S. 194C : Deduction at source-Contractors-Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges-Not rent-Tribunal held that the assesseee rightly deducted tax at rate of 2 percent and rate of 10 percent as alleged by the Assessing Officer cannot be applied-High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal.[S.194I, 201(1), 201(IA), 260A]

S. 179 : Private company-Liability of directors-High Court held that ad. interim orders granted earlier could be confirmed if assessee would deposit 50% of demanded amount with department within eight weeks of today and if no such deposit was made within eight weeks of today, this interim order would stand vacated without further reference to this Court-Against the order of High Court the assessee filed SLP-Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. [Art. 136]

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Depreciation-Powers of appellate Authority-Merely because an appeal was filed before Appellate Authority or revision pending before Revisional Authority would not preclude Original Authority to rectify any mistake or error apparent from record under section 154 in respect of which either no order has been passed by Appellate/Revisional Authority or yet an order was to be passed.[S. 32, 250,251(ia),260A]

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Cash credits-Accommodation entries-Pen drive-Transaction pertaining to financial year 2014-15-Satisfaction note for the Assessment year 2021-22-Pendrive cannot be considered as incriminating documents for the AY. 2021-22-Notice was quashed.[S.68, 132, Art. 226]

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search and seizure-No incriminating material had been gathered or obtained-Satisfaction notes also failed to record any reasons as to how material discovered and pertaining to a particular Assessment Year was likely to have a bearing on determination of total income for year which was sought to be abated or reopened in terms of notices-SLP filed by revenue against the order of High Court was dismissed on ground of delay of 250,, 215 and 267 days as well as on merits.[S. 132, Art. 136]

S. 153B : Assessment-Search and seizure-Time limit-Satisfaction note-date was required to be considered as 24-6-2022-Period available for making an assessment pursuant to notice dated 19-12-2023 would lapse on expiry of twelve months from end of financial year in which documents were handed over, that is, on 31-3-2024-The notice was quashed and set aside.[S. 132, 153C, Art. 226]

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Beyond three years-Notice was not issued with prior approval of Principal Chief Commissioner or any other authority specified under section 151(ii) which was a mandatory requirement-Notice was quashed and set aside. [S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), 151(1), 151(ii), Art. 226]

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Amount involved is more than Rs. 50 lakhs-Approval has to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner as defined under section 151(ii)-Approval was obtained from Principal Commissioner in terms of section 151(i) and no approval was obtained before issuance of reopening notice in terms of provision of section 151(ii)-Reopening notice was quashed and set aside. [S. 148,149, 151(1), 151(ii), Art. 226]

S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Since only one day was available for issuance of notice, after giving opportunity of filing reply to assessee-Last date to issue notice as per judgment of Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal would be 12-6-2022-Notice under section 148 was issued on 15-7-2022-Notice dated 30-6-2021 was an invalid notice Notice dated 15-7-2022 as well as notice dated 30-6-2021was quashed and set aside. [S. 148,148A(b), 148A(d), Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). S.3, Art. 226]

S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Old regime-Notice dt 23-7 2022 seeking to reopen assessment for assessment year 2015-16-Following UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 301 Taxman 238/ 469 ITR 46 (SC) all notices issued on or after 1-4-2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during period prescribed under TOLA-Accordingly the notice and proceedings are quashed and set aside. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]