S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-Concealment-Penalty should be levied within a reasonable time-Order levying penalty eleven years after passing of assessment order and fourteen years after return-Held to be not valid. [S. 271(1)(c), 275(1)(c)] was filed Not valid-Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 275(1)(c).
S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-First appellate order was received in the financial year 2006-2007-The penalty should have been imposed within March 31, 2008 as per the proviso, especially when the order was one passed after June 1, 2003-The orders were passed on March 31, 2009 much after the limitation period-Not valid.[S.260A, 275(1)(a)]
S. 271E: Penalty-Repayment of loan or deposit-Book entries discharge of liabilities-Repayment of loan in cash-No evidence that loan was repaid in cash-Penalty not imposable. [S. 269SS, 269T]
S.271D: Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Acceptance of loan in cash in excess of specified limit-No satisfaction recorded-Order of Tribunal deleting the penalty is affirmed. [S.260A, 269SS]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Difference between assessed income and returned income-Survey-Presumption not rebutted-Levy of penalty valid. [S. 133A, 260A]
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Mistake in return-No intention to conceal income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof-Order of Tribunal deleting the penalty affirmed. [S. 139]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bona fide belief-Charitable trust-Registration-Deletion of penalty by the Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 12A, 260A]
S. 264 :Commissioner-Revision of other orders –Rejection of application for rectification on ground that error sought to be rectified was not manifest-Commissioner had no power to revise order under section 264.[S. 143(1), 154]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Alleged bogus purchases-Assessment had been passed after due enquiry-Revision of order not valid.[S. 143(3), 260A]
S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Tribunal finding that Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiry and order of assessment was not erroneous-Order of revision not valid.[S. 260A]