S. 206C : Collection at source – Trading -Limitation-Order passed beyond limit of four years is bad in law -Though Section does not impose any limitation period for the AO to hold the assessee to be in default for collection of tax at source, a reasonable time limit of four years has to be read into the statute- Orders passed after this period are beyond the limitation and are void-The fact that the Dept became aware of the default later is irrelevant. The fact that the assessee admitted his liability is also irrelevant- Assessment is held to be bad in law .[ S.191, 201 ]

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Allotment of shares- less than fair market value of shares –Reasons recorded on the basis of letter from Department of Investigation and tax evasion petition- Failure to disclose material facts as regards issue of shares to the assessee at a price less than Fair Market Value – Reassessment is valid . [ S. 56(2)(vii) 143(1) 143(3), 148 , 151, Companies Act , 1956 S.299 ]

S. 68:Cash credits- Capital gains-Penny stocks-Reliance by AO on statements recorded by the Investigation Wing to conclude that the capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE v.Andaman Timber Industries ( 2015 ) 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, DEMAT account, allotment of amalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price, payment of STT etc- Addition cannot be made as cash credits.[ S.10 (38),45,115BBE ]

S.68: Cash credits-Capital gains-Penny Stocks-If the transaction is supported by documents like contract notes, demat statements etc and is routed through the stock exchange and if the payments are by account-payee cheques and there is no evidence that the cash has gone back to the assessee’s account, it has to be treated as a genuine transaction and cannot be assessed as unexplained credit, simply because in the sham transactions bank a/c were opened with HDFC bank and the appellant has also received short term capital gain in his account with HDFC bank does not establish that the transaction made by the appellant were non genuine. [ S.45 ]

S. 68: Cash credits- Capital gains- Penny stocks- Share transaction is supported by contract notes, bills, were carried out through recognized stockbroker of the Stock Exchange and all payments made to, and received from, the stockbroker, were through account payee instruments- A transaction fully supported by documentary evidences cannot be brushed aside on suspicion and surmises- Statement given earlier was retracted in cross examination-Brokers statement was recoded –Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is held to be justified . [ S.45,132(4) ]

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence –Unregistered document-Though an unregistered agreement to sell does not entitle the parties to seek part performance u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it can be a basis for a suit for specific performance in view of S. 49 of the Registration Act. Consequently, even an unregistered agreement creates a right in favour of the buyer and constitutes a “transfer” of the old property u/s 2(47) for purposes of determining whether the purchase of the new property is within one year of the date of “transfer” of the old property [ S. 2(47) ,45 , Transfer of Property Act, 1882,S,53A, Registration Act ,1908,17(1)(a), 49 ]

S. 4 :Charge of income-tax – Accrual of income- Method of accounting -Gain arising on account of securitization of lease receivables and credited to the Profit & Loss Account is a taxable receipt in the year of securitisation. [ S.145 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Rental income whether assessable as property income or business income -No findings had been rendered by the Commissioner that the Assessing Officer had made an incorrect assessment of facts or incorrect application of law –Revision is held to be not valid .[ S.22, 28(i) ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Development agreement- Transfer and right to possession of developer does not arise prior to completion of construction and apportionment effected- Quantum of depreciation based on facts -Revision was held to be not valid . [ S. 2(47(v), 32, 45, Transfer of Property Act, 1953 S. 53A ]

S. 153 : Assessment –Limitation – When seven issues were before Tribunal, Tribunal remanding of only five issues- Time Limit specified in S.153(2A) is applicable not S.153 (3)(ii)of the Act-Order is held to be not valid .[ S. 153(2A), 153(3)(ii) ]