S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –Failure to remove objections – Prothonotary and Senior Master is not a judicial Officer – He has no power to condone the delay – Application with a delay of 958 days seeking restoration of its appeal – Restructuring of office of department and thereupon shifting of files to new independent/dedicated Commissionerate – Dismissed the appeal by observing that revenue authorities failed to remove office objections within prescribed period and, moreover, explanation offered did not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such enormous delay, revenue’s application for restoration of appeal was to be declined .[Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule 986 of 1980 ]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal –Powers- Deemed dividend –Buy back of shares -Tribunal has power to give directions for fresh enquiry into aspects of subject matter of appeal filed before it either suo motu or on any grounds raised by either party to appeal which have not been investigated or enquired into by lower authorities earlier and which may result in enhancement of tax liability of assessee – Direction is held to be valid .[ S.2(22) ( e ),115QA ]

S. 245D : Settlement Commission – Failure to make full and true disclosure of undisclosed income with regard to property and bank accounts held abroad –Rejection of application is held to be valid [ S. 132(4),245C ]

S. 192 : Deduction at source – Salary – Perquisite –Since contributions made by assessee were to recoup deficiency suffered by said Educational Society for meeting its educational requirements and burden borne per child per month by assessee had never crossed Rs. 1000, no perquisite could be said to be arose in hands of employees of assessee- legislation amended rule 3(e) only for period subsequent to 2001, to include concessional education facility, assessee could not be held liable to recover tax for assessment years prior to such amendment for contribution of concessional facility given to employees- Not liable to deduct tax at source.[ S.17(2), 201(1)]

S. 158BC : Block assessment – Unexplained expenditure –Cost of construction valuation report- Since no undisclosed income was detected as a result of search, and amounts in question had been found to have been entered in regulars books of account of assessee, inquiry, if any, in respect of valuation of building was permissible only in course of regular assessment proceedings and, thus, addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted.[ S.69C ]

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) – There was no statutory bar for Assessing Officer to rectify assessment order even if an appeal was pending against it – Assessee is directed to file objections before Assessing Officer. [ S. 250 ]

S. 153D : Assessment – Search and seizure – Approval -Provision do not require any opportunity of hearing to be given to assessee by authority who has to approve draft assessment order passed by Assessing Authority .[ S. 143(3),153A ]

S. 148 : Reassessment – Notice – when department had correct address of assessee furnished in return of income, sending notice at incorrect address available with bank and then drawing presumption of service of notice on ground that notice was not received back unserved, could not be sustained.[ S.147 ]

S. 145 : Method of accounting – Bank- Valuation of shares and securities of public Ltd Companies -Books at cost and in the return cost or market value which ever is less- changed method of valuation of closing stock i.e. cost or market price whichever was lower would determine income/loss correctly- Order of Tribunal was set aside .

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Foreign company -Order in remand proceedings – Even in partial remand proceedings from the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer is obliged to pass a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act-Order passed without passing a draft assessment order being violative of provisions of section 144C(1) is set aside .[ S.92C, 144C(1), 254(1)]