S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Notice issued without striking out irrelevant words – shows non application of mind – Penalty not sustainable.

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment- The AO did not specify under which limb had the penalty been imposed i.e whether it was on account of concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, then penalty was not sustainable. [ S.274]

S. 271(1)(c):Penalty- Concealment -Penalty cannot be levied on AO’s invocation of wrong limb while recording satisfaction

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty –Concealment – When penalty notice did not specify which limb of S. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, Penalty should be deleted.

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
– Capital gains – Investment in construction of another house property within prescribed time – Deduction cannot be denied merely because exemption was not claimed in return of income. [ S. 45,54F, 139 ]

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Non-resident -Deduction of tax deducted at source cannot determine the taxability of income – Salary of the assessee cannot be taxed in India and the same has rightly been claimed as deduction in the return of income- Proceeding is valid only if the Assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue – [ S.5, 6, 154 ]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Where the AO had made due enquiries with regard to receipts of assessee from services rendered outside India and where receipts were not taxable in India under article 15 of DTAA between India and USA, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified- DTAA- India -USA [ S.9(1)(i), Art .15 ]

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – There could have been no revision by Commissioner without pointing out in impugned order as to what was kind of enquiry that Assessing Officer ought to have made, which he failed to make. [ S.10(2A)]

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Share application money – Lack of proper inquiry-Revision is held to be valid .[ S.68, 147 ]

S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Appealable orders – The assessment order cannot be merged with reassessment order as both are two separate orders. [ S.143(3) ,147 ]