Dy. CIT passed  an order under S 201 wherein it is held that the purchase of intellectual property was sale of an intellectual property (asset) situated in India liable to be taxed as capital gains. Assessee is treated as an assessee-in-default for non-deduction of tax. The assesee challenged the order by filing writ petition and one of the ground is order is barred by limitation relying the decision in DIT (IT)  v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2014) 270 CTR  105/ 106 DTR  337 (Bom) (HC). Dismissing the petition the Court held that  mixed question of fact and law involved, which is  within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to apply its mind and take an appropriate view of the matter by considering the materials, including examining the agreement on its merits and the legal status of the asset as available in the Indian market, by virtue of its registration and the applicability of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. The Court also  urged the learned ASG that in the larger interest of the officers of the Revenue and with a hope that such issues do not percolate in the orders being passed by the Officers of the Revenue, this concern needs to be taken up at the appropriate level of the Ministry, so that the limits of propriety, the tenor and language used by the officials in passing orders, and on understanding of the legal principles, is well inculcated in such officers, of the Revenue, by having regular training sessions. This more particularly, considering that such officers-in-discharge of their quasi-judicial powers are required to deal with legal issues, involving the applicability of the decisions rendered by different Courts. Court also observed that the Assessing Officers  were not to make such observations so as to indicate the righteous and solemn path which needs to be followed by the Officers in the course of statutory adjudication, we would have possibly failed in our duty as a Constitutional Court. (AY. 2020-21)