Issues: Whether a reassessment notice issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was valid when approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner.

Analysis: For reassessment notices issued after the prescribed three-year period, Section 151(ii) requires prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. The notice and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued in July 2022 for assessment year 2016-17 with approval of the Principal Commissioner. The binding jurisdictional precedent established that, even after considering the extension under TOLA, approval for such notice could only have been granted by the authority specified in Section 151(ii). Approval by the Principal Commissioner did not meet that statutory requirement and went to the jurisdiction to issue the notice.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was invalid for want of approval by the competent authority under Section 151(ii); the consequential reassessment proceedings and assessment could not survive. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether refusal of registration under section 12AB on the ground that the investor-protection fund benefited specified persons and attracted the proviso to section 2(15) was sustainable.

Analysis: Registration under section 12AB may be declined where activities are non-genuine, are not carried out in accordance with the stated objects, or fall within the proviso to section 2(15). The regulatory framework, Trust Deed and utilisation mechanism showed that compensation is paid to eligible investors whose admitted claims remain unmet after a trading member defaults and has insufficient assets. A defaulting trading member neither receives the payment nor acquires a right in the fund; contributions by the stock exchange and its members do not make them beneficiaries. Investors participating in the securities market form a section of the public with a common public interest, rather than persons connected through a private relationship. The fund's investor protection, awareness and research activities were consistent with its objects and were not activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or services rendered for consideration.

Conclusion: The refusal of registration under section 12AB was unsustainable; the activities were genuine, in accordance with the stated objects, and did not violate the proviso to section 2(15), in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an LLP whose accounts are mandatorily audited under the Limited Liability Partnership Rules is entitled to the extended due date under Explanation 2(a)(ii) to section 139(1) and, consequently, to carry forward its business loss; and whether denial of that claim was a mistake apparent from the record amenable to rectification.

Analysis: Explanation 2(a)(ii) to section 139(1) applies not only where accounts are required to be audited under the Income-tax Act but also where audit is mandated under any other law in force. The LLP's accounts were compulsorily audited under Rule 24(8) of the Limited Liability Partnership Rules, 2009, and the audit particulars were disclosed in the original return. Its entitlement to the extended due date was therefore independent of whether the turnover crossed the tax-audit threshold under section 44AB. The return filed on 11.09.2017 was within the applicable due date of 30.09.2017. Since the return was timely, section 80 did not bar carry forward of the business loss. Treating the LLP as a non-audit case despite the audit information available on record constituted a mistake apparent from the record, capable of rectification under section 154.

Conclusion: The return was filed within the due date under section 139(1), and the assessee was entitled to carry forward the business loss; the denial of that claim was rectifiable under section 154.

Issues: (i) Whether cash deposits recorded in the assessee's books could be treated as unexplained money under section 69A without examination and rejection of those books; (ii) Whether penalty under section 271(1)(b) was sustainable despite subsequent compliance with notices under section 142(1).

Issue (i): Whether cash deposits recorded in the assessee's books could be treated as unexplained money under section 69A without examination and rejection of those books.

Analysis: The assessee had furnished purchase and sale registers, cash book, bank ledgers and journal entries, and had correlated the deposits with cash balances reflected in the books. The assessment did not examine the reliability of those records or record a finding that they were fabricated or otherwise unacceptable. Treating the deposits as unexplained without examining the produced books was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A could not be sustained without examination of the books and supporting material; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under section 271(1)(b) was sustainable despite subsequent compliance with notices under section 142(1).

Analysis: The assessment order referred to the assessee's replies and was completed after such participation. Subsequent compliance established that there was no complete failure to comply with the notices, particularly when the replies were not examined in their entirety. In these circumstances, levy of penalty for non-compliance was not justified.

Conclusion: The penalty sustained under section 271(1)(b) is deleted; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The cash-deposit issue requires fresh fact-finding after scrutiny of the books and relevant evidence, while the residual penalty for alleged non-compliance has no legal basis.

Issues: (i) Whether Work Contract Tax relating to earlier financial years but actually paid during the relevant previous year was deductible where the assessee consistently followed the cash system of accounting; (ii) Whether interest paid for delayed payment of Work Contract Tax was compensatory and allowable as a business deduction.

