Issues: (i) Whether share premium could be assessed as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 in a consequential assessment pursuant to a revision direction limited to verification of DCF share valuation; and (ii) whether the unsecured-loan addition under Section 68 could be sustained without lender-wise evaluation of evidence and by requiring proof of the lenders' source of funds for AY 2014-15.

Issue (i): Whether share premium could be assessed as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 in a consequential assessment pursuant to a revision direction limited to verification of DCF share valuation.

Analysis: The revision direction required verification of the correctness of the DCF valuation and the projections underlying it; it did not direct that the share premium be treated as unexplained money. Where shares are found to have been issued above fair market value, the applicable statutory provision, subject to fulfilment of its conditions, is Section 56(2)(viib). Treating the entire share premium as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 travelled beyond the scope of the consequential assessment.

Conclusion: The share-premium addition under Section 68 was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the unsecured-loan addition under Section 68 could be sustained without lender-wise evaluation of evidence and by requiring proof of the lenders' source of funds for AY 2014-15.

Analysis: For AY 2014-15, the assessee was required to establish the identity of each lender, genuineness of the transaction, and lender's creditworthiness. The substituted first proviso to Section 68, effective from 01.04.2023, could not impose an additional statutory obligation to prove the source from which a lender obtained the funds. The documentary material relating to 52 lenders, including confirmations, income-tax particulars, bank statements, ledger accounts, TDS details and repayment evidence, required cumulative lender-wise examination. Generalised rejection without addressing the evidence relating to individual lenders was insufficient.

Conclusion: The unsecured-loan addition was set aside for limited lender-wise fresh adjudication under the law applicable to AY 2014-15, with the assessee succeeding to that limited extent.

Final Conclusion: A consequential assessment must remain within the confines of the revision directions, and the disputed loan credits must be examined individually under the pre-substitution requirements of Section 68.

Ratio Decidendi: In a consequential assessment following revision, an addition cannot travel beyond the matters directed for verification; for a pre-substitution assessment year, Section 68 requires proof of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, but does not statutorily require proof of the creditor's source of funds.

Issues: Whether the stamp-duty value as on the date of registration could be adopted for an addition where the sale consideration was fixed under an earlier agreement and part consideration was paid by cheque before that agreement.

Analysis: Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and its provisos require adoption of the stamp value as on the agreement date where the agreement date and registration date differ, provided that whole or part of the consideration was paid by a mode other than cash on or before the agreement date. The earlier agreement fixed the consideration, and payment of Rs. 25,000 by cheque before the agreement was evidenced in the registered agreement and remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The stamp value on the registration date was not applicable; the addition under section 56(2)(vii) was unsustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars could be imposed merely because claims for depreciation and set-off of losses were disallowed.

Analysis: Section 271(1)(c) requires a definite finding establishing concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Mere rejection of a claim, without material demonstrating that the claim was false or that inaccurate particulars were furnished, does not attract penalty. The absence of supporting details or failure to challenge the quantum disallowance does not by itself establish either concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained solely on account of disallowance of the claims for depreciation and set-off of losses; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notices and sanctions under Sections 149 and 151 were valid; (ii) Whether the approval under Section 148B was mechanical and invalid; (iii) Whether profit on unaccounted business receipts should be estimated at 15% or at a lower rate, with credit for additional income already offered; and (iv) Whether business loss could be set off against search-related undisclosed income under Section 79A.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notices and sanctions under Sections 149 and 151 were valid.

Analysis: The search material disclosed unaccounted business receipts, furnishing the basis for reopening. The recorded reasons and the competent authority's sanction satisfied the conditions governing reassessment jurisdiction and the extended limitation provisions. The cited decisions did not assist because the validity of reopening turns on the facts and material of each case.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices and sanctions were valid, against the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether the approval under Section 148B was mechanical and invalid.

Analysis: The mere short period taken for approval could not establish absence of independent application of mind. The approval record showed consideration of the draft assessment order, relevant material, and correspondence with the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The approval under Section 148B was valid and not mechanical, against the assessees.

