S. 158BC : Block assessment – Search- Addition was made on the basis of seized material – Block assessment cannot be held to be invalid on the ground that the authorisation was not in the name of the assessee but the premises of the assesee – Neither AO nor Tribunal in appeal could examine warrant of authorization for purpose of examining whether there existed reasons to believe on material before competent authority to order search u/s 132(1) . Assessee has not disputed the panchanama prepared by the search team in the name of assessee- Block assessment is held to be valid . In the present case search and seizure was actually made on the premises on the premises of assessee and documents and material collected therefrom also pertain to it , therefore S.158BD is not attracted . [ S.132, 158BD ]

S. 153A: Assessment – Search-Documents seized revealed total expenditure that assessee incurred in respect of both his children was not disclosed in the return of income , addition confirmed by the Tribunal is up held . As both brothers have signed the panchnama there was no necessity of issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act . [ S.132 ]

S.147: Reassessment— After the expiry of four years- Failure to disclose material facts—Failure to deduct tax at source –Discount on sales – Revenue has not able to show that the assessee has claimed discount on sales as expenditure ,therefore Stay was granted in terms of prayer (d) of the petition . Court also observed that the AO is free to examine all issues in terms of Explanation III to S. 147 of the Act. [ S.148 ]

S. 139 : Return of income – Delay of 37 days -Chane of auditor -CBDT was directed to condone the delay of 39 days in filling of return . [ S. 119(2)(b) ]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Comparability Parameters and Application of Filters- Inappropriate filters had been used by asssessee which would lead to an incorrect choice of comparables. DRP passed order excluding three companies from final set of comparables drawn by TPO-Tribunal partly allowed assessee’s appeal, however, upheld inclusion of Thirdware Solutions Limited and exclusion of CG Vak Soft-ware & Exports Ltd. and Quintegra Solutions Ltd. as comparables for benchmarking international transaction under software development services segment- Order of Tribunal is up held .

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Cancellation of registration on basis of violation of S.13(1)(c ) of the Act is held to be not valid [ S.11, 13(1)( c) ]

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Withdrawal of approval- Collection of capitalisation fee- Illegal activities -Rs 52 crores was collected as anonymous donations – Sham or bogus trusts cannot be held to be entitle to exemption . [ S.10(23C) (vi) ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Limitation – If the authority issuing the show-cause notice lacks jurisdiction and if the notice is clearly barred by law , writ is maintainable- Notice issued by the PCIT is quashed [ Art, 226 ]

S. 254(1):Appellate Tribunal –Stay- While deciding an application for stay of demand, the Appellate Tribunal can only consider the prima facie case of merits. It cannot give a final finding on the merits and decide the appeal itself.[ Central Excise Act , S. 35B ]

S. 159 : Legal representatives –Notice or order on dead person or wound up company is a nullity subject to condition that the department is made aware of the death or winding up. If the assessee participated in the proceedings and thereafter has taken the plea that order or notice was served on dead person , wound-up company are nullity. In such cases, the assessment is liable to be set-aside for a fresh assessment in accordance with law instead of its annulment.[ S.163, 176 ]