S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Restoration of appeal -Delay of 2386 days- Appeal not to be dismissed only on the ground of failure to get numbered / registered – Delay being technical in nature condoned and appeal restored. [ Bombay High Court ( Original side ) Rules 986, Customs Act .]

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax-Concealment penalty is deleted –Quashing of prosecution is automatic- The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the prosecution and not indulge in the empty formality of directing the assessee to approach the Trial Magistrate .[ S.271(1)( c ),, 277 278 , Art , 226 , 227 ]

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Client code modifications (CCM)–Recorded reasons being vague merely on the basis of information received from the office of DIT (Intell CR Inv.) reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 148]

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue–Royalty paid for license to use is held to be revenue expenditure.

S. 36(1)(vii) : Bad debt – Provision for doubtful debts debited to P&L account also stands reduced from the trade receivables–Held to be allowable as bad debt.

S. 28(1) : Business income–Suppression of income-Future and options-Shares and derivatives – Client code modifications (CCM)- Burden is on the assessee to establish that the client code modifications have been done on the behest of the assessee– Addition cannot be made as suppression of income of the assessee. [S.143(3)]

S.28(i): Business loss- Future and options- Shares and derivatives – Client code modifications (CCM) – No stretch of imagination can any AO consider a transaction on the stock exchange as income of a person other than the one who has either actually received monies in his bank account (In case of profit) and /or paid any monies from his bank account (in case of loss) – burden is on AO to establish that the losses were purchased or that there was payment in cash/cheque for such favors . Client code modification with in 1% of is absolutely normal [S. 143(3)]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Appeal admitted before High Court- Rectification application is not maintainable.

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Judges can change or alter their decision at any time until the judgement is signed & sealed-A miscellaneous application on the ground that the ITAT Members stated a particular decision during the hearing but did the opposite in the order is not maintainable.

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Assessed income can fall below returned income-Disallowance can fall below disallowance suomotu voluntarily made by the assessee in the return of income filed. [S. 14A, 139, R.8D]