Issue (iii): Whether profit on unaccounted business receipts should be estimated at 15% or at a lower rate, with credit for additional income already offered.

Analysis: The seized material contained both unaccounted receipts and expenditure. Estimation of income is permissible, but must rest on a reasonable and non-arbitrary basis. The 15% rate lacked a case-specific foundation, while the assessees' book results could not be accepted because transactions were conducted outside the books. The income declared under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 could not be wholly telescoped against the receipts, but remained relevant in determining the embedded profit and avoiding double taxation.

Conclusion: Profit must be estimated at 10% of the total unaccounted business receipts, after due credit for additional income already offered for the relevant years, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (iv): Whether business loss could be set off against search-related undisclosed income under Section 79A.

Analysis: Section 79A prohibits set-off of any loss, whether brought forward or otherwise, against undisclosed income included in total income consequent to a search under Section 132.

Conclusion: Set-off of the business loss against the undisclosed income was impermissible, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenges and the loss disallowance remain undisturbed, while the income from unaccounted business receipts requires recomputation by applying a 10% profit rate and granting credit for income already offered.

Issues: Whether the seized cash could be assessed as the assessee's unexplained money despite the subsequent claim that it belonged to the assessee's HUF and represented business funds.

Analysis: Under Section 69A, the assessee was required to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the cash. The assessee's categorical statement under Section 131 admitting ownership of the seized cash established ownership in his individual capacity. The subsequent HUF claim was unsupported by credible evidence connecting the specific seized cash with the HUF business. Historical bank withdrawals, alleged debtor realisations and business advances were not corroborated by a cash book, source records, confirmations, invoices, or other reliable evidence showing that the cash was available on the date of seizure.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to discharge the burden of satisfactorily explaining the nature and source of the seized cash; its treatment as unexplained money under Section 69A was sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of the substantive and protective additions for alleged on-money receipts from sale of land was justified; (ii) Whether profit on gross receipts could be estimated at 16% after rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) Whether addition of capital gains under Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessee's alleged undivided share of land was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the deletion of the substantive and protective additions for alleged on-money receipts from sale of land was justified.

Analysis: The evidentiary value of the seized documents was insufficient to establish actual receipt of the alleged on-money. The unsigned draft agreement, the incomplete memorandum of settlement, and the manuscript promising completion of a future transaction did not prove receipt of consideration for the entire land. The material showed that only part of the land had been transferred, while the balance remained untransferred or the proposed sale had been cancelled. The subsequent determination that the land belonged to the State further undermined the proposed addition. A protective assessment can be sustained only where a corresponding substantive addition is made in another case or assessment year owing to a genuine dispute as to ownership or assessability; no such substantive assessment existed for the protective addition.

Conclusion: Deletion of the substantive and protective additions for alleged on-money receipts is upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether profit on gross receipts could be estimated at 16% after rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) requires material showing that the declared results cannot be accepted. The stated grounds for rejection did not identify discrepancies in gross receipts, books, or expenditure claims. However, the seized material and the absence of adequate supporting bills and vouchers also prevented full acceptance of the declared book results. Estimation of business profits was therefore warranted. Comparable construction and real-estate cases supported lower profit rates, and the earlier assessment used to justify the 16% rate had been quashed. The 16% estimate was excessive in the circumstances.

Conclusion: Profit shall be estimated at 10% of gross receipts, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether addition of capital gains under Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessee's alleged undivided share of land was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 50C applies to the transfer of a capital asset by the assessee. The entire sale consideration arising from the land transaction had already been offered and assessed as business receipts in the hands of another group entity. No evidence established that the assessee independently received consideration for its alleged undivided share. A further addition solely on the basis of co-ownership would result in double taxation of the same receipts.