Issue (i): Whether Work Contract Tax relating to earlier financial years but actually paid during the relevant previous year was deductible where the assessee consistently followed the cash system of accounting.

Analysis: Under the cash system of accounting, expenditure is ordinarily recognised on actual payment. The Revenue produced no material showing that the assessee followed the mercantile system, had changed its consistently followed accounting method, or had manipulated the timing of its claim. Nor were defects in the accounts identified or the statutory process for rejecting the accounts under Section 145 invoked. Having accepted the books and accounting method, the Revenue could not selectively apply mercantile principles merely because the underlying statutory liability related to an earlier period. The actual payment and business genuineness of the expenditure were undisputed.

Conclusion: Work Contract Tax actually paid during the relevant previous year was allowable as a deduction. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest paid for delayed payment of Work Contract Tax was compensatory and allowable as a business deduction.

Analysis: The interest arose solely from delayed discharge of statutory dues and was intended to compensate the State for the period of delayed payment. There was no material indicating that it was imposed as punishment for an offence, deliberate legal violation, or a purpose prohibited by law. Being a compensatory payment connected with the statutory business liability and actually paid under the cash system, it retained the character of deductible expenditure.

Conclusion: Interest on delayed payment of Work Contract Tax was compensatory, not penal, and was allowable as a deduction. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessed income must be recomputed after allowing deduction for the Work Contract Tax and the related compensatory interest actually paid during the relevant previous year.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessee consistently following the cash system may claim genuine business expenditure on actual payment unless its accounting method is validly disregarded under the applicable statutory framework; interest compensating for delayed statutory payment is deductible unless it is penal in character.

Issues: (i) Entitlement to interest under section 244A(1)(a) on refund arising from appellate reduction of tax rate; (ii) Entitlement to additional interest under section 244A(1A) on refund delayed beyond section 153(5).

Issue (i): Entitlement to interest under section 244A(1)(a) on refund arising from appellate reduction of tax rate.

Analysis: Section 244A(1)(a) mandates interest where a refund arises from advance tax or tax deducted at source. Section 244A(2) permits exclusion only of a definite period during which the proceedings resulting in refund were delayed by conduct attributable to the assessee. An erroneous original tax position, failure to revise the return, or pursuit of a legally sustainable claim in assessment and appellate proceedings does not itself establish such attributable delay. No specific obstructive conduct or identifiable period of delay was found, and the appellate determination of the applicable tax rate had attained finality.

Conclusion: Interest under section 244A(1)(a) is payable on the refund of Rs.5,39,84,057 from 01.04.2012 until actual grant of refund, after adjustment of any interest already allowed on that amount. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Entitlement to additional interest under section 244A(1A) on refund delayed beyond section 153(5).

Analysis: Additional interest under section 244A(1A) follows where a refund arising from an appellate order is granted after the period prescribed for giving effect to that order under section 153(5), otherwise than through a fresh assessment or reassessment. The prescribed period expired on 31.01.2019; no valid extension, withholding, or adjustment of refund was shown. The refund was credited only on 02.03.2021, and no assessee-caused delay in its grant after the statutory period was identified.

Conclusion: Additional interest at 3% per annum under section 244A(1A) is payable on the refund of Rs.90,94,381 from 01.02.2019 until its actual grant. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Refund interest cannot be denied merely because the refund results from a claim not made in the original return; exclusion is permissible only upon a demonstrated causal connection between the assessee's conduct and an identifiable delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory interest on refund is mandatory, and section 244A(2) permits exclusion only of a specifically identifiable period demonstrably delayed by the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment based on cash deposits in jointly held bank accounts was valid where the sanction for issuance of notice was granted mechanically and the recorded reasons lacked a live nexus with escapement of taxable income.

Analysis: Approval under Section 151 requires the competent authority's independent application of mind and cannot be reduced to a bare endorsement of "Approved". The sanction did not disclose examination of material or satisfaction regarding the necessity for reopening. Further, the deposits were in accounts in which the assessee was only the second holder, while the reasons did not contain material connecting the entire deposits to the assessee's taxable income. The material concerning agricultural activities also supported the explanation that the deposits were not necessarily taxable income.

