S. 278AA : Offences and prosecutions-Reasonable cause-For failure to deposit TDS-No punishment-Order of the Trial Court acquitted the respondents primarily on the ground that the respondents had satisfactorily demonstrated the existence of a ‘reasonable cause’ for the delay in depositing TDS, within the meaning of section 278AA-High Court affirmed. [S.201(IA), 234E, 276B, 278E, 279 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 378(4)]

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Willful attempt to evade tax-Bailable nature-Magistrate had mechanically passed order issuing non-bailable warrant against petitioner in a bailable offence-Order was quashed and set aside. [S. 276(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 428, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 S. 528]

S. 271E : Penalty-Repayment of loan or deposit-Reasonable cause had been shown by assessee for non-compliance with provisions contained in section 269T and transaction was genuine and bona fide, assessee was not liable to pay penalty under section 271E for non-compliance of section 269T. [S. 269T, 273B]

S. 268A : Appeal-Application-Instructions-Tax effect of losses of earlier years which were not permitted to be carried forward was not to be taken into account to determine overall tax effect for purpose of filing appeal by revenue. [S.260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Property held for charitable purposes-Since there was no discussion or finding on 34 questions raised under section 142(1), Assessing Officer should be taken as having accepted assessee’s explanation-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 11,12, 142(1), 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Lease hold improvements at its leasehold office premises-100 percent deprecaiation-Temporary erection-Assessing Officer had not examined nor applied his mind in respect of available rate of depreciation on leasehold improvements, granting said depreciation was erroneous prejudicial to interest of revenue-.Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 32, 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-share capital-Share premium-Principal Commissioner had to examine all records pertaining to assessment year at time of examination by him, which included, post-search assessment proceedings and thereafter only if he found that order passed by Assessing Officer on any issue was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to interest of revenue-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order was affirmed-SLP of revenue was dismissed as the revenue court not explain the delay of 646 days in filing SLP. [S. 68, 153A, Art. 136]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Tribunal statutorily obliged to consider appeals on merits-Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits of appeal is legally unsustainable.[S. 10B, 260A]

S. 254(1): : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Delay of six to seven years-Negligence of counsel-Ex-parte order was passed by the CIT(A)-Assessee was aware of negligence of counsel-Appeal was dismissed as time barred-Order of Tribunal affirmed.[S. 253(1), 260A]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Delay of 166 days-On SLP court held that the Tribunal and High Court ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach by condoning delay of 166 days. Accordingly the orders were to be set aside by condoning delay in preferring appeal and Tribunal was to decide appeal in accordance with law. [S. 253(1), 260A, Art. 136]