S. 271C: Penalty-Failure to deduct tax at source-AO issued penalty 11 years after assessment order passed-Held, imposing penalty barred by limitation. [S.275 (1)(c)]

S. 271(1)(c) Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Satisfaction is sine qua non for initiation of proceeding and penalty proceedings-Order of Tribunal affirming the penalty is set aside.[S. 260A, 274]

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the specific charge-Reason for levying penalty unclear-Order of Tribunal deleting the penalty is affirmed. [S. 260A, 274]

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Order of Tribunal deleting the penalty is affirmed. [S. 260A]

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment—Annual letting value-Debatable issue-Not specifying the charge-Order of Tribunal deleting the penalty is affirmed. [S. 22, 23, 274]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Ground raised first time before High Court-After 23 years-Defects in the Notice-Principle of natural justice cannot be raised after 23 years-Assessee participated wholeheartedly in the penalty proceedings, however, later on before the High Court raised the objection in regard to the defect in notice-The assessee had understood the contents of the notice as to which two limbs falling u/s 271(1)(c) and complied with the SCN without raising any objection-Assessee not permitted to raise the question of fact before the Court-Hence, the Revenue’s appeal allowed. [S.260A, 274,Art. 226]

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Claim under section 80IA is not made in the return-Assessment is completed u/s 143(3)-Rejection of Revision application is set aside-Remanded to the Commissioner to consider the claim on merit.[S.80IA. Art. 226]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Company-Book profit-Depreciation-Consistently charging depreciation in its books of account at rates prescribed in Income-tax Rules and accounts of assessee had been prepared and certified as per provisions of Companies Act, 1956-A specific query was raised by Assessing Officer on issue of payment made to related party and verification of fair market value as per provision of section 40A(2)(b) and when answered-Order of Tribunal quashing the Revision order is affirmed. [S. 32,40A(2)(b), 115JB, 260A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Unexplained expenditure-Ad-hoc addition made by the Assessing Officer-Order of Tribunal quashing the direction of PCIT to do de novo assessment is affirmed. [S.69C, 26A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business of road infrastructure and development-AO allowed the claim made under section 80IA after detailed scrutiny-Revision of assessment order on the ground that the assessee is only a work contractor-Unjustified-Rule of consistency is followed. [S.80IA, 260A]