S. 279: Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-First offence-3 per cent compounding charges were leviable upon the petitioner and not 5 per cent. [S.279(2), Art. 226]

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Sentence of fine as imposed by ACMM was to be modified, and the company was sentenced to admonition. [S.278AA, 278B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 378]

S. 276 : Offences and prosecutions-Removal-Concealment-Transfer-Delivery-Property-Thwart recovery-Transfer of Car to daughter-in-law of director-Company was not made as accused-[S.278B, 281, Art. 226]

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order. [S.92CD(3) Art. 226 ]

S. 268A: Appeal-Instructions-Monetary limits prescribed in CBDT Circulars would apply to pending appeals-Exceptions carved out by CBDT Circulars would apply only prospectively-Appeal of revenue dismissed.[S. 260A]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Share premium-Capital transaction-Second time on ground of inadequate enquiry-Tribunal, on examining the factual position and also noting the legal position, had granted relief to assessee-No question of law arose from order of Tribunal.[S.68, 143(3), 260A]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-High Court affirmed the quashing of the revision order by the Tribunal-SLP of revenue is dismissed as the revenue could not explain the delay of 305 days in filing the SLP. [S. 54B, Art. 136]

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Industrial undertakings-Infrastructure development-Contractor-Developer-Tribunal had not considered evidence on record and had merely recorded bare conclusions without setting out any reasons in support thereof, order of Tribunal under section 254(1) of the Act was set aside and matter was remitted back to Tribunal for disposal afresh on merits. [S.80IA(4)(1)(b),254(1), Art. 226]

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Pendency of application before Settlement Commission-Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to decide on the merits-High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 245F(2), Art. 136]

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Condonation of delay-Delay of six to seven years-Documents were handed over to the counsel-Mistake of counsel-High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal held that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground for condonation of delay-Order of High Court affirmed-SLP of assessee dismissed. [Art. 136]