Conclusion: The sanction under Section 151 was mechanical and invalid, and the reopening notice and consequential reassessment lacked lawful jurisdiction; the reassessment and additions were therefore unsustainable.

Issues: Whether expenditure written off upon abandonment of a proposed manufacturing project forming an expansion of the assessee's existing business was allowable as business expenditure.

Analysis: The proposed towel-manufacturing facility formed part of the assessee's existing textile business and was not an altogether new or distinct line of business. The project was abandoned for want of water-supply approval, and no completed capital asset or enduring advantage came into existence. The real nature and commercial purpose of the expenditure, rather than its prior accounting treatment as capital work-in-progress, governed its character. The matching principle could not restrict a deduction otherwise permissible under the statute merely because the expenditure had been accumulated in earlier years.

Conclusion: The write-off of expenditure on the abandoned project was allowable as business expenditure in the relevant year, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer should obtain a valuation from the Departmental Valuation Officer where the assessee disputes the stamp-duty valuation of jointly purchased immovable property and furnishes valuation material.

Analysis: The stamp-duty valuation was specifically disputed and valuation material was furnished. The request for a Departmental Valuation Officer reference under Section 50C(2) had not been addressed. The entire differential amount was also assessed in the assessee's hands despite the property being jointly owned in identified shares. Non-assessment of the co-owner's share could not justify assessment of the entire difference in the assessee's hands. A valuation reference was therefore necessary before determining the taxable difference.

Conclusion: The valuation issue must be referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer and reconsidered by the Assessing Officer after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether buy-back of the assessee-company's own shares at below fair market value, followed by mandatory extinguishment, constitutes receipt of property taxable under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether interest expenditure could be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of interest-free advances; (iii) Whether loans and advances written off were allowable as bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether buy-back of the assessee-company's own shares at below fair market value, followed by mandatory extinguishment, constitutes receipt of property taxable under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 56(2)(x) requires receipt of property by the recipient. A statutory buy-back does not result in the issuing company acquiring an asset capable of being held, enjoyed or transferred; it effects reduction of share capital. Under section 68(7) of the Companies Act, 2013, bought-back shares must be extinguished and destroyed, making extinguishment an integral consequence of the buy-back rather than a separable subsequent event. The independent applicability of section 56(2)(x) was accepted in principle, but its foundational requirement of receipt of property was not fulfilled. The regulatory origin of the shareholding and the finding that the arrangement was not tax-driven further supported this result.

Conclusion: The buy-back and mandatory extinguishment of the assessee's own shares did not constitute receipt of property under section 56(2)(x); the deletion of the addition was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest expenditure could be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of interest-free advances.

Analysis: The assessee's interest-free own funds substantially exceeded the aggregate interest-free advances. Its borrowings were explained as deployed towards identified capital projects, business assets and working-capital requirements. No specific borrowing or drawdown was traced to the impugned advances. In the presence of sufficient own funds and absent an established nexus between interest-bearing borrowings and the advances, the presumption operated that the advances were made from own funds; a proportionate disallowance based merely on mixed funds was impermissible.

Conclusion: No disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was warranted; the deletion of the interest disallowance was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether loans and advances written off were allowable as bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The loan portfolio reflected a regular, organised and continuing lending activity involving multiple borrowers, agreed interest, repayments, recurring balances and subsequent recoveries offered to tax. The lending activity was therefore a business of money-lending in fact. Neither the absence of an NBFC or money-lending licence nor the relative proportion of interest income displaced that factual character. Under the second limb of section 36(2)(i), principal monies lent in the ordinary course of such business need not have been previously taken into account as income. The debts were actually written off in the accounts, satisfying section 36(1)(vii). Earlier acceptance of similar lending transactions and taxation of subsequent recoveries were corroborative, not the sole basis of the deduction.

Conclusion: The written-off loans constituted debts arising from the ordinary course of the assessee's money-lending business and were allowable as bad debts; the deletion of the disallowance was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reliefs granted in respect of the share buy-back addition, interest disallowance and bad-debt claim were upheld.

Issues: Whether a manpower-supply company incurs additional employee cost under section 80JJAA where personnel recruited and retained on its payroll are deputed at client premises and their wage cost is recovered from clients.

