S. 254(2):Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Excessive delay by the Tribunal in passing judgement shakes the confidence of the litigants. orders have to be passed invariably within three months of the completion of hearing of the case. The delay is incurable. Even administrative clearance cannot cure the delay. Such decisions rendered after 3 months reflect a mistake apparent from the record and have to be recalled and the appeals heard afresh .[ R.34(5)]

S.249:Appeal -Commissioner (Appeals) – Form of appeal and limitation – e. filing of appeals before CIT(A) w.e.f.1-04-2016- Appeal filed in paper format should be permitted to make good the defeat and file an appeal electronically- Appeal cannot be rejected on technical grounds. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned and CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue on merits. [ R.45 ]

S.237: Refund -Refund of excess self-assessment tax —No power to condone the delay – Court cannot extend the date-Rejection of application was held to be justified . [S.119(2))b) 239 , Limitation Act , 1963 , S.5 ]

S. 225 : Collection and recovery – Stay -Appel pending before CIT(A)- Stay was granted by depositing part of demand .

S. 158BD : Block assessment – Undisclosed income of any other person -Recording of satisfaction can be done even after assessment of person searched , however must be recorded with in reasonable time. Recording of satisfaction was done after nine months after assessment of person searched is held to be bad in law. [ S.158BC ]

S.147: Reassessment — Change of opinion-Un explained investment -Reasons not recorded -Reassessment on the basis of report of departmental Valuer is held to be bad in law . [ S.148 ]

S.147: Reassessment —Reopening of assessment based on assessment of subsequent assessment Year without any new material is found ,reassessment was not valid. [ S. 80IA, 148 ]

S. 80IC : Special category States -Interest earned on fixed deposit maintained with bank for obtaining bank guarantee is not derived from business hence not entitle to deduction . [ S.2(13),80HH, 263 ]

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases-100% disallowance is confirmed-The right of cross-examination is not absolute. No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of cross examination if the assessee has not discharged the primary onus. The fact that purchase bills are produced and payment is made through banking channels is not sufficient if the other evidence is lacking.

S. 68:Cash credits- Share capital- Mere submission of name & address, Balance Sheet & bank statement of the subscribers is not sufficient to discharge the onus. The assessee has to justify the allotment of shares to outsiders at exorbitant premium with cogent material and not bald statements. Addition is held to be justified. [S.56(2)(viib) , 2(24)(xvi) ]