S. 147: Reassessment – Capital gains -Penny stock alternative remedy – Reassessment notice was held to be valid [ S. 45,142(1), 148 , Art , 226 ]

S. 147: Reassessment –Reasons recorded – Cash credit- Accommodation entries-Sanction – Non-application of mind – Strictures – CBDT to formulate a Scheme to train officers for recording reasons – Commissioners to not to grant sanction in a mechanical manner – Reassessment proceedings was quashed [S. 148 , 151, Art , 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- When re-assessment proceedings to disallow brought forward loss were held to be without jurisdiction, High Court could not issue fresh directions to Assessing Officer to look into other grounds.[S.72 , Art , 226 ]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Depreciation – Total franchisee- Accrual basis – Cryptic order -Non application of mind – Order set aside and remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration .[ S. 32 , 43 , 43(5) 43B , 260A]

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Capital gains – Joint development – Failure to disclose the factum of handing over of possession of the property – Reassessment notice was held to be valid- Matter remanded to the Tribunal . [ S. 45, 148, 154(1) ]

S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice – Failure to issue notice – Assessment is held to be bad in law [ S. 132, 153A] S. 143(2) :

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Based on the information collected in the course of survey –Alternative remedy – Reassessment notice was held to be valid – Writ was dismissed . [ S.133A, 148 , Art , 226 ]

S. 10B: Export oriented undertakings – Period of tax holidays -Entitle to deduction for ten consecutive years from assessment year in which relief was first claimed and not when manufacture was commenced. [ S.10B(7) ]

The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
S. 2(1)(a): Appellant – Pendency of appeal – Appeal was filed along with condonation of delay – Wrongly equated with admission of appeal with pendency – Appeal would be pending as soon as it is filed and up until such time it is adjudicated upon and a decision is taken qua the same.- Order of rejection was held to be bad in law [ S. 3, 4(1) , Art , 226 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Capital gains- Investment in a residential house -More than two houses – Possible view – Revision order was held to be not valid [ S.54F]