S.139: Return- Refund – AO wrongly treated the return filed as in valid- Fresh return filed along with condonation of delay which was rejected – AO is directed to pay the refund to the assessee after scrutinizing return [ S. 119(2)(b), 139 (9) ]

S.45: Capital gains —Sale of agricultural Land — Land should be agricultural at the time of sale — Purchase of agricultural land for building factory and subsequent sale as residential plots — Profits is not exempt from capital gains tax [ S. 2(14)(iii) ]

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Club expenses – Payment made for acquiring membership in a social club is not allowable as business expenditure, in the absence of any evidence to effect that membership was acquired for entertaining customer .

S. 36(1)(vii) :Bad debt -Business loss- Finance company -Advances in form of equity participation to derive income Investment written off is allowable as bad debts . [ S.28(i)]

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Failure to dispose of application before expiry of 6 Months does not result in deemed grant of registration.

S. 9(1)(1) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Permanent Establishment – Payment received by the applicant from the Indian hotel owner for provision of global reservation services ( “CRS”) would be chargeable to tax in India under S.9(1)(1) read with articles 5 and 7 of the India -Luxemburg DTAA as business income and is attributable to the applicant’s permanent establishment in India. Duty of Authority to look at all aspects of questions set forth to enable it to pronounce ruling on substance of questions posed . Giving Ruling on stream of income without regard to other business operations and streams of income leaving other provisions open for regular assessment – DTAA-India – Luxembourg [ Art , 5,7 12, R.12 ]

S. 260A: Appeal – High Court -Limitation-The time limit for filing an appeal to the High Court begins from the date of receipt of the order by the officer entitled to file the appeal. The fact that the ITAT may have dispatched the order earlier is not relevant. The fact that the officer may be aware of the ITAT’s order owing to collateral proceedings is also not relevant. The appeal was not barred by limitation .[ S.2(16), 254(1),260A(2)(a) ]

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Transfer pricing – Substantial questions of law-Comparables- Arm’s length price- ‘Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ should become final with a quietus at the hands of the final fact finding body, i.e. the Tribunal. The ITAT’s findings of fact cannot be challenged in the High Court unless it is shown that the findings are ex-facie perverse and unsustainable and exhibit total non-application of mind by the Tribunal to the relevant facts of the case and evidence before it[ S.92C ]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Condonation of delay- Delay of 92 days – The AO was negligent in filing the remand report before the CIT(A). The same attitude has continued at the stage of filing appeal to the ITAT. The excuse that the appeal was not filed due to the AO being busy with time barring assessment is not acceptable. The AO deliberately overlooked the impugned order and did not file appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. Even the authorization by PCIT to file the appeal has been granted after the period of limitation. Hence sufficient cause is not shown [ S.253(1) ]

S. 90 :Double taxation relief -The failure to submit a ‘Tax Residency Certificate’ (TRC) as required by S.90(4) is not a bar to the grant of benefits under the DTAA. However, the assessee is required to produce reasonable evidence of the entitlement of the foreign entity to benefits under the DTAA-DTAA-India –USA. [ S.90(4),art. 12(4)(b) ]