S. 269ST : Mode of undertaking transactions- Cash transactions Penalty-Whenever, a suit is filed with a claim that Rs. 2,00,000/- and above is paid by cash towards any transaction, courts must intimate same to jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify transaction and violation of Section 269ST of Income Tax Act–Sale-Suit for permanent injunction-An agreement to sell does not confer any right on proposed purchaser under agreement An agreement to sell does not create any transferable interest or title in property in favour of proposed purchaser.Where plaintiffs were not in possession of property and defendant had been in settled possession for over a century, suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant from creating any third party interest over property was not maintainable. [Transfer of Property Act, 1882, 7, 54, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11]

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Adjudicating proceedings would not be binding on proceedings for criminal prosecution and both proceedings could be launched simultaneously- Tribunal in adjudicating proceedings disposed appeals merely on ground of limitations and merits raised in complaint with regard to non-filing of return of income, non-payment of advance tax, non-payment of tax demanded, suppression of true and correct income were not considered-Criminal prosecution initiated against petitioner could not be quashed- SLP filed against impugned order of High Court was dismissed [S. 139(1) 148, 153A, 276C, Art. 136]

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Willful attempt to evade tax-Set off of short term capital loss against long term capital gains- Search-Revised return-Delayed payment of tax as revised return was filed after search was conducted on assessee and merely because claims of deductions were not accepted or were not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not amount to wilful evasion of tax and accordingly, proceedings pending before Special Court against assessee were quashed-SLP filed by revenue was dismissed [S. 139, Art. 136]

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Tax deducted at source could not be remitted to Central Government within time due to delay in grant of fee reimbursement by State Government-Reasonable cause-High Court quashed the criminal prosecution- SLP of revenue dismissed. [S.201(1)(a),278AA, 279, Art. 136]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-None of the relevant columns have been indicated nor have the irrelevant columns been struck off- Appeal of assessee was allowed-Order of Tribunal affirming the penalty was quashed and set aside. [S.260A, 274]

S. 269ST : Mode of undertaking transactions -Cash payment- Redevelopment of immovable property-Defendant, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground of statutory violation, is misconceived, as the same fails to establish any express legal prohibition that would preclude the Court from adjudicating the instant claim for recovery.[S.269ST(b), 271DA, 273B, Indian Contract Act, 1872, S.2(h), 10, 23]

S. 268A : Appeal- Instructions-Where monetary limit for filing appeals by revenue before High Court had been enhanced to Rs. 2 crores vide circular dated 17-09-2024 and tax liability of assessee was less than Rs. 2 crores- Appeal of revenue dismissed due to monetary limits.[S. 260A]

S. 264 :Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Unexplained money-Non -Resident-Cash deposit in bank-Non -service of notice-Order passed under section 264 was quashed and set aside and matter was to be remanded to Commissioner to pass a fresh order after considering facts of case and submissions of assessee that assessment order was passed on basis of notice never served.[S. 69A, 144, 147, 148, Art. 226]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Unexplained investments-Unaccounted cash sales-Assessing Officer had duly examined issue of unaccounted cash sales during assessment proceedings -Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order passed by the Commissioner is affirmed. [S.69C 143(3), 260A, 263, Explanation 2.]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credit-Order of High Court quashing the revision order was affirmed-SLP of revenue dismissed.[S. 68, Art. 136]