S. 12AB : Procedure for fresh registration – Registration of charitable trust – Renewal – Absence of irrevocability clause / dissolution clause in trust deed – Rejection of Form No. 10AB on ground that trust deed did not contain express clause that trust was irrevocable and that answering “Yes” in Row 6 amounted to furnishing false / incorrect information – Not justified – Public charitable trust registered under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is inherently irrevocable unless there is express power of revocation – Mere absence of irrevocability clause does not render trust revocable – Section 12AB does not prescribe such condition – Rejection orders quashed- Respondent No.1 directed to decide the applications of the Petitioners and all other similarly situated trusts, whose orders are hereby quashed, afresh and in accordance with the law and the ratio laid down in this judgment, within a period of six weeks from today. [S. 11, 12A, 12AA 12AB(4), 13, 61, 63, 80G, 115TD; Indian Trust Act , 1882 , S. 78, Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, S. 22(3A), 22(3B), 55, Form No .10AB , Art . 226 ]

S. 279: Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner / Commissioner-Compounding of offences-Rejection of application for compounding solely on ground of delay of 36 months from date of complaint as per CBDT Guidelines-Act does not prescribe limitation-Mechanical rejection without exercising discretion held improper-Order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration. [S. 279(2), Art. 226]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Jurisdiction to be tested with reference to law prevailing on date of exercise of revisional power-Subsequent Supreme Court decision cannot invalidate revision-Lack of enquiry by Assessing Officer on section 32AB deduction and computation of book profits under section 115J rendered assessment erroneous and prejudicial-Commissioner’s order to be read as a whole and not by isolating one sentence-Where assessee did not challenge order giving effect to section 263, merits could not thereafter be agitated-Tribunal upholding assumption of jurisdiction affirmed. [S. 32AB, 115J, 260A]

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]