S. 22 : Income from house property – Business income -Real estate developer- Main object is not acquiring and holding properties – Rental income is held to be assessable as income from house property . [ S.28(i)]

S. 28(iv) : Business income – Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation of trading liability – Loan waiver cannot be assessed as cessation of liability if the assessee has not claimed any deduction [ S.41(1)]

S. 74 : Penalty-Repeal of statute–Interpreattaion of statutes-Pending proceedings-Effect of repeal of a statute–Show cause notice will not survice–Given liberty to both parties to add to or amend or delete the questions in the Wealth Tax Reference within a period of eight weeks from today- Once this is done, the writ petitions will taken up and decided on their merits. Considering these writ petitions are of 2005, we request the High Court to hear the same expeditiously-Appeals allowed and set aside the common impugned judgment of the High Court. Wealth tax references are set aside. [General Clauses Act, S. 6, 6A]

S. 22 : Professional misconduct-A Chartered Accountant can be held guilty of professional misconduct even when he is acting as an individual in commercial dealings and is not acting as a Chartered Accountant nor discharging any function in relation to his practice as a Chartered Accountant. Under the chartered Accountants Act, any action which brings disrepute to the profession or the Institute is misconduct whether or not related to professional work. [ S.21(3) ]

S. 230 : Amalgamation-GAAR-Objections of the Dept that the scheme of amalgamation is a deliberate measure to avoid tax burden and is an ‘Impermissible Avoidance Agreement’ because it results in avoidance of Divided Distribution Tax (DDT), tax on business profits and MAT u/s ll5JB etc has merit-The scheme is not in public interest & cannot be sanctioned. [S. 52, 66, 232, SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations 2011 ]

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court -Condonation of abnormal delay of 1371 days in removing office objections: High Court refused to condone delay and held that Dept must “set its own house in order by sacking and removing the delinquent and negligent officials or penalising them otherwise so as to subserve larger public interest”. The Supreme Court reversed this holding High Court ought to have condoned the delay and not dismissed the appeal- Dept to pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Welfare Fund.

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court–Delay of 1662 days-Apex court held that, the High Court should not take a technical approach and refuse to condone the delay when appeals for earlier years with identical issues are already pending before it-Delay was condoned and the matter was directed to hear the appeal on merits.

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Mere pendency of appeal in the High Court does not preclude the Tribunal’s power of rectification, (ii) Fact that there is difference of opinion between the two members of the Tribunal would, by itself, nor mean that the error sought to be rectified is not apparent on the record & (iii) The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to recall an order based on submissions made and upon consideration of materials on record-The power of rectification are circumscribed with the condition that the same can be exercised for correcting error be of law or facts apparent on record- The jurisdiction to correct errors vested in the Tribunal is not akin to review powers. [S. 153A]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake– Pronouncement of order- An order passed by the Tribunal even one day after the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of hearing causes prejudice to the assessee and is liable to be recalled and the appeal posted for fresh hearing. [S.254(1), R. 34(5)(c)]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties-The Appellate Tribunal should give independent reasons showing consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee-An appellate order which affirms the order of the lower authority need not be a very detailed order- Nevertheless, there should be some indication in the order passed by the appellate authority of due application of mind to the contentions raised by the asseseee in the context of findings of the lower authority which were the subject matter of the challenge before it.