S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection -Capital gains – Sale of shares- DTAA-India – Spain [ Art .14(6) ]

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Share holder-Can be assessed only in hands of a person who is a share holder of company and not in hands of a person other than a share holder . [ S.2(32) ]

S. 254(2):Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Failure to deal with an argument does not constitute a ‘mistake apparent from the record’ does not apply to a case where a fundamental submission is omitted to be considered by the ITAT- The omission is apparent from the record and should be rectified by the ITAT .The Tribunal ought to have decided the issue of the character of distribution fees, whether royalty or not, as all the facts were available on record before it and the submissions also were made, rather than remanding the issue to the Transfer Pricing Officer. .

S. 147:Reassessment- With in four years-Intimation- Wrong recording of reasons – order on disposal of objections must deal with the objection- The mere fact that the return is processed u/s 143(1) does not give the AO a carte blanche to issue a reopening notice-.Reassessment notice is quashed [ S.143(1), 148 ]

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Bogus sales and purchases – Dealer in iron and steel- If the AO disallowed 2.5% of alleged bogus purchases during the regular assessment-Reassessment to disallow entire amount is said to be bad in law- There is difference between revisional powers and reassessment . [ S. 68, 69 148, 263 ]

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Final order passed by the AO which was sought to be corrected by issue of corrigendum – Time to pass draft assessment order had expired – Order passed was without jurisdiction.[ S.92C, 153A(2A) ]

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Finding in case of another assessee- No failure to disclose material facts – Reassessment is not valid. [ S. 80IB(10),148 ]

S. 153D : Assessment – Search – Approval – Question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time- Casual and mechanical manner without application of mind – Order is bad in law [ S.143(3),153C ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Capital gains- Two views possible and also when an appeal is pending before the CIT(A) on particular issue , Commissioner has no power to revise the order regarding that issue – Court also held that , since the matter has been pending for a quite long number of years and there has been repeated orders of assessment , the Court directed the AO to give effect to the of reassessment dt 31-12-2009 , wherein the AO has granted the benefit of S.54F of the Act . [ S.45,54, 54F , 263(1)(c) ]

S. 245D : Settlement Commission – When the Settlement commission passed the order following due process of law – The order passed by the Settlement Commission does not require interference. Department cannot be said to be aggrieved by such order Revenue cannot compel the Settlement Commission to reopen the earlier years by passing rectification order- Petition is dismissed .[S. 154, 245C,245D(4),245HA, Art .226 ]