Analysis: The assessee recruited the personnel, retained them on its payroll, paid wages and statutory dues, controlled their assignment, remuneration, discipline and termination, and remained liable for labour-law compliance. Client-side day-to-day supervision and deployment at client premises did not displace the employer-employee relationship between the assessee and the personnel. Recovery of wage costs with a service margin through client invoices was an accounting and commercial arrangement and did not negate the assessee's independent legal obligation to pay wages and discharge statutory liabilities. Section 80JJAA, being an employment-generation incentive enlarged to cover service businesses, required a liberal construction advancing that object. The earlier scrutiny acceptance of the identical claim, without any material change in facts or business model, also supported consistency.

Conclusion: The assessee was the employer of the deputed personnel and incurred their additional employee cost; it satisfied the conditions for deduction under section 80JJAA.

Issues: Whether convenience fee retained by an online ticket-booking platform constituted commission or brokerage requiring tax deduction at source under section 194H, and whether consequential interest under section 201(1A) could be levied.

Analysis: Section 194H applies only where the recipient receives or is entitled to receive consideration while acting on behalf of another person. The agreement, read as a whole, showed that the platform independently provided digital booking, payment-processing and customer-facing facilities to its users; owned customer data; bore collection, operational and consumer-claim risks; and was independently liable for its platform operations. The theatre operator was entitled only to the ticket price and a fixed sum per ticket from the convenience fee, irrespective of the actual fee collected. The agreed cap on convenience charges and commercial coordination did not establish representative authority or agency. Retention of the fee could not amount to constructive payment unless an underlying commission obligation and agency relationship were first established.

Conclusion: The convenience fee retained by the platform was not commission paid or constructively paid by the assessee under section 194H, and no tax-deduction obligation arose. The consequential interest levied under section 201(1A) was therefore liable to be deleted.

Issues: Whether deduction for a donation to an approved scientific research institution under Section 35(1)(ii) could be disallowed because the institution did not comply with a verification notice and its approval was subsequently withdrawn.

Analysis: Deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) was claimed on documentary evidence including bank records, donation receipt, registration material and approval subsisting when the donation was made. Non-compliance by the recipient institution with a notice under Section 133(6), without evidence that the donation was returned to the donor in cash, did not disprove the genuineness of the payment. Subsequent revocation of the institution's approval could not retrospectively prejudice a donor whose payment was made while the approval remained valid.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 35(1)(ii); the disallowance was unjustified.

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the books of account in relation to the disputed purchases was justified; (ii) Whether the entire value of purchases from an unverifiable supplier was liable to be added or only the profit element embedded therein.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the books of account in relation to the disputed purchases was justified.

Analysis: The supplier could not be produced, a separate stock register for the relevant barrels was not maintained, and adverse information impaired the evidentiary value of the purchase invoices. These circumstances warranted rejection of the books insofar as the disputed purchases were concerned.

Conclusion: Rejection of the books in relation to the disputed purchases was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the entire value of purchases from an unverifiable supplier was liable to be added or only the profit element embedded therein.

Analysis: The manufacturing activity and corresponding sales were accepted, and there was no material showing that no goods were received or used. The circumstances supported the inference that goods were procured through unrecorded sources and bills of the stated supplier were used to regularise them. In such cases, the taxable amount is the economic benefit from grey-market procurement rather than the entire purchase value. The 12.5% estimate was reasonable having regard to the disclosed gross-profit rate and consistent estimation for similar transactions.

Conclusion: Only the profit element of 12.5% of the disputed purchases was taxable; the restriction of the addition to Rs.4,25,496 was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The books could be rejected for the unverified purchases, but accepted sales and established business use precluded taxation of the full purchase value; the addition was confined to the estimated profit embedded in such purchases.

Ratio Decidendi: Where purchases from a stated supplier are unverifiable but the corresponding business activity and sales are accepted, only the profit element arising from unaccounted procurement may be estimated and taxed, absent material showing that no goods were received or utilised.

Issues: (i) Whether the loss from the impugned penny-stock transactions could be treated as an artificial or non-genuine loss; (ii) Whether an addition for alleged commission could be sustained consequentially; (iii) Whether interest on borrowed funds was disallowable where an interest-free advance was made to a related company.

