Penalty proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and the Revenue must be put to strict compliance of the legal requirements. The AO erred in imposing penalty without clear findings as to whether there was concealment of particulars of any assets or providing of inaccurate particulars of any assets. The CIT(A) was wrong in invoking Explanation(4) to s. 18(1)(c) which provides that if the net wealth returned is was less than 70% of the assessed wealth, there is a presumption of concealment. As the AO had not invoked the Explanation, the CIT(A) could not have relied on it to confirm the penalty

In Avani Exports, it was held that the amendment is violative for its retrospective operation in order to overcome the decision of the Tribunal, and at the same time, for depriving the benefit earlier granted to a class of the assessees whose assessments were still pending although such benefit will be available to the assessees whose assessments have already been concluded. In other words, in this type of substantive amendment, retrospective operation can be given only if it is for the benefit of the assessee but not in a case where it affects even a fewer section of the assessee. The amendment was quashed to the extent that the operation of the said section could be given effect from the date of the amendment and not in respect of earlier assessment years of the assessees whose export turnover is above Rs. 10 Crore. In other words, the retrospective amendment should not be detrimental to any of the assessee. As the Supreme Court had transferred all the matters to the Gujarat High Court in order to avoid confusion and difficulties in enforcement of conflicting judgments of different High Courts, it would be appropriate to follow the judgment of the Gujarat High Court

The problem is apparent, real and enormous. It has escalated because of Centralized Computerization and problems associated with incorrect and wrong data which is uploaded by both the deductors or payees and the AOs. The issue is of general governance, failure of administration, fairness and arbitrariness. The magnitude of the problem and the number of tax payers adversely affected thereby is apparent from the fact that 43% and 39% of the returns in Delhi zone for the FYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 were defective. Huge demands are created on this count. Every attempt possible has to be made to redress the grievance of the tax payers. The tax payers should not be made to run around, make repeated visits to deductor or the AO. Rejection of TDS, which has been deducted and paid, hurts the assessee and puts him to needless inconvenience, harassment and costs. It gives bad name to the Revenue. The problems faced by tax payers can be broadly classified into two categories. First, failure and difficulties in getting credit of TDS paid and second, adjustment of past demands or arrears of tax from refunds payable

Though in the recorded reasons, the AO alleged that there was no full and true disclosure by the assessee, in the objections order, there is no finding, even prima facie, how the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts with regard to the allegation of the existence of the PE. It is evident that the question of the assessee having a PE in India had been gone into in the first round. Once that aspect of the matter had been gone into in the earlier round, it was not open to the AO to reagitate it in the second round without any other / fresh material. No such other or fresh material has even been alleged in the reasons in the second round. Re-opening of assessments cannot be done merely on the basis of change of opinion

S. 10A, even after the amendment by the FA 2000 w.e.f. 1.4.2001 is an "exemption" provision and the current years and the brought forward loss suffered by a non-EPZ unit cannot be set-off against the s. 10A unit’s profits (Yokogawa India Ltd 341 ITR 385 (Kar), Hindustan Unilever 325 ITR 102 (Bom) & Black and Veatch Consulting (Bom) referred)

The assessee’s quantum appeal has been admitted by the High Court. If the assessee succeeds in the quantum proceedings, it would not even be necessary to consider the s. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings and so no prejudice has been caused to the department qua the penalty proceedings. The department’s apprehension that the penalty proceedings may be barred by limitation u/s 275(1A) is not well founded. In any event, the apprehension is set at rest by directing that in the event the proceedings are held to be barred by limitation, this appeal shall stand revived automatically and without further orders of the Court