Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
S. 14 : Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process-Moratorium-Jurisdiction of NCLT-NCLT cannot exercise jurisdiction over every issue concerning corporate debtor simply because corporate debtor is in insolvency, it is only those issues which arise solely out of insolvency of corporate debtor that can be adjudicated upon by NCLT under section 60(5)(c) [S. 60(5), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S.60]

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Delay was due to crisis in company-No mala fide intention of evasion on part-Prosecution after a lapse of more than three years quashed. [S.133A]

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Delay was due to crisis in company-No mala fide intention-Prosecution after a lapse of more than three years High Court quashing-Delay of 239 days-SLP dismissed on Supreme Court Special leave petition dismissed on ground of delay. [Art. 136]

S.271D: Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Share application money-Not a loan or deposit-Penalty under section 271D/271E deleted..[S. 269SS, 269T, 271E]

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct TDS-Reasonable cause-Reliance on professional/legal opinions-Penalty deleted.[S. 201(1), 201(1A), 260A, 273B]

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Delay explained by searches/seizures-Quality of cause shown more important than length of delay. [S. 44AB, 132.]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Defective notice-Not specifying the charge-Concealment of income-Inaccurate particulars of income-Non-application of mind-Order of Tribunal quashing the penalty was affirmed.[S. 260A, 274]

S. 264: Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Long term capital gains-Objections of the assessee was not considered-Order was quashed and set aside-Matter remanded. [S. 45, 48, Art. 226]

S. 263 : Revision-New issue not in notice-Commissioner cannot revise on ground not raised in notice. [S. 40A(2)(b), 143(3), 260A]

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Substantial questions of law-No challenge to High Court order-Mistake of counsel-Counsel erroneously submitting that two of them covered against assessee by decision of Supreme Court-High Court disposing of appeal deciding third question alone in favour-Order of High Court set aside to enable restoration of appeal to High Court.[Art. 136]