S. 10(38) : Long term capital gains from equities -Penny stocks – Produced contract notes, demat statements etc & discharged the onus of proving that the shares were bought and sold -Merely relying upon the statement of investigation wing , the transaction cannot be treated as bogus- Denial of exemption is held to be not valid – Reassessment is held to be valid . [ S.45 , 68 147 ,148 ]

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Deeming provision should be construed strictly- Advances given for purely temporary financial accommodation for business purposes does not attract the deeming fiction.

S.147: Reassessment- After the expiry of four years- Bogus capital gains- Penny stocks- Information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department- The assessee disclosed the primary facts to the AO & also explained the queries put by the AO- It cannot be said that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment- Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S. 45 , 148 ]

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Change of opinion -Book profit- The reasons in support of the notice is the very issue in respect of which the AO had raised a query during the assessment proceedings-The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order amounts to the AO accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion- Reassessment on a mere change of opinion and would be completely without jurisdiction [ S.115JB , 148, Companies Act , 1956 , S.211(6) ]

S.260A :Appeal -High Court – Substantial question of law- High court is directed to consider the substantial question of law at the time of final hearing of appeal in respect of questions which was not pressed at the time of admission of appeal. [ S. 10A, 260A (4) , 261 ]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties -Penalty -Concealment of income – An appellate authority has to decide all the issues , it cannot decide only one issue and decline to go other issues raised before him- Deletion of penalty is held to be valid . [ S. 271(1) (c ) , Indian Income -tax Act ,1922, S .28(i) ( c) ]

9.S.69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – Failure to produce lorry receipts and movement of goods – Mere reliance by the AO on information obtained from the Sales Tax department or the statements of two persons made before the Sales Tax Department would not be sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus – Burden is on revenue to prove that the transaction is not genuine- Deletion of addition is held to be justified . [S.133(6) ]