S. 10(20): Local authority – New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) is not local authority – Hence is not exempted from payment of income-tax under S. 10(20) and S.10(20A) . Followed , New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) v. CCIT ( 2018) 95 taxmann.com 58/ 303 CTR 448 / 168 DTR 48 (SC)

S. 194A : Deduction at source – Interest other than interest on securities- NOIDA and Greater NOIDA are covered by the notification No .S.O. 3489 dt 22nd oct, 1970 -Interest received by them is exempt [ S.194A(3) (iii) (f) ]

S. 194A : Deduction at source – Interest other than interest on securities- NOIDA and Greater NOIDA are covered by the notification No .S.O. 3489 dt 22nd oct, 1970 -Interest received by them is exempt-Bank is not liable to deduct tax at source . [ S.194A(3) (iii) (f) ]

S. 271(1)(c):Penalty –Concealment -The AO cannot initiate penalty on the charge of ‘concealment of particulars of income’, but ultimately find the assessee guilty in the penalty order of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’ (and vice versa). In the same manner, he cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by using slash between the two expressions. Such error is not procedural but goes to the root of the matter and is not saved by S. 292B. The error renders the penalty order unsustainable in law [ S.292B ]

S. 260A:Appeal- High Court-Strictures passed against the revenue for not following the assurance given earlier – Court observed that “ We are pained at this attitude on the part of the State to obtain orders of admission on pure questions of law by not pointing out that an identical question was considered by this Court earlier and dismissed by speaking order. Revenue has not carried out the assurance which was made earlier. Revenue should give proper explanation why assurance given earlier is not being followed. It is time responsibility is fixed and the casual approach of the Revenue in prosecuting its appeals is stopped”

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default -Stay – CBDT’s OMs dated 29.02.2016 & 31.07.2017 by which AO’s have been directed to grant stay of disputed demand on payment of 20%/ 15% does not fetter the power of the AO & CIT to grant stay on payment of amounts lesser than 15%/ 20%. The AO/ CIT have to deal with the prima facie merits and give reasons for rejection of the stay application.

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice -If the AO reopens the assessment by obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Additional Commissioner of Income -tax, there is a breach of S. 151 which renders the reopening void [ S.147, 148 ]

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration- Stamp valuation-If the assessee has invested the entire sale consideration in new house property, the capital gains are exempt u/s 54F. The AO cannot apply s. 50C and treat the stamp duty valuation as the consideration and assess the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the actual valuation to capital gains.[ S.54F ]

S. 45: capital gains- Bogus capital gains from penny stocks-In order to treat the capital gains from penny stocks as bogus, the Dept has to show that there is a scam and that the assessee is part of the scam. The chain of events and the live link of the assesee’s action giving her involvement in the scam should be established. The Dept cannot rely on alleged modus operandi & human behavior and disregard the evidence produced by the assessee.[ S.48 ]

S. 45: Capital gains- Bogus long-term gains from penny stocks-The transaction cannot be treated as bogus until and unless a finding is given that the shares were acquired by the assessee from the person other than the broker claimed by the assessee. The enquiry conducted by the Investigation Indore is not a conclusive finding of fact in view of the fact that the shares were duly materialized & held in the d-mat account. Merely supplying of statement to the assessee at the fag end of the assessment proceedings is not sufficient to meet the requirement of giving an opportunity to cross examine. The AO cannot proceed on suspicion without any material evidence to controvert or disprove the evidence produced by the assessee. [S.10(38)]