S. 92C : Transfer pricing-It is mandatory for the AO to determine the arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transactions by following one of the prescribed methods-He is not entitled to follow any other method or to resort to estimation-The failure to follow one of the prescribed methods makes the entire transfer pricing adjustment unsustainable in law-The legal infirmity cannot be cured by restoring the issue to the TPO-The TPO cannot be allowed another innings to rectify the mistake. [S. 254(1)]

S. 68 : Cash credits-Bogus Share Capital-Merely presenting of documents & making payment through bank or appearance by director before the AO & admitting fact of share application made is in itself not sufficient to justify the genuineness of the transaction-It is against human probability that anyone will invest and pay share premium in a company without net worth or future prospectus-All applicants with common address are being controlled remotely by one person. These applicants are all paper companies not having sufficient worth and created for providing entries of share application money or share capital or loans by way of accommodation entries-Credit worthiness is not established-Addition is held to be justified.

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration- stamp valuation-The adoption of stamp valuation as the sale consideration is not justified in absence of any evidence that the sale consideration was more than the value shown in the agreement-The AO has not brought on record that the property under sale was not was under various encumbrances and the assessee was having the absolute marketable title of the said property- Addition is held to be not valid.[S. 45]

S. 271D : Penalty-Accepts any loan or deposit–loan received from father – same could be treated as gift and not loan – levy of penalty unjustified.

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Depreciation on land-Bona fide mistake -Voluntarily agreed to surrender tax on value of depreciation wrongly taken on land–Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 32]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Rental income –Business income –Income from house property-Every loss of Revenue as a consequence of an order of AO could not be treated as prejudicial to interests of Revenue – Revision is held to be not valid. [S.22, 28(i)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-AO framed assessment as per law-Even if it had resulted in loss to revenue, said decision of AO could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. [S. 153A]

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Cost of construction-Payment only on account of architecture fee-Estimate of value is not justified -Matter remanded. [S. 142A]

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings–Infrastructure development- while computing deduction loss of one eligible unit shall not be set off or adjusted against profit of another eligible unit.

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence -More than one house – Amendment brought in S.. 54 to limit the exemption to one Residential unit is applicable from AY .2015-16 on wards. [S. 45]