S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source–bonafide belief–whether payee is in the category of government or local authority–No penalty is leviable.

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to file audit report within time-reasonable cause for delay–Audit report filed before assessment proceedings- Penalty is not warranted.

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007– Retraction of statement–Filing return admitting the additional income after retraction the assessee is not entitle to exemption-No requirement of recording satisfaction for imposing penalty-Immunity from penalty– both conditions need to be satisfied. [S. 132(4)]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Long term capital loss-Bona fide clerical mistake on part of assessee same has been explained before AO-Return of income accepted and there was no loss to revenue–No concealment of income or no furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 45]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment Amount of deduction hardly makes any difference on tax liability–then penalty levied on wrongful claim of the same needs to be deleted–as it was claimed on account of human error– no mala-fide intention of the assessee. [S. 35D]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Penalty Notice bad in law-If limb under which penalty has been initiated not specified. [S. 274]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Limitation-Delay of more than 9 months in service of the order passed is beyond time limit allowed under the Act, hence, unsustainable-Department failed to produce evidence to show that order passed and dispatched within reasonable time-Order is held to be barred by limitation.

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reopening found bad in law–No revision is possible. [S. 147, 148, 254(1)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Assessment completed by AO under section 143(3) of the Act-CIT sought revision-Tribunal held that AO had duly applied his mind by accepting the valuation method of Assessee and hence quashed revision proceedings. [S. 143(3)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision based on proposal from AO impermissible-Without Application of mind-Revision not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. [S. 143(3)]