Conclusion: Deletion of the capital-gains addition under Section 50C is upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The alleged on-money and capital-gains additions remain deleted, and the business-profit addition is restricted to a 10% estimate on gross receipts.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for alleged undisclosed receipts must rest on credible evidence of actual receipt and, where made protectively, must be supported by a corresponding substantive assessment.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to an assessment for A.Y. 2007-08 where the draft assessment proposing a variation was issued after 01.10.2009; (ii) Whether the fresh assessment following remand to the DRP was barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to an assessment for A.Y. 2007-08 where the draft assessment proposing a variation was issued after 01.10.2009.

Analysis: Section 144C(1) is attracted when the Assessing Officer proposes a variation in the returned income on or after 01.10.2009. The material event was the proposal of variation through the draft assessment order, not the assessment year to which the proceedings related. As the draft assessment was issued after 01.10.2009, the binding jurisdictional interpretation governed the matter.

Conclusion: Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was applicable; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the fresh assessment following remand to the DRP was barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order required fresh adjudication by the DRP after considering the material and passing a reasoned order; it was not a mere direction to give consequential effect. The proceedings were therefore governed by Section 153(2A). The fourth proviso permitted a two-year period because a fresh reference under Section 92CA(1) was made. Under Section 254(3) and Rule 35 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, limitation could not be deferred until receipt of the order by the particular DRP. Departmental awareness during F.Y. 2013-14 was established from its own record, and the extended limitation period expired on 31.03.2016. Section 144C(13) governs the time for passing an order after DRP directions and does not override the limitation for fresh assessment under Section 153(2A).

Conclusion: The fresh assessment proceedings became time-barred on 31.03.2016; the subsequent DRP directions, transfer-pricing order, and assessment order were legally unsustainable. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the applicability of the DRP mechanism failed, but the statutory limitation governing the remanded fresh-adjudication proceedings rendered the subsequent assessment legally ineffective.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate remand requires fresh adjudication, the limitation for fresh assessment under Section 153(2A) runs from departmental receipt or knowledge of the appellate order and cannot be enlarged by internal departmental movement or delayed receipt by the authority handling the remand.

Issues: (i) Whether the 305-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned because the assessee bona fide pursued rectification under Section 154; (ii) Whether brokerage and claimed improvement cost of the sold villa were allowable in computing long-term capital gains; (iii) Whether corpus-fund and specified new-villa expenditure qualified for Section 54 exemption, and whether unsupported labour and painting expenditure was allowable.

Issue (i): Whether the 305-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned because the assessee bona fide pursued rectification under Section 154.

Analysis: A justice-oriented and liberal approach to condonation applies where delay results from a bona fide pursuit of an available remedy and not from a lackadaisical approach. The pending rectification application demonstrated a genuine belief that the assessment error would be rectified.

Conclusion: The 305-day delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether brokerage and claimed improvement cost of the sold villa were allowable in computing long-term capital gains.

Analysis: In recomputing capital gains and consequential Section 54 relief, brokerage paid to facilitate the transfer and actual improvement expenditure are allowable where supported by receipts or objective property records. The brokerage receipt supported the full claim. The transition of the old villa from a semi-finished condition at purchase to a constructed villa at sale, together with documented payments for part of the work, substantiated the claimed improvement cost; non-retention of all invoices by non-resident owners did not justify its summary rejection.

Conclusion: The full brokerage expenditure of Rs. 4,20,000 and the full old-villa improvement cost of Rs. 10,20,000 were allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether corpus-fund and specified new-villa expenditure qualified for Section 54 exemption, and whether unsupported labour and painting expenditure was allowable.

Analysis: For Section 54 purposes, a mandatory corpus-fund payment intrinsically connected with villa ownership forms part of the cost of the new residential property. Supplier invoices and payment receipts, absent material disproving the expenditure, established the glass, electrical-work and marble claims; absence of a corresponding bank statement alone was insufficient to reject them. In contrast, the labour and painting claim lacked identifiable bills, invoices, receipts or other reliable evidence of its nature and quantum.

