S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-No addition to the returned income-Making a wholistic view of factual panorama of case and circumstances, in which return for year could not be filed within stipulated time, it could be said that there was a reasonable cause, bringing case out of purview of Explanation 3 to 271(1)(c).[ S. 11, 12A, 12AA, 153]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Failure to declare capital gains-Quantum addition is confirmed by the Tribunal-Penalty is affirmed.[ S. 45]

S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Excess claim of deduction-Penalty is confirmed at 200 per cent. [S. 270A(9)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No lack of enquiry-Survey-Income surrendered-Business income-Assessment was finalised after considering the reply of the assessee-Revision order on the basis of surrendered income to be assessed under section 68 @ 60 per.cent as per section. 115BBE is quashed and set aside. [S. 68, 115BBE, 133A, 142(1), 143(2), 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Gift from son-Failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the creditworthiness of the donor-Revision order is affirmed. [ S. 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Capitalised and treated as revenue receipts-Explained the difference of depreciation-Revision order is set aside.[ S. 32]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Source of cash-Neither the Assessing Officer not PCIT examined the source of cash-The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to the limited extent to verify the cash available for making deposits in the bank. [ S.68, 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Mark to Market (MTM)-Specific query in the course of assessment proceedings-Loss was reversed in subsequent year-Revision order is quashed. [ S. 43(5)(d), 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Invalid assessment-Notice under section 143(2) is not served-Reassessment is bad in law-Issue of shares-Share capital-Order was passed after detailed investigation-Revision is bad in law.[ S. 56, 68, 143(2), 147, 148]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Merger-Interest free funds-Issue is subject matter of appeal before CIT(A)-Revision is bad in law-Transfer pricing-Section 92BA(i) is omitted.w.e.f. I st April, 2017 No ALP is required to be determined in respect of a domestic transaction-No reference was required to the TPO-Revision is bad in law. [ S.14A, 40A(2), 92BA, 92C, R.8D]