S. 269UD : Purchase by Central Government of immoveable properties–Auction process is conducted bona fide and in public interest-Appellant given several opportunities to bid in fresh auction conducted but not doing so-Sale Confirmed in favour of fresh buyer-No arbitrariness.

S. 268A : Appeal–Monetary limit-Appeal dismissed as withdrawn [S. 260A]

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders–Rejection revised return and rectification application-Delay in filing revision application-Directed to condone the delay-CIT is directed to decide on merit. [S. 139(5), 143(1), 154, Art. 264]

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders–husband’s ill health-Transactions in immoveable properties–Unexplained money-Matter remanded for readjudication. [S. 69A, 143(3), Art. 226]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Loan-Unclaimed money–Detailed enquiries were made in the assessment proceedings-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 68, 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Payments made to charitable institutions and expenditure towards execution of property–Rightly allowed as deduction by the AO-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 45, 48. 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Addition to fixed assets–Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act-Enquiries done by the AO in the original assessment proceedings-Revision is held to be bad in law. [S. 14A, R. 8D]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Introduction of capital-Loan from brother–NRI for two years-after detailed the AO has accepted the capital and loan as genuine-Revision is held to be not justified. [S. 69A]

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court–Monetary limits–Pendency of appeals-No cascading effect nor issue involved in group matters-Appeals of department is dismissed–Question is kept open. [S. 268A]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal–Rectification of mistake apparent on record-Where the issue before the Tribunal was of allowability of deduction, it was incorrect to remand the matter with a direction to apply transfer price provisions-AO had already passed the order, pursuant to such remand, and deleted the addition accordingly the writ petition had become academic. [S. 36(1)(iii), S. 92C, 254(1), Art. 226]