Conclusion: The corpus fund of Rs. 3,50,000 and the claims for glass, electrical work and marble were allowed in favour of the assessee; the labour and painting claim of Rs. 8,50,000 was disallowed against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Long-term capital gains and consequential Section 54 exemption must be recomputed after admitting the specified brokerage, old-property improvement and new-property expenditure, while excluding the unsupported labour and painting claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer and improvement expenses substantiated by receipts, invoices or objective property records must be allowed in capital-gains computation, and mandatory payments intrinsically linked to ownership form part of the new residential property's cost; claims lacking reliable evidence may be disallowed.

Issues: Whether a reassessment could validly be completed without issuing a notice under section 143(2) after the assessee filed a return in response to a notice under section 148 issued on 24.03.2023.

Analysis: Under section 148 as applicable on the date of issuance of the notice, a return furnished pursuant to that notice was to be treated as a return required under section 139. The third proviso to section 148, which denies that character to a return filed beyond the permitted period, came into force only from 01.04.2023 and could not govern a notice issued earlier. The delayed return was filed while reassessment proceedings were pending and was acted upon while computing the assessed income. Consequently, the mandatory requirement of issuing a notice under section 143(2) applied; its absence was a jurisdictional defect and not a curable procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid and liable to be quashed for non-issuance of the mandatory notice under section 143(2).

Issues: (i) Whether the Rs. 17 crore share capital and share premium credits were satisfactorily explained under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the Rs. 7 crore share capital and share premium addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained; and (iii) Whether reassessment initiation under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the Rs. 17 crore share capital and share premium credits were satisfactorily explained under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The accepted declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 established that Rs. 16 crore credited in the assessee's books represented undisclosed income of the declarant HUF, which had been subjected to tax. The assessee relied on that declaration as evidence of the source of the credit and not as derivative immunity under Section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016. No material showed that the assessee itself generated the unaccounted funds, and the Revenue did not disprove the declaration or the first appellate finding connecting it to the credits. The direct Rs. 1 crore investment was supported by documentary evidence of the investor's disclosed financial capacity. Taxing the same Rs. 16 crore again as unexplained cash credit would result in double taxation.

Conclusion: Deletion of the additions of Rs. 16 crore and Rs. 1 crore was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the Rs. 7 crore share capital and share premium addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained.

Analysis: For assessment year 2011-12, the prospective proviso to Section 68 imposing a source-of-source burden upon closely held companies was inapplicable; the applicable burden was to establish the investor's identity, creditworthiness, and transaction genuineness. That limitation did not preclude verification of a fund trail indicating that the assessee's own funds may have returned as share capital or that alleged investor entities may have received cash. The Rs. 3 crore component involved funds advanced by the assessee to an intermediary and subsequently returned through Kolkata entities as share capital, without an examined commercial rationale. For the Rs. 4 crore component, the relevance of an admission that entry-provider entities received funds by cash as well as cheque had not been verified against the specific credits.

Conclusion: The Rs. 7 crore addition was restored for fresh limited verification of the Rs. 3 crore and Rs. 4 crore components after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issue (iii): Whether reassessment initiation under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid.

Analysis: A sworn search statement identifying the use of controlled entities to introduce unaccounted money as share capital in the assessee's books constituted specific tangible material supporting a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. This was not merely borrowed satisfaction. The objections to reopening were substantively addressed, and the absence of a separate speaking order did not invalidate reassessment where the recorded reasons independently supported jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reassessment initiation was upheld as valid.

Final Conclusion: The explained share-capital credits remain excluded from taxation, while the unresolved fund-trail components require fresh verification; reassessment jurisdiction remains undisturbed.

Issues: Whether expenditure incurred in relation to the Bio-Pharma Division was deductible as revenue expenditure or liable to blanket capitalisation on the premise that commercial production had not commenced.

