Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998

S. 88:Settelemt of tax payable-Declaration-Person-Settlement of Income-tax dispute under Scheme-Assessment proceedings cannot continue Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme.[S. 87(k),92, Art.226

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-High Court refusing to quash criminal proceedings-Filed revised Income-tax return-Penalty proceedings dropped and refund ordered-On facts continuing criminal proceedings would be unnecessary prosecution quashed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S 482, Art. 136]

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Delay not caused with mala fide intention but due to absence of concerned staff on maternity leave Subsequent compliance by delayed remittance-Criminal proceedings quashed-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 200(1), 278AA-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 482, Art. 136]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Additional bonus liability-Amnesty return-Merely raising claim subsequently found inadmissible in law would not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars-Penalty unsustainable.[S. 43B]

S. 264 :Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Failure to respond questions-Hospitalisation-Genuine reasons-Rejection of application was quashed. [Art. 226]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Penalty Concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof-Specific charge-Assessing Officer recording satisfaction under section 271AAB and not under section 271(1)(c) during assessment proceedings-Revisional authority’s direction to initiate proceedings under section 271(1)(c) without such satisfaction unsustainable-Tribunal justified in setting aside revisional order.[S. 260A, 271(1)(c), 271AAB.]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Penalty concealment-Satisfaction need not be recorded in particular form-Order dropping penalty proceedings can be revised.[S. 271 (1)(c)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
-Finding by Tribunal that proper enquiry had been conducted-order was not prejudicial to Revenue Order of revision not valid.[S. 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Consortium of private entities not a statutory body-Deduction wrongly allowed by AO-Revision justified-Order of Tribunal set aside.   [S.80IA(4) Expl. 263]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Number of partners exceeded 20-Remuneration to partners-Commissioner not showing how order of Assessing Officer prejudicial-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order was affirmed. [S.40(b)]