S.45: Capital gains – Suspicious transaction in shares- Penny stocks- Chain of transactions have been proved by evidence such as contract notes, DEMAT account , and payments through banking channel-Addition cannot be made as cash credits .[ S. 68 ]

S.45: Capital gains- Suspicious transaction in shares- Penny stocks- Sale through Ahmedabad Stock exchange – Statement of Mukesh Choksi relied without furnishing the same to the assessee- Addition is held to be not valid

S.45: Capital gains- Suspicious transaction in shares- Penny stocks- Purchases of earlier years were not doubted – Shares were sold through DEMAT account- Addition cannot be made as cash credits- Burden is on revenue .[ S.68 ]

S.69: Unexplained investments- AIR information- Firm purchasing the land in the name of partner – Addition cannot be made in the hands of the partner on the ground that PAN of partner is shown in the registration deed .

S.69: Unexplained investments- AIR information- Professional income shown by the assessee was exceeded the figure shown in the AIR information -Second owner- When the identity of first owner is established and assessed to tax – Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of AIR information.

Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 – Finance Act, 2016
S. 183 : Refund of tax- Adjustment of tax paid under the schme against tax payable on regular assessment -Tax in respect of voluntarily disclosed income not refundable –Application was rejected on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) was already issued – Revenue was to be directed to adjust amount which had been deposited by assessee for the tax liability for the Asst year 2014-15 . [ S.191 ]

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void – Property under attachment – Alternative remedy -Purchase of property is held to be void- If petitioner’s claim was that property was not liable for such attachment, then she had to make a claim before Tax Recovery Officer – Writ is not maintainable .[ Sch. II , R. 11, Art .226 ]

S. 261 : Appeal – Supreme Court –Strictures – Delay of 596 days- Misleading statement about pendency of similar appeal- Petition was dismissed – Awarded cost of Rs 10 lakhs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee .

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Issue not raised before Tribunal, could not be allowed to be urged before High Court in appeal- However, only an issue of jurisdiction would be allowed, even if same was not raised before Tribunal – Disallowance of expenditure in respect of strategic investment- Alternative claim was raised before the Court was that disallowance cannot be in excess of total exempt income – As the alternative claim was not raised before the Tribunal the High Court declined to entertain the claim [S.14A,254(1), R.8D ]

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –Failure to remove objections – Prothonotary and Senior Master is not a judicial Officer – He has no power to condone the delay – Application with a delay of 958 days seeking restoration of its appeal – Restructuring of office of department and thereupon shifting of files to new independent/dedicated Commissionerate – Dismissed the appeal by observing that revenue authorities failed to remove office objections within prescribed period and, moreover, explanation offered did not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such enormous delay, revenue’s application for restoration of appeal was to be declined .[Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule 986 of 1980 ]