Analysis: The distinction between setting up and commencement of business was applied: once a business is established and ready to undertake its intended functions, expenditure incurred thereafter is not inadmissible merely because actual commercial operations commence later. The contemporaneous annual report recorded completion of the first phase of the Bio-Pharma unit and commencement of production. Subsequent financial-enforcement events could not displace that evidence for the relevant year, and uncertainty regarding the precise allocation of segment turnover did not establish that the unit had not been set up. A blanket characterisation of all divisional expenditure as capital was impermissible; depreciation, interest on borrowed capital and scientific-research expenditure remain subject to their respective statutory conditions. The appellate order had also failed to adequately address the documentary material and written submissions.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the entire Bio-Pharma Division expenditure as capital expenditure was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a resident individual opting for the new tax regime for assessment year 2024-25 is entitled to rebate under section 87A on tax payable on long-term capital gains taxable under section 112.

Analysis: Section 87A grants rebate by reference to the assessee's total income, which includes long-term capital gains forming part of total income under sections 2(45) and 5. The plain meaning of section 87A and section 112 contains no express statutory exclusion denying rebate in respect of long-term capital gains taxable at the special rate under section 112. In contrast, section 112A(6) specifically excludes rebate for the tax payable on gains covered by that provision. The later restriction introduced by the Finance Act, 2025 for income taxable at special rates is a substantive amendment operating prospectively and cannot be applied to assessment year 2024-25.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee; rebate under section 87A is available against tax payable on long-term capital gains taxable under section 112 for assessment year 2024-25, where the prescribed total-income condition is satisfied.

Issues: Whether interest and other income of a co-operative society providing credit facilities to its members is deductible under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as income attributable to that activity.

Analysis: Section 80P(2)(a)(i) allows deduction of the whole income attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members. The expression "attributable to" has a wider scope than "derived from" and covers interest earned by deploying funds not immediately required for lending to members. The precedent concerning interest on amounts retained and payable to members was distinguishable, as it concerned a different factual setting and a claim under Section 80P(2)(d).

Conclusion: The interest and other income constitute business income attributable to the activity of providing credit facilities to members and are fully deductible under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether GST input tax credit mandatorily reversed upon Building Use Permission, attributable to unsold units, is deductible as business expenditure in the relevant assessment year; (ii) Whether the GST reversal provision of Rs. 85,59,538 is allowable where its claim requires verification across assessment years to prevent double deduction.

Issue (i): Whether GST input tax credit mandatorily reversed upon Building Use Permission, attributable to unsold units, is deductible as business expenditure in the relevant assessment year.

Analysis: Section 17(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 restricts common input tax credit to the portion attributable to taxable supplies, while Section 17(3) includes post-completion sale of building in the exempt-supply computation. Paragraph 5(b) of Schedule II treats construction for sale as a supply of service only where consideration is received before completion; post-completion sales of unsold units do not attract output GST. Rules 42 and 43 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 prescribe project-wise input tax credit apportionment and final adjustment at completion, including by reference to the unsold carpet-area ratio.

Analysis: Upon Building Use Permission, the statutory restriction crystallised in respect of the unsold portion of the project. The reversal was neither voluntary nor a mere accounting adjustment: GST paid on project inputs had earlier been represented by a valid credit asset, which became irrecoverable by operation of law when it could no longer be set off against output tax. The absence of a fresh cash payment on reversal did not negate the resulting irrecoverable business expenditure. Since final statutory attribution arose only on completion, the deduction could not have been claimed in the earlier years when the credit remained validly available; the Matching Principle did not require otherwise.

Conclusion: The GST input tax credit reversal of Rs. 2,64,11,386, attributable to unsold units on Building Use Permission, is allowable as business expenditure in the assessment year under consideration.

Issue (ii): Whether the GST reversal provision of Rs. 85,59,538 is allowable where its claim requires verification across assessment years to prevent double deduction.

Analysis: The amount represented the proportionate GST reversal relating to purchases of materials and services, and the same statutory principle governing the main input tax credit reversal applied. Verification was required to identify the appropriate assessment year for allowance and to ensure that the expenditure was not claimed twice.

