S. 28(iv) : Business income – Value of any benefit or perquisites – Converted in to money or not -Purchase of shares of a non-related company at a price less than fair value as it was a loss making concern cannot be assessed as benefit or perquisites . [ S.2(24 ) ]

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend-Non -Holding cumulative preference shares with fixed rate of dividend- Advance of loan cannot be assessed as deemed dividend .

S. 143(3) : Assessment – Assessment has to be framed as per provisions -Instruction No. 13 of 2006 would not override the provisions-Revised return claiming refund of tax deduction at source- Assessment order as framed by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the provisions of law and beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is beyond the time prescribed under the law and is illegal. Accordingly, the assessment is quashed. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the refund with interest as per law. [ S.119,143(2) ]

S. 254(2A):Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Arrest for recovery of arrears- It is a question of confinement of a person in jail due to non-payment of tax dues. Since the recovery of outstanding dues has been stayed except deposit of specified amount, the TRO is ordered to arrange for release of the assessee immediately on deposit of said amount. Income Tax Authorities are directed to promptly do the necessary formalities including issue of release warrant to the Jail officials on compliance of the directions of the Tribunal.

S. 254(2):Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Limitation-Delay of 4 months and 10 days -Though the Tribunal has no power u/s 254(2) to condone delay in filing the MA, the High Court has power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to do substantial justice by condoning the delay. Injustice was done to the assessee because the Tribunal did not follow the binding judgement in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory ( 2013) 359 ITR 565 ( Karn) (HC) on the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Accordingly, the delay in fling the MA deserves to be condoned [ S.271(1)( c ) ]

S. 222 : Collection and recovery – Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer Income-tax dues, being in the nature of Crown debts, do not take precedence even over secured creditors, who are private persons. Given S. 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income-tax Act [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 S. 238 ]

S. 245BA : Settlement Commission – Chairman – Power -Jurisdiction- These Petitions have been filed challenging a somewhat curious and unforeseen development. We do not know in what circumstances the Chairman flew down to Mumbai and invited the members for discussion in relation to some cases or related issues. It would be highly risky if such discussions in relation to judicial orders and judicial matters are held in a close-door meeting or in the privacy of the chambers of the members of the Settlement Commission. There is a uncalled for interference in judicial proceedings and none including the Chairman can direct a particular course of action to be taken or a particular order being passed in pending judicial proceedings. Court also observed that ,to avoid an allegation of the nature made in these Writ Petitions, the Chairman would be well advised not to chart this course hereafter. We leave the matter entirely to his wisdom and say nothing more. Court also held that , apprehensions of assessee of adverse order , court will not interfere in ending proceedings . Assessee at liberty , if adverse order is passed to challenge it . [ Art, 226 , 227 ]

S.147: Reassessment- Bogus share capital- Reassessment is held to be valid – Addition is confirmed as cash credits on merit.[ S.148, 151 ]

S. 147: Reassessment- The revenue played a subterfuge in trying to cover up its omission and in ante dating the record. The court hereby directs the Chief Commissioner to cause an inquiry to be conducted as to the involvement of the officials or employee in the manipulation of the record, and take strict disciplinary action, according to the concerned rules and regulations. This inquiry should be in regard to the conduct of the concerned AO posted at the time, who issued the notice under S. 147/148 as well as the officers who filed the affidavits in these proceedings [ S.148 ]

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- The assessment cannot be reopened on the ground that the AO lost sight of a statutory provision like 50C. This amounts to a review. A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC) distinguished on the basis that the reopening in that case was because the AO was unaware of a binding High Court judgement. Here it is not the case of the Revenue that the AO was not aware of S. 50C at the time of passing the S. 143(3) assessment order [ S.50C, 143(3), 148 ]