S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Court held that the assessee has already paid Rs 25.66 crores and the appeal is coming up for hearing accordingly the assessee was directed to pay another Rs 10 crores only during the pendency of appeal .[ S.254(1) ]

S. 271D : Penalty -Takes or accepts any loan or deposit –Deposits from staff members in cash without any reasonable cause levy of penalty was held to be justified . [ S. 269SS, 273B ]

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –The limitation period for filing a Rectification Application has to be computed from the date of “communication” of the order and not from the date of passing the order. The fact that the order was pronounced in open court is not relevant because the parties will not be aware of the mistakes therein until after perusal of the order.

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice – If the AO reopens on the basis of information received from another AO without further inquiry, it means he has proceeded “mechanically” and “without application of mind”. If the CIT does not give reasons while according sanction, it implies that he has also not applied his mind. Both render the reopening void [ S.147, 148 ]

S. 147:Reassessment -Bogus purchases – Even the assessment which is completed u/s 143(1) cannot be reopened without proper ‘reason to believe’. If the reasons state that the information received from the VAT Dept that the assessee entered into bogus purchases “needed deep verification”, it means the AO is reopening for doing a ‘fishing or roving inquiry’ without proper reason to believe, which is not permissible.[ S.143(1), 148 ]

S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice -Limited scrutiny-The CBDT Circulars which restrict the right of the AO in limited scrutiny cases apply only in cases where the AO seeks to do comprehensive scrutiny to find if there is potential escapement of income on other issues. However, if the S. 143(2) notice seeks information on whether the share premium is from disclosed sources and is correctly offered to tax, the AO can also inquire into whether the premium exceeds the FMV and is taxable u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act .Writ to quash the notice was held to be not maintainable.[ S.56(2) (viib) ]

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident –Commission- Obligation to deduct tax at source arises only if the sum is chargeable to tax in India , even after insertion of Explanation 2 to S.195(1) by Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962

Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
S.14: Return- Failure to file return on due date – Return was filed pursuant to reassessment notice – liable to pay interest from due date till date of filing of return [ S.17 , 17B ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – No proper enquiry was made in respect of unexplained investment , revision was held to be justified [ S. 69,133(6),143(3) ]

S. 179 : Private company – Liability of directors – Before the Assessing Officer assumed jurisdiction, efforts to recover the tax dues from the company should have failed and such efforts and failure of recovery ought to have been mentioned in the notice, howsoever briefly. No distinction can be made between professional or paid directors and directors holding a large shareholding stake in the company.