Conclusion: The claim is to be examined for assessment year 2023-24 and allowed in only one assessment year, with no double deduction.

Final Conclusion: Mandatory reversal of common input tax credit at project completion becomes an irrecoverable project cost when the credit attributable to unsold units ceases to be utilizable; the related GST claim must be granted once in the appropriate assessment year after verification.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutorily mandated reversal of previously eligible common input tax credit upon project completion, to the extent allocated to unsold units resulting in exempt post-completion sales, becomes an irrecoverable project cost deductible when final statutory attribution crystallises.

Issues: Whether the foreign enterprise had a fixed place permanent establishment or a dependent agency permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, permitting attribution of profit from offshore supplies.

Analysis: The burden to establish a permanent establishment lay on the Assessing Officer. A consolidated Form 10-K containing group-wide information and website information relating to the Indian subsidiary did not establish that the subsidiary's premises were at the disposal of the foreign enterprise. Mere subsidiary status could not constitute a fixed place permanent establishment without evidence that the foreign enterprise had a right to use or control the premises for carrying on its business.

Analysis: The Indian subsidiary operated an independent manufacturing business, had substantial dealings with other parties, purchased goods on a principal-to-principal basis, and bore the relevant business risks. No material established that it habitually concluded contracts, maintained and delivered stock on behalf of the foreign enterprise, or habitually secured orders for it. The licensing agreement concerning royalty income could not establish agency status for the separate offshore supply transactions.

Conclusion: No fixed place permanent establishment or dependent agency permanent establishment existed in India; consequently, no profits from the offshore supplies could be attributed in India.

Issues: Whether the final assessment order passed pursuant to the DRP directions was barred by statutory limitation under Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The DRP directions were uploaded on the ITBA portal on 29.09.2021. Section 144C(13) required completion of the assessment within one month from the end of that month, i.e., by 31.10.2021. The final assessment order was passed on 24.11.2021, beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The final assessment order was time-barred, void and set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271D for alleged acceptance of cash in contravention of section 269SS was sustainable where the assessee received and temporarily held the amount as a mediator in a property transaction.

Analysis: Section 269SS applies to acceptance of a loan or deposit. The affidavits of the purchaser and seller, registered sale deed, and bank records supported that the amount was received for temporary safe custody in connection with the property transaction, deposited into the assessee's bank account, and paid to the seller by cheque shortly thereafter. The transaction did not constitute acceptance of a loan or deposit; in any event, its bona fide nature established reasonable cause under section 273B.

Conclusion: The cash receipt was not a loan or deposit attracting section 269SS, and penalty under section 271D was unwarranted. The impugned penalty was directed to be deleted.

Issues: Whether cash deposits made during demonetisation, stated to be from earlier cash sales and household savings, could be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68.

Analysis: Section 68 permits an addition where the source of the credited amount remains unexplained. The assessee produced material supporting regular sales activity, including cash books and VAT records. The cash available on 08.11.2016 represented receipts from sales made before demonetisation, and the subsequent deposit of that cash in bank accounts did not render its source unexplained. The sales activity and supporting material were sufficient to establish the genuineness of the source.

Conclusion: The cash deposits were satisfactorily explained and could not be added as unexplained cash credits under section 68; the addition of Rs. 44,15,000 was directed to be deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether shares received as a gift and taxed under Section 56(2)(x) retain their character as a gift, requiring inclusion of the previous owner's holding period, and are long-term capital assets; (ii) Whether indexation is available where the cost of acquisition is determined under Section 49(4); and (iii) From which date indexation is to be computed where the shares were received as a taxable gift.

Issue (i): Whether shares received as a gift and taxed under Section 56(2)(x) retain their character as a gift, requiring inclusion of the previous owner's holding period, and are long-term capital assets.

