S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Circular – Return of income – Condonation of delay – Jurisdictional error – Power vested in CBDT – Order passed by Dy.CIT (OSD) (OT & WT) is without jurisdiction – Quashed and remanded to CBDT. [ S.119(2)(b) , 139, Art. 226 ]
S. 147: Reassessment – Objection disposed along with the assessment order – Order passed without disposing the objection by passing a separate order- Failure to dispose of objections separate order – Reopening notice and reassessment order is quashed and set aside . [S. 80 IA, 142 (1), 143(3),148, Art. 226 ]
S. 272A : Penalty-Failure to answer questions-Sign statements-Furnish information-Substantial compliance-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 143(3), 272A(1)(d)]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Mere disallowance of expenditure no penalty can be levied. [S. 274]
S. 271DA: Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 269ST-Transactions in cash exceeding prescribed limit-Bifurcating bills to each customer-Technical or venial breach-Penalty is deleted.[S. 269ST]
S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Cash received from purchaser as final payment before Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed of property-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 269SS]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bogus purchases-Estimated addition-Levy of penalty is not valid.[S.69A]
S.271 (1) (c): Penalty-Concealment-Even if the reassessment order was quashed for any reason, the original assessment order would continue to exist-Additional income assessed in reassessment would warrant separate penalty proceedings-Independent of penalty qua income assessed in the original assessment-Matter remanded to CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. [S. 143(3), 147, 148, 250]
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Quantum against-Quantum decided against alone was not sufficient for initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [S.80GGC]
S. 271(1)(C) : Penalty-Concealment-Remuneration and interest on capital received from the firm as a partner-Assessing officer processed original return though the claim may be wrong-No issue as regards concealment of particulars of income, not a fit case for levy of penalty. [S.44AD]