S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Order passed by Tribunal in 2018-No endeavour by Department during six years to pursue matter-Matter must have reached finality-Appeal disposed of keeping questions of law open.

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Order passed by Tribunal in 2018-No endeavour by Department during six years to pursue matter-Matter must have reached finality-Appeal disposed of keeping questions of law open-Appeal cannot be dismissed on ground that appellant made no efforts to get it listed Failure to answer question put by court not ground to dismiss appeal-Appeal restored to High Court.[Art. 136]

S. 245H : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Power-Grant of immunity from prosecution and penalty-High Court setting aside order of Settlement Commission and remanding matter for reconsideration on ground that assessee had not made full and true disclosure at the outset-Special Leave Petition dismissed with clarification that remand direction of High Court would remain unaffected and matter to be examined afresh in accordance with law without being influenced by observations of High Court. [S. 245C, Art. 136]

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Law amended with retrospective effect from 1-2-2021, but notified on 1-4-2021-Application filed prior to 31-3-2021-No prohibition in statute as on that date for assessee to make such application-Interim Board holding applications invalid-High Court held order of Interim Board not sustainable and remanded matters for consideration on merits-SLP dismissed-Question of law kept open [Ss. 245A(b), 245C, 245D(4), Art. 136].

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Immunity from penalty and prosecution-High Court held that there was no foundation for finding of full and true disclosure by Settlement Commission-Matter remanded for reconsideration of grant of immunity-Review petition dismissed-SLP dismissed by Supreme Court with clarification that Settlement Commission shall decide matter independently in accordance with law and without being influenced by observations of High Court. [S. 245H, Art. 136]

S. 237 : Refund-Limitation-Excess TDS-CBDT Circular prescribing two-year time limit for refund claim of tax erroneously deducted at source held ultra vires-In absence of statutory limitation under ss. 237/239, Board cannot curtail substantive right to claim refund-Interest on FCCBs/ECBs utilised for overseas subsidiary held covered by s. 9(1)(v)(b), hence no TDS deductible-Taxing statutes are interpreted by following the principles of strict interpretation. While interpreting a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment. [S. 9(1)(v)(b), 119, 195, 200, 203, 239, R. 31, Art. 226]

S. 237 : Refunds -Erroneous deposit of tax under incorrect head-Assessee subsequently deposited tax under correct head -Excess payment due to error not disputed -Department directed to verify challans and grant refund if no other impediment -If refund cannot be processed, reasons to be communicated in writing -Assessee entitled to avail remedies in accordance with law. [Art. 226]

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Book profit-In fiscal matters, bank guarantee is not an appropriate substitute for cash deposit and unconditional stay should ordinarily not be granted. [S.115J, Art. 226]

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Book profit-Mere existence of a strong prima facie case does not automatically warrant unconditional stay-Tribunal having upheld addition under section 115JB, conditional stay justified-Pending rectification application and possible reduction in demand considered-Interim relief granted on deposit of Rs. 60 crores within four weeks-SLP dismissed. [S. 115JB, Art.136]

S. 164 : Representative assessee—Charge of tax—Beneficiaries unknown—Alternative Investment Fund (Category III)—Where SEBI law prohibits an AIF from accepting investments or identifying investors before registration, non-mention of investors/beneficial interests in original trust deed cannot attract maximum marginal rate under section 164—Doctrine of impossibility (“lex non cogit ad impossibilia”) applied—Once beneficiaries and their shares become determinable under contribution agreements, requirement of law stands satisfied—CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2014 could not be applied in such impossible circumstances—Board for Advance Rulings order quashed. [Ss. 161, 245Q, 245R(4), SEBI Act, 1992, s. 12, SEBI (AIF) Regulations, 2012, regs. 3, 6(3), Art. 226]