Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.

S.2(9) (a): Benami – No Procedure For Declaring Property Benami under Act of 1988 — Amendment Act not made retrospective — Prosecution in respect of Transaction In 2011 is held to be not valid [ Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, 3 , 5 , 8, General Clauses Act, 1897 S.6 (c ) ]

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax – The pendency of assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to institution of prosecution – Framing the charge is held to be valid [ S .(2(16) 116 , 277 , 279 Constitution of India , Art , 13 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.245(2), Indian Penal Code , 1860 , S 120B , 193, 199 ]
.

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Inadvertent error- Failure to disallow the unpaid interest – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified .[ S.43B( e ) ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Export business- No proper bifurcation of direct and indirect cost -Revision is held to be valid [ S.80HHC , 260A ]

S. 147 : Reassessment -Audit objection – Depreciation- -Business or commercial rights of similar nature – Notice of reassessment based solely on audit objection is held to be not valid. [ S. 32 , 148 ]

S.147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Cash credits – Share premium – Accommodation entries- Subsequent discovery that the transaction was with a name Lender — Notice of reassessment is held to be valid. [ S.68 148 ]

S.147: Reassessment — With in four years – Industrial undertaking – Change of opinion -Issue discussed in original assessment proceedings and disallowed portion of the claim – Reassessment is not valid [ S .80IA , 143(3) , 148 , 263 ]

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Share premium- No failure to disclose material facts- Reassessment notice on mere surmise that the assessee had received amounts as share premium is held to be not valid .[ S.148 ]

S.143(3): Assessment – Estimation of rate of gross profit- Direction of the Tribunal – AO has followed the direction of Appellate Tribunal – Addition made by the AO is held to be valid . [ S.132 , 158BC, 254(1) ]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Comparable uncontrolled price method- The arm’s length price determined was not in excess of the invoice price by more than 5 per cent. The price fixed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was justified . [ S. 92A, 92B ]