S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – In the course of scrutiny assessment, AO disallowed a part of business advancement expenses after verifying bills and vouchers- Manufacturing – R& D expenditure – Revision for further disallowance, re-determined claim of deduction under S. 80-IC and 80-IE and Weighted deduction-R& D expenditure – Revision is held to be not justified when in the Course of original assessment the AO has examined all the claims. [S. 35, 80IC, 80IE]

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Condonation of delay of 387 days-turbulent time in family as well as with his earlier Chartered Accountant -Copy of complaint against the Chartered Accountant was also filed before the various authorities including the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur. – Delay was condoned .[S. 254(1)]

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice -After the expiry of four years- Without obtaining sanction-Entire reassessment proceedings stood vitiated-Even if assessment was reopened in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction of Appellate Authority, requirement of sanction is mandatory for issuing notice. [S. 147, 148, 149, 150]

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Books of account not produced -Sale of furniture to Government offices- Treated as sales receipts and not contract receipts -Amount received was part of sales, hence the Assessing Officer was justified in treating same as contract receipt – Interest accrued- Assessable as income on accrual basis when the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting- Interest income accrued to assessee was duly recognized by debtor -Business expenditure-Not produced books of account and supporting vouchers for verification of expenditure booked by her in P&L account-Disallowance of expenditure is held to be justified- loan taken by assessee was found to be unexplained and was added to assessee’s income as cash credits , claim of expenditure of interest paid on such loan being consequential to claim of loan which is not allowable as deduction. [S. 5, 37(1), 68, 194C, 26AC]

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases -Assessment proceedings were initiated by Assistant Commissioner, Circle -2(1), Bhubaneswar but taken over in middle of proceedings by Assistant Commissioner, (OSD), Range, 2 Bhubaneswar and completed by him- There was no order for transfer of jurisdiction- Order is held to be bad in law. [S. 120, 124, 143(2)]

S. 92B : Transfer pricing-International transaction-Bright line test -AMP expenses- A higher AMP expenses per se cannot be reason enough to infer that there is an international transaction; there has to be something more than mere quantum of expenditure to indicate, even if not established, that said expenditure is incurred on behalf of AE. [S. 92C]

S. 80IC : Special category States -Two manufacturing units both are eligible for deduction- One unit earned profit and other unit loss-AO is justified in setting of negative income of one eligible unit against positive income of other eligible unit. [S.80AB, 80IA(5), 80IC(7)]

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share capital-Loans-Furnished several documentary evidences to prove genuineness of unsecured loans and share capital investment and creditworthiness of parties- Addition cannot be made merely relying upon order of SEBI that some of shareholders of assessee were part of several entities who were linked to money laundering- Assessee is not required to prove source of the source – Deletion of addition by CIT(A) is held to be justified.

S. 54EC : Capital gains-Investment in bonds-Investment made from advance received on sale of capital asset before date of transfer of asset will qualify for exemption. [S. 45]

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation -Stamp valuation was disputed before the AO- It is the duty of AO to refer the matter to Valuation Officer-The department cannot be allowed a second inning, by sending the matter back to Assessing Officer, enabling it to fill the lacunae and shortcomings and putting the assessee virtually to face a re-trial for no fault of him and to again prove before the Assessing Officer that the sale consideration was the fair market value of the property sold by him. [S. 45]