S. 10(23C) : Educational institution-Object clause-Wrong jurisdiction-When trust filed affidavit stating that the trust was created with main object of educating public by establishing schools, technical colleges and other educational institutes and it was not doing any activities other than educational services, registration cannot be denied merely because aims and object of assessee-trust included some clauses which were not for purposes of education. [ S. 10(23C)(vi)]

S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Fees for technical services -A Limited Liability Partnership incorporated under Laws of United Kingdom (UK), providing legal advisory services to its clients worldwide including India-By rendering those services, assessee did not ‘make available’ any technical knowledge, know-how or experience to its clients-Amount received by it was not taxable in India as fee for technical services. – Article 15 of India-UK DTAA applies to determine taxable income in hands of individual and not other persons, assessee being a partnership firm, amount of fee received by assessee for rendering legal advisory services was not taxable in India- Reimbursement of expenses being of routine nature and, moreover, there was no mark up involved amount in question could not be brought to tax as assessee’s income-DTAA- India -UK. [S.90, Art. 5(2)(k), 7, 13, 15]

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions – Failure to furnish return of income-Failure to furnish return in response to notice under S.142(1)-Mere fact that subsequently furnished return of income and no amount of tax was due, would not exempt from liability to be prosecuted. Disobedience of each of said provisions of law itself constitute a distict offence[S. 139(1), 142(1), 148, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 482]

S. 237 : Refunds-Refund was adjusted without taking in to consideration amount of advance tax paid-Order was set aside and matter was remanded for fresh disposal.

S. 237 : Refunds–Adjustment of refund-Claim for refund was rejected on ground that amount of refund had been adjusted against tax demand relating to subsequent assessment years, in view of fact that notice of demand under section 156 for subsequent years was never served on assessee, impugned order was to be set aside and a direction was to be issued to grant refund to assessee along with applicable rate of interest – Cost of Rs 1.50 lakhs was levied on the revenue with in four weeks by the Officers from their salaries – Superiors should enter their Annual confidential Reports these lapses and errors–Superiors must initiate the requisite steps and if they include denial of nay promotional or monetary benefits to such officials, then, even such steps and measures be initiated in accordance with law-That is the minimal expectation of this Court. [S. 156]

S. 158BA : Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Expenses or payments not deductible–Excessive or unreasonable-Commission payment-Reflected in its books filed along with its return of income which was subjected to normal assessment, impugned addition was unjustified. [S. 40A(2)]

S. 158BA : Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Sale consideration- Security deposit was not offered to tax on the ground that there was no provision in agreement enabling buyer to refund any part of sale consideration -Buyer treated amount paid as stock-in-trade- Addition is held to be justified. [S. 68]

S. 145 : Method of accounting Search-Statement on oath- Method of accounting- Estimation of income- Manufacturing of Jewellery and in trading of Gemsstones – Bogus purchase bills -Average gross profit – Tribunal deleted the addition- Court held that ,since average gross profit (GP) rate in assessee’s industry was 12 per cent, wherever profit of assessee was more than 12 per cent, same would not be refunded to assessee but where it was less than 12 per cent, income would be assessed on basis of 12 per cent. [S. 153A]

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel -Order passed by DRP must contain discussion of facts and independent findings on those facts by DRP; mere extraction of rival contentions will not satisfy requirement of consideration-Matter remanded. [S. 92C]

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel–Remand- Direction by the ITAT to AO/TPO to undertake a fresh exercise of determination of Arm’s length price -Failure to pass draft assessment order would violative of S.144C(1) hence bad in law -Not curable defects. [S. 92C, 153(2A), 254(1), 292B]