S. 245 : Refunds-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-AO cannot deviate the mandate of the S.245–Adjustment of refund is held to be bad in law-Department is directed refund the refund.

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate–Alternative remedy – Revision would be futile/academic in nature-Writ is maintainable. [S. 201(1), 201(IA), 264, Art.226]

S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services–Tax deducted at source as contractor–Demand is raised for short deduction of tax at source–Order passed without following the principle of natural justice–Order set aside . [S.194C, 201(1), 201(IA)]

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Natural justice-Order passed enhancing the tax liability, without giving an opportunity of hearing is quashed. [S. 80P, 155, 251, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Notice issued beyond six years from the end of relevant AY.2009-10-Limitation-Reopened based on the subsequent decision of the Appellate Tribunal–The limitation of six years under S. 149, must be alive on the date of passing of the order of CIT(A). In the present case since, as on 05.10.2011, the time limit for reopening of assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 had not lapsed, the order of the ITAT was well within the limitation- Notice of reassessment is valid -Petition is dismissed. [S. 80IC, 148, 150, 254(1), Art.226 ]

S. 147 : Reassessment–The stay is operating against passing of the final assessment order -Stay the assessment proceedings is dismissed. [S. 143(2), 148, 158BC, Art.226]

S. 143(2) : Assessment-Notice-Notice under S.143(2) of the Income Tax Act was never issued to the Assessee before initiating of proceedings under Section 158 BC of the Income Tax Act- Order is held to be bad in law. [S. 158BB, 158BC, 260A]

S. 139D : Return in electronic form–No provision for filing manual return- Setoff of carried forward loss-Directed to make representation to CBDT-The issue raised by the petitioner does not appear to be an issue only in an individual case, but may affect the whole body of the assessees’ (whose claim may not fit in the prescribed proforma). Thus, a clarification on this issue by the CBDT may be beneficial to the entire body of assessee, in fact, who seek to make a claim which according to them, the prescribed proforma does not provide for. [S. 50, 71, 72, 119, 139(1), 139(9), Art.226]

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases–Mumbai to Pune-Violation of natural justice–Various statements referred by the PCIT was neither provided to the petitioner nor referred in the show cause notice-As the principle of natural justice is violated–Transfer order is quashed.

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Interest adjusted against project expenditure-AO putting specific question and accepting the explanation-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 145]