S. 68: Cash credits- Produced sufficient documentary evidence before AO, at the assessment as well as appellate stage to prove the genuineness of the transaction- Share capital, share premium received by a Company from investors can not be assessed as unexplained cash credit – The valuation report filed by the assessee support explanation of assessee that shares were issued at premium which were below the fair market value -Addition cannot be made as income from other sources.[ S.56(2)(viib), R.11UA(2)(a) ]

S.45: Capital gains- Allotment letter- Period of holdings- The law laid down in CIT v Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt Ltd ( 2012 ) 340 ITR 1 (SC) that transfer of immovable property is effective only on registration of conveyance deed is not applicable for computing the holding period of property. Holding period should be computed from the date of issue of the allotment letter and not from the date of the conveyance deed, ratio in Rasiklal M. Parikh v. ACIT (2017 ) 393 ITR 536 (Bom)(HC) is explained [ S.2(42A ), 2(47) 54 ]

S. 32 : Depreciation – Carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of Assessment Year 1999-2000 and Assessment Year 2000-2001 against the profits of Assessment Year 2009- 2010 without appreciating that as per the provisions of S.32(2) as they stood prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2002, such unabsorbed depreciation was eligible for carry forward and set-off . There is no conflict between CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 73 (Bom) & CIT v. Milton Pvt Ltd, CIT v. Confidence Petroleum India Ltd, because while the former is at the stage of final hearing, the latter is at the stage of admission. Accordingly, the request for reference to a larger Bench is not acceptable. Merely filing of an SLP would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in abeyance. Unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to be set off . [ S.32(2) ]

Service matters – Regularisation of services – Appellants appointed as casual employees in tax department since 1993-94 and were working continuously – Failure by Department to regularize Appellant’s services would be illegal in view of Supreme Court’s decision in case of Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1.

S. 54F : Capital gains – Investment in a residential house – Construction of house – Deduction available only if construction is completed within a period of three years after date of transfer- Even within extended definition of S. 2(47) of the Act no transfer takes place on mere execution of agreement to sale [ S.2(47) , 45 ]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties – Order for early hearing is not merely an administrative order but judicial order- Revenue has to move a formal application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules to bring on record additional evidences. [ S.254(2), R. 29 ]

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal – Stay of demand – Assessing Officer based on the information from the Central Excise Department rejected claim under S. 80IC of the Act – No independent inquiries conducted by Assessing Officer, apart from relying on information from Central Excise Department – 30% of tax demand deposited by Assessee – Assessee has made out a strong prima facie case in its favour for stay of balance demand. [ S.80IC ]

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Assessee to pay only a meager portion of tax demand (10%) for stay – Several cases were selected for scrutiny with aid of computers hence case not picked up for scrutiny maliciously – No need to interfere with the stay order of Revenue Authorities.

S. 153D: Assessment – Search and seizure – Approval – No requirement under S. 153D of the Act for prior approval for passing order pursuant to / complying with remand or revisional directions by CIT [S. 143(3) ,263 ]

S. 148 : Reassessment – Validity of service – Notice was sent on the address where assessee was not residing – Service made at the address which was referred on the envelope not of assessee – Presumption of service cannot be drawn –Reassessment is held to be bad in law .[ S.147,292BB ]