A ), 52(1)(aa) , Art , 3 (2) 12(3) 30 ]

Income Declaration Scheme , 2016

S. 191 : Tax paid under the Scheme shall not be refunded – Paid two instalments – Default in paying final instalment – Not entitle to get the refund already pad . [ S. 183, 185 Art, 226 ]

S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-limitation begins to run from date of order of Appellate Tribunal was served upon Commissioner (Judicial). [S. 271(1)(c), 275(1)(a)]

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Amount received from sister concern in a running account were held not to constitute as an infraction under Section 269SS-Tribunal should have remanded matter back-Order of penalty was set aside. [S. 254(1), 269SS]

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Depositors belonged to rural areas where adequate banking facilities were not available-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 269SS]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Writ against penalty order is not maintainable when the quantum addition is in challenge before Appellate Authorities. [S. 144, 271(1))(b), Art. 226]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not declared capital gain arising from sale of leasehold rights-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 45, 54EC]