S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake– Pronouncement of order- An order passed by the Tribunal even one day after the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of hearing causes prejudice to the assessee and is liable to be recalled and the appeal posted for fresh hearing. [S.254(1), R. 34(5)(c)]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties-The Appellate Tribunal should give independent reasons showing consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee-An appellate order which affirms the order of the lower authority need not be a very detailed order- Nevertheless, there should be some indication in the order passed by the appellate authority of due application of mind to the contentions raised by the asseseee in the context of findings of the lower authority which were the subject matter of the challenge before it.

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Condonation of delay-An assessee supported by large number of CAs & Advocates cannot seek condonation of delay on the ground that the officer handling the issue was transferred-A party cannot sleep over its rights and expect its appeal to be entertained. The fact that the issue on merits is covered in favour of the assessee makes no difference to the aspect of condonation of delay. [S. 234E]

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal -Delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal caused by the fault of CA/Counsel has to be condoned-the expression “sufficient cause” should be interpreted to advance substantial justice- If there is “sufficient cause”, the period of delay cannot be regarded as excessive or inordinate–Delay was condoned. [S. 254(1)]

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-If a decision is challenged by the assessee both on the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits, the appellate authority has to decide both issues. He cannot decline to decide one of the issues on the basis that the decision on the other issue renders it academic. This approach leads to multiplication of proceedings and leads to delay- CIT(A) is directed to decide both the issues. [S. 254(1), R.27]

S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) –Strictures-The total callous, negligent and disrespectful behaviour shown by the Departmental authorities in this Court should not be tolerated at all. It is this kind of lack of judicial discipline which if it goes unpunished, will lead to more litigation and chaos and such public servants are actually a threat to the society. Commissioner Service tax (Appeals) should pay cost of Rs. 1 lakh from his personal funds.

S. 194IA : Deduction at source-Transfer of certain immoveable property other than agricultural land- The exemption of Rs. 50 lakh in S. 194IA(2) is applicable w.r.t. the amount related to each transferee and not with reference to the amount as per sale deed- Each transferee is a separate income tax entity and the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person-Each purchase consideration being Only Rs. 37, 50,000 , provision is not applicable. [S. 194IA(2), 201(1), 201(IA)]

S. 194C : Deduction at source–Contractors-The by-product allowed to be retained by the miller can notbe regarded as consideration ‘paid’ in kind by the procurement agency- Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 195]

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-If the AO issues the notice for reopening the assessment before obtaining the sanction of the CIT, the reopening is void ab initio-The fact that the sanction was given just one day after the issue of notice makes no difference. [S. 147, 148]

S. 147 : Reassessment–Intimation-The AO cannot reopen on the basis of info received from DIT (Inv.) that a particular entity has entered into suspicious transactions without linking it to the assessee having indulged in activity which could give rise to reason to believe that income has escaped assessment- Such reopening amounts to a fishing inquiry- The AO has to apply his mind to the information received by him from the DDIT (Inv.) and cannot act on on borrowed satisfaction. [S. 143(1), 148]