S. 237 : Refunds–Adjustment of refund-Claim for refund was rejected on ground that amount of refund had been adjusted against tax demand relating to subsequent assessment years, in view of fact that notice of demand under section 156 for subsequent years was never served on assessee, impugned order was to be set aside and a direction was to be issued to grant refund to assessee along with applicable rate of interest – Cost of Rs 1.50 lakhs was levied on the revenue with in four weeks by the Officers from their salaries – Superiors should enter their Annual confidential Reports these lapses and errors–Superiors must initiate the requisite steps and if they include denial of nay promotional or monetary benefits to such officials, then, even such steps and measures be initiated in accordance with law-That is the minimal expectation of this Court. [S. 156]

S. 158BA : Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Expenses or payments not deductible–Excessive or unreasonable-Commission payment-Reflected in its books filed along with its return of income which was subjected to normal assessment, impugned addition was unjustified. [S. 40A(2)]

S. 158BA : Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Sale consideration- Security deposit was not offered to tax on the ground that there was no provision in agreement enabling buyer to refund any part of sale consideration -Buyer treated amount paid as stock-in-trade- Addition is held to be justified. [S. 68]

S. 145 : Method of accounting Search-Statement on oath- Method of accounting- Estimation of income- Manufacturing of Jewellery and in trading of Gemsstones – Bogus purchase bills -Average gross profit – Tribunal deleted the addition- Court held that ,since average gross profit (GP) rate in assessee’s industry was 12 per cent, wherever profit of assessee was more than 12 per cent, same would not be refunded to assessee but where it was less than 12 per cent, income would be assessed on basis of 12 per cent. [S. 153A]

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel -Order passed by DRP must contain discussion of facts and independent findings on those facts by DRP; mere extraction of rival contentions will not satisfy requirement of consideration-Matter remanded. [S. 92C]

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel–Remand- Direction by the ITAT to AO/TPO to undertake a fresh exercise of determination of Arm’s length price -Failure to pass draft assessment order would violative of S.144C(1) hence bad in law -Not curable defects. [S. 92C, 153(2A), 254(1), 292B]

S. 139 : Return-Processing of return-Refund-Return filed by assessee had been forwarded to CPC by Assessing Officer-In such circumstances, CPC should take a decision as regards computation in 4 weeks-Not the Assessing Officer. [S. 237]

S. 132 : Search and seizure-Illegal search-Karta of HUF had initiated litigation against alleged illegal search action of department on HUF at relevant time, a member of HUF individually could not restart same litigation long many years after cause of action had arisen. [S. 158BC, Art. 226]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Adjustment of interest-Foreign subsidiary-Corporate guarantee-Loan to Associated Enterprises- Delay in realizing sale proceeds from Associated Enterprises – Adjustment should be made at average LIBOR rate existing at that time, i.e., at 0.79 per cent, instead of LIBOR +2 per cent. [S. 92B]

S. 69C : Un explained expenditure-Cash payments-Slips found during search-Since there was no material to substantiate assumption that slips denoted amounts outside cash book of assessee, addition was held to be not justified. [S. 132]