S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Unsigned notice – Order is bad in law- Notice and order was quashed . [ S. 147, 148 292B, Art , 14, 226 ]

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Civil Contractor engaged in civil construction contracts- Purchases from suspicious dealers – Official websites of the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra -Bogus purchases -Books of account not rejected – Opportunity for cross examination was not provided – Purchases through banking channels- Deletion of addition is upheld [ S.133(6), 143(3)]

S. 279: Offences and prosecutions – Sanction – Chief Commissioner – Commissioner – Compounding can be done beyond a period of 12 months – Guidelines contrary to the Act – Rejection of Compounding Application Quashed.[ S. 192 , Art , 226 ]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Addition based on stamp valuation – Deeming section – Levy of penalty is not valid .[ S. 56(2)(x) ]

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions – Failure to pay the tax deducted at source – Application failed to disclose same offences in earlier years – Rejection of compounding application is held to be valid [ Art, 226 ]

143(2): Assessment – Notice – Amalgamation -Notice issued in the name of a non-existing entity is bad in law where the assessee had intimated the Department regarding such change – Decisions are to be read in the context in which they are rendered. [ S. 143(3), 292BB ]

S. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay – Earlier order was set aside by the Tribunal -Department appeal is pending for hearing – Order of Tribunal not stayed – Order holding that the assessee in default for latter year following the order of earlier year was quashed – Order of Tribunal is binding on the Assessing Officer – Order treating the assessee in default was quashed . [S. 260A, Art , 226 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest expenditure-One Time Settlement (‘OTS’)-Write off of interest receivable-Order was passed after making enquiry-Prior to the insertion of Explanation 2-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order was affirmed. [S. 36(1)(iii), 36(1)(vii), 143((3), 260A]

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Ex-parte order on merits-Change of address-Gross negligent on the part of the appellant-One more opportunity is granted to the Appellant-Directed to pay cost of Rs. 25,000. [S. 254(1)]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Accommodation entries-Bogus purchases-Evidences/statements collected from the accommodation entry provider has not been provided, ITAT has not even dealt with that objection-Order of Jurisdictional High Court-Order of Tribunal set aside. [Art. 226]