S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Prior to amendment in section 271G by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. from 1-10-2014, TPO had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271G for failure to furnish documents as required by section 92D(3)-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S.92D(3), Art.136]

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Action for imposition of penalty is initiated-Penalty proceedings were initiated on receipt of reference on 25-9-2014 and not on issuance of show cause notice on 4-8-2015-Order of penalty passed by Joint Commissioner (TDS) is barred by limitation. [S. 44AD, 260A]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the relevant portion of clause in penalty notice-Order of High Curt deleting the penalty is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 274, Art. 136]

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Delay in obtaining audit reports from statutory auditors under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules-Reasonable cause-Penalty order is quashed.[S.44AB, 273B]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Cash credits-Cash deposit-Demonetisation-Revision is held to be justified. [S. 68, 143 (3), 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Transfer of shares-Capital gains-Colourable device-Dividend distribution tax-Merely recipient of income and was not entity which had either declared or paid dividend, revisionary proceedings were not justified-DTAA-India-Singapore [S. 45, 47(iv), 115-0, 260A, Art. 13]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Commercial substance-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Order of the Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), 260A, Art. 12]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital asset-Solitary transaction-Sold without development-Assessing Officer accepted the claim as capital gains-Two plausible view-Order of High Court quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 2(14), 45, Art. 136]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Order passed by Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Tribunal-Subsequently set aside by High Court-Revision is not valid-Order of High Court is affirmed. [S. 32, 143(3), Art. 136]

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal-Stay-No coercive or precipitative steps had been taken by revenue-Stay petition cannot be dismissed as premature-Matter remanded to the Tribunal to decide on merits. [S. 92C, Art.226]