Analysis: Explanation 1(b) to Section 2(42A), read with Section 49(1)(ii), mandates tacking of the previous owner's holding period where property is acquired by gift. Taxation of the gift value under Section 56(2)(x) does not recharacterise the transfer or displace the mode of acquisition as a gift. Section 49(4) modifies only the cost of acquisition and does not alter the period-of-holding rule. Section 47(iii) further supports the continued character of the transaction as a gift.

Conclusion: The shares are long-term capital assets, and the resulting gains are chargeable as long-term capital gains, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether indexation is available where the cost of acquisition is determined under Section 49(4).

Analysis: The second proviso to Section 48 permits indexed cost of acquisition for long-term capital assets. Section 49(4) substitutes the value already subjected to tax under Section 56(2)(x) as the statutory cost of acquisition, but does not exclude indexation on that cost.

Conclusion: Indexation is available on the deemed cost of acquisition determined under Section 49(4), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): From which date indexation is to be computed where the shares were received as a taxable gift.

Analysis: The previous owner's holding period determines the character of the asset, whereas the cost under Section 49(4) is an independent statutory deeming fiction that arose only when the fair market value was taxed under Section 56(2)(x). Indexation cannot be applied from a period during which that deemed cost did not exist. The applicable cost inflation index is consequently that of financial year 2020-21, when the value was brought to tax.

Conclusion: Indexation must be computed from financial year 2020-21, commencing from 24.03.2021, and not from the period during which the previous owner held the shares, against the assessee to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The capital gains require recomputation as long-term capital gains by applying indexation to the Section 49(4) deemed cost from financial year 2020-21.

Ratio Decidendi: For assets received by gift and taxed under Section 56(2)(x), the previous owner's holding period is included to determine the nature of the asset, but the deemed cost under Section 49(4) is indexed only from the year in which that value was subjected to tax.

Issues: (i) Whether additions for unsecured loans of Rs. 1.10 crore were sustainable under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether remand to verify whether the Rs. 11.25 lakh sale receipt had already been offered to tax was proper; (iii) Whether corpus fund and society/security deposits of Rs. 2,87,75,495 could be assessed under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or by a 10% notional-interest addition.

Issue (i): Whether additions for unsecured loans of Rs. 1.10 crore were sustainable under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Non-response to notices under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not determinative and had to be assessed with the remaining evidence. The Rs. 10 lakh credit pertained to an earlier financial year and was not a credit of the relevant previous year. For the Rs. 1 crore loan, confirmation, banking-channel receipt and repayment during the same financial year were on record, without further substantive material establishing that it was an accommodation entry.

Conclusion: No; the addition of Rs. 1.10 crore was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether remand to verify whether the Rs. 11.25 lakh sale receipt had already been offered to tax was proper.

Analysis: Whether the receipt had already been offered to tax was capable of verification from the books of account and assessment records. Verification of that factual assertion was necessary before determining whether an addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could survive.

Conclusion: Yes; the direction for verification was upheld, and taxability remains subject to that verification.

Issue (iii): Whether corpus fund and society/security deposits of Rs. 2,87,75,495 could be assessed under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or by a 10% notional-interest addition.

Analysis: No specific material established that the receipts were not from flat purchasers, that the liabilities were fictitious, or that they represented the assessee's unexplained funds. Retention or possible use of the funds did not by itself convert the principal into unexplained income, and actual income from deployment could not be determined through an unsupported notional rate. However, balance-sheet disclosure and general contractual terms alone did not conclusively establish the nature and source of each purchaser-wise credit; purchaser-wise evidence, agreements, ledger accounts, modes of receipt and subsequent treatment required examination.

Conclusion: Neither the Section 68 addition nor the 10% notional-interest addition was sustained; the matter was restored for fresh purchaser-wise examination.

Final Conclusion: Credit-wise evidentiary determination is required instead of assumptions founded merely on non-response to notices, recording of amounts as liabilities, or retention of funds.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the nature and source of individual credits must be determined from supporting evidence; unexplained-credit treatment or deemed income cannot rest solely on presumptions.