S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-The part consideration on account of immovable property sold was not received as cheques dishonoured-The assessee did not offer Capital Gain to tax during the relevant assessment year-Pr. CIT found that the AO did not examine details regarding dishonour of cheques-Assessment Order to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-S. 263, Explanation 2(a). [S. 45, 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Non-resident-AO allowed the claim under India-Singapore DTAA-CITA initiated the revisions proceedings on the ground that the assessee conduit company used for treaty shopping-without putting the allegation in the 263 notice-The assessee has not been heard on the said issue-Revision is bad in law-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S.9(1)(vii), 260A, Art. 12]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue-Merely the fact that no inquiry was conducted by the AO on record of the survey before him cannot be basis for assumption of jurisdiction under S. 263 of the Act. [S. 28(i), 68, 69A, 115BBE, 133A, 263, Explanation 2.]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Sale of land-Twin conditions of order being erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue-Lack of inquiry and documents not verified by Assessing Officer-Principal Commissioner correctly invoked power of revision under section 263 of the Act. [S. 2(14), 45, 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Unaccounted cash sales-Assessing Officer has examined the issue in the original assessment proceedings-Revision is not valid merely because the PCIT has a differing views-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-No substantial question of law.[S.68, 260A]

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Condonation of delay of 55 days-Delay in filing appeal on wrong advise of Counsel-Sufficient cause within the ambit of Section 253(5)-Delay is condoned.[S. 12A, 253(5), 260A]

S. 240: Refunds-Appeal-Tax deducted at source-Refund should be granted without application for it.[S. 199, 239, 244A(1)(a), Art. 226]

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Pendency of appeal-Dealing with stay applications to ensure a fair balance between tax collection and taxpayer rights without necessitating pre-deposit as a mandate for considering the stay-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 132, 220(6) 246A, Art. 226]

S. 206C: Collection at source-Auction by state government of right to collect toll fees on roads-Proceedings against Department of State Government for Failure to collect tax at source on toll money-No liability can be imposed on State Government if the lessees has already paid taxes on the toll fees collected-In the event of default of taxes being paid by lessees the State Government Department liable to pay interest for period between date of default in collection of tax and date of actual payment of tax by toll licensee.[S. 206C(IC), 206(7), 260A, Art. 289]

S. 205 : Deduction at source-Bar against direct demand-Tax deduction at source on salary-Employer failed to deposit the amount of TDS from salary to the Central Government-Discrepancy reflected in Form 26AS-The department should not deny the benefit of TDS by employer simply on mismatch in 26AS arising out of non deposit of TDS amount to the Central Government-Any recovery or adjustment made by the Department in interregnum is to be refunded to the assessee with statutory interest. [S.191, 192, 234A, 234B, 234C, Art. 226]