S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Mistake of Tax Practitioner – Human error – Reasonable cause – Penalty deleted.

S. 254(2A):Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Recovery-It is painful to note that the Dept officials in order to achieve targets at the close of the FY not only are tempted to ignore the principles of law and natural justice but cross their limits, in complete violation of the orders issued by judicial authorities. They are pressurised by higher officials to do so and they have to choose the lesser risky option of the two i.e. either to face the departmental action for not achieving targets or to face contempt proceedings. They choose the later option because perhaps they think that courts will not opt for strict view in case the amount coercively recovered is refunded after passing of the cut off date i.e. 31st March, and an apology tendered to the Court. [ S 226,254(1) ]

S. 147: Reassessment- If the reopening is based on information received from the investigation dept, the reasons must show that the AO independently applied his mind to the information and formed his own opinion. If the reopening is done mechanically, it is void. Also, if the reasons refer to any document, a copy should be provided to the assessee. Failure to do so results in breach of natural justice and renders the reopening void.[ S.148 ]

S. 80 : Return for losses – Unabsorbed depreciation and carried forward losses – A return filed u/s 153A is deemed to be a return filed u/s 139(1). Accordingly, the restrictive provisions of S. 80 do not apply. The return u/s 153A, once accepted and assessed, replaces the original return filed u/s 139. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for carry forward business loss [ S.139(1), 153A ]

S. 45: Capital gains- Argument that the allotment of shares by the assessee’s holding co to foreign investors at huge valuation results in a “transfer”/ “indirect transfer” of the assessee’s assets to the foreign investors is not correct. Argument that a multi layered holding structure was deliberately created to avoid taxes in India and to conceal the information about the ultimate beneficiaries is also not correct [ S.2 (47), 48 ]

S. 44C: Non-residents – Head office expenditure -A non- resident assessee is entitled to claim deduction of an amount equal to 5% of the adjusted total income as expenditure in the nature of Head Office (HO) Expenses. The fact that the expenses are not debited in the Profit & loss account or the books of account is irrelevant. The entries in the books of account are not conclusive [ S.145 ]

S.23: Income from house property –Annual value – The assessee has the option to claim as self occupied property which is more beneficial to him [ S.22 ]

S. 9(1)(i):Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection -Subsidiary of a foreign company constitutes “business connection” and/ or “fixed Permanent Establishment” and/or “Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment” of assessee in India-Held No , (b) whether any attributes of profits on account of signing, network planning and negotiation of off-shore supply contracts in India could be attributed to such business connection/ permanent establishment -Held No and (c) whether notional interest on delayed consideration of supply of equipment and licensing of software taxable in the hands of assessee as interest from vendor financing- Held No -DTAA- India –Finland –Majoriy view is in favour of the assesee. [ Art .5, 7 ]

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Interpretation of taxing statutes to be construed harmoniously with object of statute.

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Income -tax -General principles -Taxing provisions must be construed strictly so that no person who is otherwise not liable to pay tax , be liable to pay tax .