S.226:Recovery -Stay -Tax Recovery Officer could not grant stay of order of assessment and remedy lies only before AO or before First Appellate Authority AO had to consider case on merits and then take decision in matter and not mechanically go by guidelines issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, as guidelines themselves provide for contingencies, which might vary from case to case. [ S.281B ]

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery -Tribunal has directed to pay 55% of outstanding demand- On writ High Court directed the Tribunal to dispose the appeal expeditiously – Interim order of stay was declined as the appeal was slated for final arguments before the Appellate Tribunal .

S.220:Collection and recovery – Stay –Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) -Direction of the CIT to enhancing to pay 50% of demand when first appeal is pending is held to be bad in law – Application for stay was pending before CIT(A)-CIT(A ) was directed to dispose the stay application with in four weeks and stay will continue for further period of two weeks.

S.154: Rectification of mistake apparent on record -Levy of interest- Delay in filing of return-Waiver of interest – Petition was dismissed .[ S. 234A, 234B, 234C ]

S. 147 : Reassessment – Recorded reason was 31 st March 2010 where as notice u/s 148 was issued on 30 th March 2010 -Recording of reasons before issue of notice is mandatory hence Reassessment was held to be bad in law [ S.148 ]

S. 139 : Return of income -Delay due to crashing of computer system – Application which was filed for condonation of delay was rejected, after six years of filing of petition was held to be not justified -CIT was directed to condone the delay and hear the matter expeditiously with the observation that delay in disposing the application after six years of filing of the petition has to be viewed seriously while rendering substantial justice to parties . [ S.119(2)(b) ]

S.139:Return of Income- Delay of five months due to illness of Auditor however details of illness and any proof of doctor’s prescription was not given- Delay was not condoned- Discipline on time limits regarding filing of returns had to be complied and respected, unless compelling and good reasons were shown and established for grant of extension of time . [ S.80IB ,119]

S.92C: Transfer pricing -Arms’ length price- Functionally different -Exclusion of six comparables by the Tribunal by the Tribunal was held to be justified .

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits -20% expenditure -Purchase of land as stock in trade -Villagers paid the amount in cash in the absence of banking facilities deletion of addition was held to be justified [ R.6DD(h)]

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Evidence in the form of bills etc. was not produced. Disallowance was confirmed . [ R.6DD(h) ,(j )]