S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-capital work in progress- Short term loss-Assessee has sold plant and machinery along with capital WIP, then order passed by AO cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. [S. 143(3)]

S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-in the absence of enabling provisions u/s 200A, levy of late fee is not valid. [S. 200A]

S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-in the absence of enabling provisions u/s. 200A, levy of late fee is not valid- Matter remanded. [S. 200A]

S. 221 : Collection and recovery–Penalty-Tax in default –Survey- Reasonable cause -Cash was generated on account of sale of property- Levy of penalty was held to be not valid. [S. 133A]

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Limitation- Order passed by AO raising demand u/s.201(1) is beyond limit provided in sub-section (3) for quarter Nos.1 to 3 then, AO could be directed to delete demand raised for quarter Nos.1 to 3. and sustained demand for quarter No.4–U/s.201(3) no limit was provided for passing order charging interest u/s 201(1A), hence assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) and said order of AO was upheld – Partly allowed.[S. 201(1), 201(IA), 201(3)]

S. 194H : Deduction at source–Commission or brokerage–Cash discount-Provision is applicable in respect of amounts paid to agents in connection with sale of SIM cards and other services- Mere fact that assessee was only a recipient and had not paid any amount to distributor would not make a difference. [S. 201(1), 201(IA)]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Claimed deduction u/s. 10B despite fact that STPI, Noida from whom assessee had been taking approval was not competent to accord approval for deduction- Reassessment is held to be justified-AO is bound to allow deduction u/s. 10A which was made in the return filed in pursuance of notice u/s. 148 [ S.10A]

S. 143(3) : Assessment–Method of accounting-AIR information-Addition cannot be made solely based on AIR information. [S.4, 145, AS-26]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparables-software development services, healthcare claim- Inclusion of Company— Companies selected by TPO were functionally dissimilar with assessee then companies could not be included in list of comparables.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Transfer of shares-The company in which shares was transferred was not in the winding up nor was there any reasonable prospect of its going into liquidation, adoption of NAV or book value was not really warranted-Matter remanded. [S. 92CA]