S. 2(22)(e):Dividend – Reassessment – Deemed dividend-Deferred liability —Not Shareholder of lender company — Loan not assessable as deemed dividend [ S.147 , 148 ]

Securities Transaction Tax ( STT) -Finance Act, 2004

S.105: Penalty for non collection and non -deposit of STT- Imposition of penalty is not automatic- Deletion of penalty is held to be justified .[ S.100 , 108 ]

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions – Failure to furnish return of income – Failure to file return- Prior approval of CCIT was sought by CIT before passing the sanction order u/s 279- Prosecution is held to be not maintainable [ S.133A, 139(1), 142(10, 153, 278E, 279, Criminal Procedure Code, 200 ]

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax – Delay in payment of tax and filing of return – Delay in handing over books of account- Criminal proceeding is held to be clear abuse of process of law – Proceedings pending before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was quashed . [ S.132 , 276(2)]

S.271D: Penalty – Takes or accepts any loan or deposit -Dairy seized – Deletion of penalty is held to be valid [ S.132 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Penny stock- Capital gains- Order passed in haste and without proper enquiry can be revised – PCIT can not conclude the issue and direct the Assessing Officer to decide it in a particular manner [ S.45 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Rejection of books of account – Revision order directing the Assessing Officer to make addition u/s 68 or 41 is held to be not valid [ S.41, 68, 145(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Assessment – Limited scrutiny case – Commissioner cannot exercise the power to look in to any issue which the Assessing Officer Could not look at [ S.50C(2),56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), 143(3)]

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Limitation of six months- Tribunal does not have the power to condone the delay – High court has the power to condone the delay- Tribunal is bound to dispose the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee or its counsel – Dismissal of appeal for prosecution is resulted in a failure of justice . [ S.144C , 254(1) , ITAT, R. 24 , Art ,226, 227 ]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Oral application – Subject matter of appeal – Order passed by the ITAT suffered from perversity in so far as it refused to allow the assessee to urge the grounds by way of an oral application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules – Matter remanded back before the ITAT with a direction to hear the matter afresh by allowing the assessee to raise the additional grounds [ S.153C, ITAT Rules , R.27 ]