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]

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Gratuity-Claiming exemption-Public sector undertaking-Not Government-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd-Levy of penalty is not valid.[S.10(10AA)(ii), 270A(8)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Declared net profit from business more than 8 Per Cent. of total turnover-Furnished all details in the course of assessment proceedings-Revision is not justified.[S.44AD, 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Dividend-Allocation of expenses-Order of Assessing Officer is not erroneous-Limited scrutiny-Enquiry as to source of investment in mutual fund units neither envisaged nor called for Revision order is quashed.[S. 10(35), 142(1), 143(3)]