S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Failure to strike off the irrelevant default in show cause notice-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 274(1)]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Failure to strike off the irrelevant default in show cause notice-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 274(1)]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice-Irrelevant words were not strike down by AO-Non application of mind by AO-Notice was bad in law-Levy of penalty is held to be bad in law. [S. 274]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-disallowance u/s.10A-only on presumption basis-Not due to inaccurate information-Penalty was deleted. [S.10A]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Assessee’s good faith cannot be disproved-Transaction is held to be at ALP-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 92CA(3)]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Just because Commissioner was not satisfied with manner of verification and investigation-Assessment order held not to be erroneous-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(3)]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-View of the Assessing Officer is in conformity with the view of judgement of High Court-Revision is held to be not valid.[S.144C]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer has not examined the issue in proper perspective-Revision is held to be justified. [S. 14A, 115JB]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited liability scrutiny-Assessing Officer examined documents in the original assessment proceedings-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 143(3)]
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Delay of 349 days-Substantial justice deserved to be preferred-Delay was condoned-Matter remanded to CIT (A) to decide on merit. [S. 250, 253(5), 271(1)(c)]
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Appeal-Condonation of delay-Delay of 271 days in filing of appeals-Justice oriented approach has to be taken while deciding the condonation of delay-Delay was condoned.