Service matters – Regularisation of services – Appellants appointed as casual employees in tax department since 1993-94 and were working continuously – Failure by Department to regularize Appellant’s services would be illegal in view of Supreme Court’s decision in case of Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.

S. 54F : Capital gains – Investment in a residential house – Construction of house – Deduction available only if construction is completed within a period of three years after date of transfer- Even within extended definition of S. 2(47) of the Act no transfer takes place on mere execution of agreement to sale [ S.2(47) , 45 ]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties – Order for early hearing is not merely an administrative order but judicial order- Revenue has to move a formal application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules to bring on record additional evidences. [ S.254(2), R. 29 ]

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal – Stay of demand – Assessing Officer based on the information from the Central Excise Department rejected claim under S. 80IC of the Act – No independent inquiries conducted by Assessing Officer, apart from relying on information from Central Excise Department – 30% of tax demand deposited by Assessee – Assessee has made out a strong prima facie case in its favour for stay of balance demand. [ S.80IC ]

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Assessee to pay only a meager portion of tax demand (10%) for stay – Several cases were selected for scrutiny with aid of computers hence case not picked up for scrutiny maliciously – No need to interfere with the stay order of Revenue Authorities.

S. 153D: Assessment – Search and seizure – Approval – No requirement under S. 153D of the Act for prior approval for passing order pursuant to / complying with remand or revisional directions by CIT [S. 143(3) ,263 ]

S. 148 : Reassessment – Validity of service – Notice was sent on the address where assessee was not residing – Service made at the address which was referred on the envelope not of assessee – Presumption of service cannot be drawn –Reassessment is held to be bad in law .[ S.147,292BB ]

S. 143(1D) : Assessment – Processing of return – Matter pending for scrutiny before competent authority – No mandamus can be issued by Court at this stage for granting refund [ S.237 ]

S. 139 : Return of income – Condonation of delay of 1232 days – When explanation offered was acceptable and genuine hardship established – Condonation application for delay is to be accepted [ S.119 ]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price -company engaged in providing BPO services – Comparable company engaged in KPO and other IT services hence cannot be accepted as valid comparable