S. 245 : Refunds- Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable -Adjustment of the refund without following the ratio laid down by jurisdictional in Hindustan Unilever Ltd v. Dy CIT ( 2015) 377 ITR 281 ( Bom) (HC) and also speaking order is set aside .

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Attachment of property—Limitation -Appeal – Ground that the recovery proceedings is now time barred is rejected on the ground that it was inappropriate for Tax Recovery Officer to continue proceedings for realization of tax arrears on account of pendency of proceedings challenging decisions taken by Tax Recovery Officer, irrespective of fact as to whether there was any interim order in such proceedings or not, while computing outer time limit provided for under sub-rule (1) of Rule 68B.[ Sch .II R. 11, 68B ]

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery – As 20% of demand had not been deposited , assessee’s petition to stay of recovery is dismissed [ S.220(6), 226(3) ]

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default -Waiver of interest – Principal amount of tax was not paid for over fourteen years – Rejection of waiver application for interest is held to be valid .[ S. 132,158BC, 220(2) ]

S. 197 : Deduction at source – Certificate for lower rate -Charitable trust – AO was directed to dispose the application expeditiously . [ S.11,12AA ]

S. 158BC : Block assessment – Search- Addition was made on the basis of seized material – Block assessment cannot be held to be invalid on the ground that the authorisation was not in the name of the assessee but the premises of the assesee – Neither AO nor Tribunal in appeal could examine warrant of authorization for purpose of examining whether there existed reasons to believe on material before competent authority to order search u/s 132(1) . Assessee has not disputed the panchanama prepared by the search team in the name of assessee- Block assessment is held to be valid . In the present case search and seizure was actually made on the premises on the premises of assessee and documents and material collected therefrom also pertain to it , therefore S.158BD is not attracted . [ S.132, 158BD ]

S. 153A: Assessment – Search-Documents seized revealed total expenditure that assessee incurred in respect of both his children was not disclosed in the return of income , addition confirmed by the Tribunal is up held . As both brothers have signed the panchnama there was no necessity of issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act . [ S.132 ]

S.147: Reassessment— After the expiry of four years- Failure to disclose material facts—Failure to deduct tax at source –Discount on sales – Revenue has not able to show that the assessee has claimed discount on sales as expenditure ,therefore Stay was granted in terms of prayer (d) of the petition . Court also observed that the AO is free to examine all issues in terms of Explanation III to S. 147 of the Act. [ S.148 ]

S. 139 : Return of income – Delay of 37 days -Chane of auditor -CBDT was directed to condone the delay of 39 days in filling of return . [ S. 119(2)(b) ]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Comparability Parameters and Application of Filters- Inappropriate filters had been used by asssessee which would lead to an incorrect choice of comparables. DRP passed order excluding three companies from final set of comparables drawn by TPO-Tribunal partly allowed assessee’s appeal, however, upheld inclusion of Thirdware Solutions Limited and exclusion of CG Vak Soft-ware & Exports Ltd. and Quintegra Solutions Ltd. as comparables for benchmarking international transaction under software development services segment- Order of Tribunal is up held .