“Section 246(1)”

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

Where an assessee invests its own funds in an infrastructure development project, it is presumed to be acting as a developer, not merely a contractor, making it eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4).

Penalty proceedings under the Income-tax Act are quasi-criminal in nature, requiring the department to independently establish concealment and not automatically relying on assessment findings. A penalty under Section 271D or 271E for violating Section 269SS cannot be levied if the alleged loan amount is subsequently disclosed as income, as the foundation for the penalty is then lost.

Failure to follow the procedure laid down in Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, constitutes a breach of mandatory provisions, rendering the final assessment order void.

The power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Income-tax Act depends on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, which must be recorded during the proceedings. If the officer is not satisfied and has not recorded this satisfaction, the penalty cannot be exercised.

The levy of interest under the Income Tax Act is part of the assessment process and can be challenged in an appeal if the assessee disputes the chargeability of interest itself. However, claims for waiver or reduction of interest cannot be challenged in appeal and must be pursued through revisional jurisdiction.

The Assessing Officer can determine the annual value of a property based on what it might reasonably be let for from year to year or its annual ratable value, especially when rent is not charged or is below market rates. This approach is permissible under Section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act.

A penalty order under section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer (AO) initiates proceedings for "concealment of particulars of income" but ultimately finds the assessee guilty of "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income", or vice versa. The AO cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to which charge applies, as this error goes to the root of the matter and is not saved by section 292B.