S. 271(1)(c) Penalty-Concealment -“sale and lease back”- Quantum of revenue appeal was admitted and pending for final hearing – Merely using the words that there is concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not sufficient. The same should be particularized by the AO with a finding as to what particulars of income has been concealed or what particulars of income are inaccurate. The words ‘concealment’ or giving ‘inaccurate particulars of income’ have to be read strictly before penalty provisions can be invoked. [ S.32]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Land development expenditure-Explanation 2 to s. 263 inserted by the FA 2015 (which confers power upon the CIT to revise assessments where inadequate inquiries have been conducted by the AO) is prospective in nature and does not apply even to a case where the CIT passed the order after Explanation 2 came on the statute- Revision is held to be not valid unless the CIT demonstrate that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law .

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers -CIT (A) has no power to travel beyond the subject-matter of the assessment and is not entitled to assess new sources of income. In order for the CIT(A) to enhance, there must be something in the assessment order to show that the AO applied his mind to the particular subject-matter or the particular source of income with a view to its taxability or to its non-taxability and not to any incidental connection –Enhancement of long term capital gains on sale transaction was deleted . [ S.246A ]

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Income from Mushroom Cultivation as Agricultural Income. The ground that the petitioner had failed to disclose all the relevant material was not incorporated in the reasons supplied to the petitioner- Court directed the Counsel to furnish the compilation of judgments on reassessment proceedings to the Commissioner to study the same. Even for reopening the assessment with in four years there are certain jurisdictional requirements that must exist before the power of reassessment is exercised .Strictures passed against the AO for making comments which are highly objectionable and bordering on contempt and for being oblivious to law. [ S. 2(1A), 10(1),148 ]

S. 45:Capital gains- Alleged bogus Long-term capital gains- As neither the statement of Mr Mukhesh Choksi was provided to the assessee nor cross-examination was allowed and it was not even placed on record, the action of the AO in treating the LTCG and STCG as income from other sources was not warranted. [ S. 69 ]

S. 194C : Deduction at source – Contractors -Principal to principal basis – Manufacture or supply of a product according to requirement or specification of a customer by using material which is purchased from a person other than such customer is not liable to deduct tax at source .

S. 80GGC : Contribution – Political parties – Payment was made to newspaper for advertisement contending that newspaper was run by political party, matter remanded for verification whether it was donation to political party .

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses -Speculation losses-There is no bar in adjustment of unabsorbed business losses from speculation profit of current year, provided speculation losses earlier years has been first adjusted from speculation profit. [ S.71 , 73 ]

S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment – Service tax – Not deposited with Government before due date of filing of return – Disallowance was held to be justified [ S.139(1) ]

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Capital or revenue – Payment of spectrum charges to Department of Telecommunications on quarterly basis is held to be revenue expenditure.[ S.35BB ]