S. 143(3): Assessment-Income from undisclosed sources-Investment in immovable property-Books of account-Matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer-Failure to comply with notices, directed to pay cost of Rs.10000, to the Adyar Cancer Institute Chennai-Addition on the basis of stamp valuation is affirmed. [S. 56(2) (viib), 56(2) (x) (b)(B), 69A, Art. 226]

S. 139 : Return of income-Condonation of delay-Reasonable cause Illness of spouse of chartered accountant-Delay is properly explained-Delay is condoned-Order of PCIT is rejecting the application is seta side [S.119(2)(b), Art. 226]

S. 132 : Search and seizure-Reason to believe-Single Judge failed to examine contentions of malafides, highhandedness and oppressive behavior during the course of search-Matter is remanded for reconsideration-Necessary to examine if there has been acquiescence on the part of assessee in which event the non furnishing of reasons pales in to insignificance ; enquiry was not made by the single judge-Denial of timely medical treatment would constitute infringement of the right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India-Matter is remanded for reconsideration–Recording of satisfaction-Single judge has erred in generalizing the challenge to notices under section 153C issued to 12 entities on the basis of satisfaction note for a single entity nor the single judge applied the principle in CIT v. Sinhagad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344/297 CTR 441. 156 DTR 161 (SC), wherein the court held that the seized material must be pertain to relevant assessments years in question-Matter remanded for reconsideration-Transfer of case-Non communication of orders-It may be necessary to examine if there has been acquienscence on the part of the assessee in which event the non furnishing of reasons pales in to insignificance ; above enquiry was apparently not made by the single judge, matter is remanded for reconsideration-Handing over of seized material-Incriminating material-Order of the single Judge in sofar as it finds that even in the absence of seized material being handed over to the AO, the AO is under a mandate to issue notice under S.153A is required to be re-examined in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in PCIT v. Ahisar Buildwel (P) Ltd (2023)454 ITR 212/ 332 CTR 729/ 225 DTR 497 (SC)-Matter remanded.[S. 127,132(1) 132(9A), 153A, 153C, 281B, 292B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Rule 112, Art. 20, 21,32, 226, 265]

S. 132 : Search and seizure-Validity-Reason to believe-Recorded reason does not disclose any information-Search action is under quashed and set aside.[R. 112(2),Art. 226]

S. 80G : Donation-No failure to meet aims and objects-Exemption was granted for earlier years-No specific finding recorded by Commissioner(E) that assessee had failed to meet out its aims and objects and that funds received by assessee-society had been utilised for any profit, personal gains or any other purposes-Order passed by Commissioner(E) is set aside and matter is remanded back for reconsideration. [S. 12, 12A,12AA, 800G(5)(vi), Art. 226, Form No 10G]

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application money-Failure to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investor entities-Tribunal without examining facts in depth deleting addition-Order is perverse-Order Of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding addition is restored. [S. 260A]

S. 10A : Free trade zone-Profits and gains derived from export oriented undertaking— Interest income-Short term fixed deposits-Matter remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer.[S.28((i), 56, Art. 136]

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Approval by prescribed authority-Object is not found existed solely for advancing educational purposes-Denial of exemption is justified. [S. 10(23C)(vi), Art. 226]

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent Establishment-Apportionment of income-Where an assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India, it would be liable to pay tax on income attributable to that PE notwithstanding that assessee at an entity level had suffered a loss-DTAA-India-UAE. [Art. 7(1), 7(2)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Share capital-Share premium-Facts examined by Assessing Officer-Not a case of no enquiry or lack of enquiry 1Order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interests of revenue-Revision order is set aside-Revision jurisdiction cannot be exercised on same issue for second time. [S. 68, 133(6), 143(3)]