S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-Compounding of offence-Compounding application could not have been rejected on delay alone-Limitation-CBDT guidelines dated 16 November 2022.[S. 279(2), Art.226]

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-Certain categories of offences not to be compounded other than first offence-Wilful failure to file returns in due time-“First offence” as defined in Guidelines-Failure to file return before due date for assessment year 2013-2014 despite issue of notice for not filing in time for assessment year 2011-2012-Offence committed by assessee not first offence-Rejection of application in consonance with Guidelines; Guidelines for Compounding of Offences under Direct Tax Laws, 2008 (2015) 371 ITR 7 (St). [S. 139, 276CC279(2), Art. 226]

S. 276: Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Delay in payment of tax does not amount to evasion of tax-Prosecution is not valid.[S. 276(2)]

S. 275: : Penalty-Bar of limitation-Failure to deduct tax at source-Survey-Notice for penalty after five years-The penalty order is barred by limitation if issued after the statutory time frame of six months from the end of the month in which penalty proceedings were initiated-Notice and penalty is unsustainable. [S. 260A, 271C, 272A(2)(c) (k), 275(1)(c)]

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Curable defects-The penalty order for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) is valid even if issued in the old name of the company after a name change, if the entity remains the same. [S. 260A, 272A(c) (k) 292B]

S. 271AAA: Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Undisclosed income-Disclosure in the course of search-Belated payment of tax and interest-Fulfilment of all three conditions stipulated under subsection (2) mandatory-Levy of penalty is justified. [S. 132 (4), 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-The part consideration on account of immovable property sold was not received as cheques dishonoured-The assessee did not offer Capital Gain to tax during the relevant assessment year-Pr. CIT found that the AO did not examine details regarding dishonour of cheques-Assessment Order to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-S. 263, Explanation 2(a). [S. 45, 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Non-resident-AO allowed the claim under India-Singapore DTAA-CITA initiated the revisions proceedings on the ground that the assessee conduit company used for treaty shopping-without putting the allegation in the 263 notice-The assessee has not been heard on the said issue-Revision is bad in law-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S.9(1)(vii), 260A, Art. 12]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue-Merely the fact that no inquiry was conducted by the AO on record of the survey before him cannot be basis for assumption of jurisdiction under S. 263 of the Act. [S. 28(i), 68, 69A, 115BBE, 133A, 263, Explanation 2.]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Sale of land-Twin conditions of order being erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue-Lack of inquiry and documents not verified by Assessing Officer-Principal Commissioner correctly invoked power of revision under section 263 of the Act. [S. 2(14), 45, 260A]