S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the limb of penalty-Penalty order is quashed and set aside. [S. 274]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Income from other sources-Purchase of immoveable property-difference in actual sale price and the stamp duty value-Addition of total stamp duty value-Matter remanded to CIT for further verification. [S. 56(2)(x), 69A]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Income from other sources-Interest-Zero coupon debentures redeemable after 9 years to its directors-Premature converted in to equity-Interest amount deemed to be received upon conversion of debentures in to equity shares in relevant assessment year-Revision order is justified. [S. 2(24)(iv) 47(x),47(x)(a), 49(2), 56v 145]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Outstanding GST-Revision order is affirmed-Registration and provision for warranty-Revision is not justified. [S. 14A,37(1) 43B]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Charitable purpose-Objects of general public utility-Merely because the society’s participants included members from the private sector, it does not change the fundamental non-commercial nature of its activities-The society’s role as a facilitator for the hydrocarbon industry does not make its activities commercial-Revision order is quashed.[S. 2(15), 11, 12 12AA]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
The NFAP was already adjudicating the disallowance of transport charges u/s. 40(a)(ia), the PCIT had no jurisdiction to revise the order.[S.40(a)(ia)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Capital expenditure-The expenses in dispute were already capitalized-No prejudice to revenue-Revision order is quashed.[S.37(1)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Short term capital loss-Section 263 cannot be used just because the PCIT holds a different view-No finding of lack of enquiry or perversity in AO’s conclusion-Reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute AO’s discretion where AO acted judiciously.[S. 143(3)]

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Since all necessary verification and examination of documents in reasonable manner was done, the assessment order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial within the meaning of s. 263, Expln. 2-Revision order is set aside. [S. 143(3), 147, 148]

S. 251: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-CIT(A) did not give opportunity to assessee for hearing-Held, CIT(A) does not have power to dismiss appeal summarily without going on merits-matter back to NFAC for de novo consideration. [S. 250, 251(1)(a), 251(2)]