S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Civil contractor – Widening and strengthening of existing road – Purchase of marble for construction of High way Authority – Parties whose name cheques were alleged to be issued had deposed on oath that they had neither encashed cheque nor received amount – Order of Tribunal affirming the disallowance is affirmed .[ S.260A ]

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Receipt of consideration for sale of immovable property in cash-Registered document duly signed by vendor and purchaser showing receipt in cash-Wrong entry-Adjustment thorough a journal entry-Failure to modify in the document-Levy of penalty is affirmed.[S. 269SS, 274]

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Not maintaining the books of account-Not liable for penalty for failure to get accounts audited.[S.44AA, 44AB, 139(1),148, 271A]

S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Obtained tax audit report before due date-Wrongly mention as no in the column-Penalty is deleted.[S.44AA, 44AB]

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-Surrender of income in the course of search-Failure to disclose in the return-Penalty is justified in respect of difference added as undisclosed income-Limb under which penalty is to be levied spelt out and assessee not offered explanation-Limitation-Tribunal passing order in quantum appeal on 27-9-2019 and penalty order passed on 23-3-2020-Order is within prescribed time-limit-No violation of principle of natural justice. [S.271AAB(1)(c), 274(1), 275(1)]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge in the notice-Levy of penalty is not justified-Estimated addition of 100 Per Cent. of purchases reduced to 30 Per Cent. of purchases by Commissioner (Appeals)-Estimated addition involving inherent subjectivity-Penalty is not warranted. [S. 274]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge–Failure to strike off irrelevant portion of notice-Penalty is not sustainable. [S.274]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Investment of gains in residential house within time specified-Purchase of land with intention of constructing house-Time of three years from date of transfer of original asset allowed-Revision on ground that purchase was beyond two years allowed for purchase of house is not proper.[S. 45, 54F, 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Short-term capital loss-Unquoted equity shares-Valuation of market value is not in accordance with Rule11UA(1)(c)-Control and management of companies are with related parties-Transactions are not at arm’s length-Revision is justified. [S. 263, Explanation 2, R.11UA(1), Companies Act, 2013, S. 53]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Merely because explanations and documents not filed before Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings-Revision is not valid.