S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal-Procedure-Functions-Conflict of interest-CIT-DR is not empowered to file additional grounds of appeal or miscellaneous application including application raising preliminary objection without consent of Assessing Officer-Application of CIT-DR alleging ‘conflict of interest’ was frivolous and mischievous-Department is advised to provide proper training to him before assigning him to a judicial forum-Tribunal is not right place to disqualify a lawyer or law firm as a regulatory measure; such matters could be dealt with by appropriate bodies like Bar Council of India (BCI).[S. 253]

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Attachment of fixed deposit by ED as well as Income-tax Authorities-Till attachment would continue assessee would not be required to pay any further payment and stay was to be granted-In event attachment of bank accounts as vacated or revoked or disturbed or modified, assessee shall deposit 20 per cent of outstanding liability [S. 254(1), 281B]

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Non-consideration of decision of High Court or Supreme Court could said to be a mistake which could be rectified-Employees’ contribution to superannuation fund was deposited after due date-Rectification of Revenue is allowed.[S. 36(1)(va), 43B]

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay of demand-Calculation of 20 per cent outstanding-TDS deducted must be considered.[S. 156, 254(1)]

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Consideration above 50 lakhs-Failure to deduct tax at source and failure to file Form No 26A-Interest is leviable.[S.194IA, 201(1), 201(IA)]

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-Transfer of business-Transfer of income-TDS credit TDS credit cannot not be denied merely because credit of TDS didn’t reflect in Form 26AS of assessee. [Rule 37BA(2), Form 26AS]

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Business expenses-Sales promotion expenses-Debatable issue- Rectification is held to be not justified.[S. 37 (1)]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Share capital-Accommodation entry-Merely following the opinion by investigation wing-Reassessment order is quashed. [S. 68, 148, 151]

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Infrastructure development project-Project development fee received is to be apportioned over period of project-Entire fee can not be taxed during year specifically when fees apportioned to subsequent years was returned to tax by assessee in said years. [S. 4]

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Document Identification Number (DIN)-Final assessment order manually without DIN, assessment order was to be treated as never been issued.