“Section 132(9)”

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

Advice given by a financial consultancy firm on the modalities of procuring loans is considered a 'technical and consultancy service' for the purpose of taxation of fees for technical services.

Failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) makes the final assessment order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions renders the final assessment order bad in law.

A procedural irregularity in an assessment or reassessment order, where the initiation of the proceeding was valid, does not necessarily render the order invalid if the irregularity is curable and amounts to a mere technicality.

Evidence collected during an illegal search can still be used against the assessee. An assessment made based on such evidence is valid.

A statement made during a survey cannot be automatically retracted by the assessee; the burden is on the assessee to prove the statement was wrong. Therefore, such statements are relevant in penalty proceedings.

In penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), the initial burden is on the Revenue to prove that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The burden shifts to the assessee only if they fail to offer a satisfactory explanation for undisclosed income.