S. 147 : Reassessment -Second reassessment -New tangible material was found- Reassessment is valid [ S. 148, 149(1)(b ) ]

S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders -Condonation of delay – Commission paid was claimed as deduction in the AY. 2013-14- Assessing Officer held that the Commissioner pertaining to AY. 2012-13 hence not allowed – Revision application was filed for the AY. 2012-13 , with in one month of the order for the AY.2013-14-PCIT rejected the petition on the ground that it was time barred – On writ the delay was condoned and the PCIT is directed to dispose the application on merits .[ S.143(3)]

S. 200 : Deduction at source – Duty of person deducting tax -Employer -Failure to issue Form no 16 after deducting tax at source from salary- Commissioner (TDS) is directed to file a comprehensive affidavit and Department of Revenue was also to be directed to penalise such defaulters and take other strict measures as contemplated by law against them by launching prosecution as per S.405 of the Indian Penal code ( Criminal breach of trust). [ S.192 ,Indian Penal Code S. 405 ]

S.147:Reassessment- Cash credits -Share capital- On the basis of information from CBI that the receipts were camouflaged as capital receipts- Considering fact that there were materials and informations on record with revenue-Reopening of assessment was done to verify the genuineness of the investment – R reassessment is in accordance with law- Reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer need not be communicated along with the notice itself – Notice issued for purpose of reopening of assessment would not provide a cause of action for filing writ petitions . [ S.68, 143(1),148 ]

S.143(3): Assessment- Reassessment – Notice- When return was not filed in compliance of notice issued under S. 148, issue of notice under S 143(2) is not required for making assessment. [ S. 139 ,142(1), 143(3), 148]

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015,

S. 55: Sanction- Return of income has many schedules are part of income referred to S.139 of the Act- Offence under S.50 of the Black money Act is made out only if, in the return of income under sub S. (1) or sub s.(4) or sub s.(5) of the income -tax Act , there has been a wilful failure to disclosure any information relating to foreign asset – On facts the asset was disclosed in Schedule FA and in the case of Karti Chidambaram , in the original return of income filed and other three cases in the revised return of income filed with in due date ; sanctioning authority has come to an erroneous conclusion that the case deserve prosecution for non-doscloure of the details of the asset in the return of income filed under S.139(1) . Sanction order was set aside , offences under S.50 is not made out consequently , complaints filed are quashed . However , contention of the assesses that the Principal Director of Income -tax is not an authority , jurisdiction /competence under S.55 of the Black Money Act , to sanction prosecution or file a prosecution complaint for offences under S.50 of the Black Money Act is not accepted .[ S. 2(11), 2(12), 4, 49, 50 59, 84 , ITACT, S.139, Art .14 ]

The Central Sales tax Act , 1956
S. 3. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter -state or commerce- When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place outside a State – The situs of sale of intangible property like trademarks & patents the situs of the owner of an intangible asset , would be the closest approximation of the situs of an intangible asset. On the above reasoning it was held that the exercise of the right to a trade mark or a patent right ; which has been obtained by the assessee , who had their principal palaces business in the State of Kerala is exercised from the places of business in the State of Kerala is exercised from the principal places of business . When transferring their rights obtained under a statute to another entity having place of business in another state ; from where the transferee intend to exercise such rights thereafter , postulate , a movement of the intangible corporeal goods from one State to another and hence would be an interstate sale assessable to tax under the CST Act. The Transferor’s principal places of business being with in the State of Kerala , the sale would be an interstate sale . The transfer is not a transfer of right to use , but a transfer of property in goods vesting the complete rights with the transferee and transferor having no subsisting right thereafter .Accordingly S. 3 of the CST Act applies on all forces and the agreement of transfer of the intangible , incorporeal rights , nay, goods ,occasions the movement of the said goods from Kerala to other State where the transferee has their principal places of business . The agreement executed in Gujarat and Puducherry does not make the sale with in that Sate or union Territory , as S.4 of the CST Act provide that sale of goods is deemed to take place in a State only when the goods are with in the State . Other wise any goods could be taken by the seller to another state and delivered to the purchaser making it an inter-state sale. Accordingly dismissing the petition ,sustaining the order of to the extent the transfer of patent right is assessed under the CST Act. [S.4, Art. 286(1) (a),366(29A)(d), ITAct, S.9(1) (i), Kerala Vale added Tax Act , 2003 ]

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal – Extension of stay -Guidelines specified to ensure expeditious hearing of cases referred to Special Benches and Third Members- Inordinate delay in fixation of hearing of Special Bench & Third Member cases is inappropriate and contrary to the scheme of the Act. It also reduces the efficacy and utility of the mechanism to deal with important matters-Guide lines referred in the order are , (a) Wherever special benches are constituted, the special benches shall, as far as possible, commence hearing within 120 days of the benches being constituted. (b) It is only in exceptional circumstances that the adjournment may be granted, at the instance of the either party, in Special Benches and Third Member cases, and the hearing of such matters should be scheduled by the registry in due consultation with both the parties. Even when adjournment is granted, it shall not be generally granted beyond 30 days. (c) The guidelines shall also be followed with respect to Third Member cases, and the Registry will take up the matter with the respective benches, for scheduling the hearing, in terms of the above guidelines. [ S. 92, 254(1) ]

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default -If the assessee has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal and also filed a stay petition, procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition.[ S.220(6) ]