S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Royalty- Purchase of software does not fall in realm of ‘royalty’-No liability to withhold tax-Cannot be held to be in default-DTAA-India–USA-Singapore–Germany. [S. 90(2), 194, 195, 201(1), 201(IA)].

S. 2(9) : Benami transaction–Burden of proof-Property was purchased out of loan proceeds -Burden of proof on revenue-Appeal of revenue was dismissed. [S. 24(3)]

S. 4 : Dharmada cannot be considered as trading receipts and was not part of the assessable value-No duty was payable on the component of Dharmada. [S. 5, 11AA, 173Q]

S. 261 : Appeal-Supreme Court-Binding precedent–Merger-Interpretation-Review-Special leave petition was dismissed against High Court order in limine without giving any reasons, review petition filed by appellant, in High Court would be maintainable. [Art. 136, 141]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Penalty -Though the High Court observed that Tribunal’s decision of reducing the penalty as a “way to bypass the minimum limit” and the Tribunal was in error in granting the relief, the same does not constitute a “mistake apparent from the record” so as to enable the Tribunal to revisit its decision. [S.271(1)(c)]

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay –Strictures-Recovery proceedings were stayed-Revenue was directed to re deposit the amount with drawn from the Bank– Order seta side-Court also expressed dismay at the conduct of the Officers of the Revenue-The desire to collect more revenue cannot be at the expense of Rule of law-Revenue to pay cost of Rs.50,000 to the Petitioner for the unnecessary harassment. [S. 10(23FB) 10(35), 220(6), 226(3), 245, 281B, Art .226]

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay–limitation- Cross objection – Non -residents–Additional grounds-Royalty–Fee for technical services -In cases of payments made to non-residents, an order passed after one year from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings were initiated is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), 201(1), 201(3), 201(4), 253(1) 254(1)].

S. 147 : Reassessment–Change of opinion–High court is directed to decide whether requirement of S.148 is satisfied or not. [S.143(1), 143(3)]

S. 142(2C) : Inquiry before assessment–Special audit–AO is entitle to suo motu extend the time without an application by the assessee- The amendment by FA 2008 was intended to remove an ambiguity and is clarificatory in nature- There exists a presumption of retrospective application in regard to amendments which are of a procedural nature- Orders of High Courts set aside and matter remanded to Appellate Tribunal to decide on merits. [S. 142, 153A, 153B]

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share Capital-identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants by producing the PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments and the investors have shown the source of source & personally appeared before the AO in response to s. 131 summons- Addition cannot be made as cash credits. [S. 131, 133(6)]