Issue (i): Whether the loss from the impugned penny-stock transactions could be treated as an artificial or non-genuine loss.

Analysis: Investigation material, abnormal price movements, SEBI material and weak financial fundamentals of the scrips could warrant scrutiny, but did not establish the assessee's participation in a manipulation arrangement. The transactions were executed through a recognised stock exchange and supported by contract notes, demat records and transaction documents. No defect in those records, actual consideration, or specific nexus between the assessee and any operator or accommodation-entry provider was established. The assessee's extensive dealings in approximately 2,500 scrips also supported the treatment of the impugned transactions as part of regular trading activity.

Conclusion: The penny-stock loss was genuine and allowable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an addition for alleged commission could be sustained consequentially.

Analysis: The alleged commission rested entirely on the premise that the share transactions constituted an accommodation-entry arrangement. As that foundational allegation was not established, and no independent material showed that the assessee incurred commission expenditure, the requirements for an addition under Section 69C were not met.

Conclusion: The consequential commission addition was unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest on borrowed funds was disallowable where an interest-free advance was made to a related company.

Analysis: The assessee held a substantial shareholding in the recipient company, whose business was connected with the assessee's business. These circumstances supported commercial expediency. No specific material established diversion of interest-bearing borrowings for a non-business purpose, and a similar advance had been treated as commercially expedient in the assessee's earlier assessment year.

Conclusion: The interest expenditure was allowable under Section 36(1)(iii); the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletions of the disallowed share-trading loss, alleged commission expenditure and interest expenditure remain effective.

Ratio Decidendi: Documented stock-exchange transactions cannot be disregarded merely on general investigation material or suspicion without evidence specifically linking the assessee to manipulation; interest on funds advanced to a related concern remains deductible where commercial expediency is established and non-business diversion is not proved.

Issues: Whether payments to non-resident entities for diamond grading and certification reports constitute fees for technical services chargeable to tax in India, requiring tax deduction at source.

Analysis: Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires examination of the nature of the service rendered to the recipient; the service provider's use of specialised expertise, equipment, or personnel is not by itself determinative. The grading entities examined diamonds and issued independent reports of their physical characteristics, without providing advice, technical solutions, consultancy, managerial services, grading methodology, know-how, skill, or process enabling the assessee to perform grading independently. For payments governed by treaties containing a make available requirement, no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or process was made available. A withholding obligation under Section 195 arises only where the payment is chargeable to tax in India.

Conclusion: Diamond grading and certification charges were not fees for technical services chargeable to tax in India; consequently, no obligation to deduct tax at source arose and the deletion of the demand and consequential interest was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether bank credits in an admitted accommodation-entry business may be taxed only as commission when beneficiaries are unidentified; (ii) Whether 50% of routine business expenditure is deductible from such commission notwithstanding the unlawful nature of the activity.

Issue (i): Whether bank credits in an admitted accommodation-entry business may be taxed only as commission when beneficiaries are unidentified.

Analysis: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 places the initial burden on the assessee to explain the nature and source of credits in its books. An admission that the assessee provides accommodation entries does not by itself establish that every credit belongs to an outside customer. Beneficiary-wise particulars and supporting material are required to distinguish credits belonging to identified beneficiaries from unexplained credits. Computerised data extracted from the assessee's own system constitutes its books, but departmental possession of raw data does not discharge the assessee's burden to connect a credit with a beneficiary. Reasonable access to relied-upon seized material and an opportunity to explain each proposed addition must nevertheless be afforded.

Conclusion: Where the beneficiary is identified, only commission income at 0.15% is chargeable; credits remaining unexplained after beneficiary-wise verification are taxable under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether 50% of routine business expenditure is deductible from such commission notwithstanding the unlawful nature of the activity.

Analysis: Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 prohibits deduction of expenditure itself incurred for an offence or a purpose prohibited by law; it does not mandate taxation of gross receipts merely because the income-producing activity is unlawful. Ordinary outgoings such as audit fees, bank charges, salaries, office expenses and communication expenses remain relevant to computation of real profits where no particular expenditure is shown to be a penalty, fine, bribe or other prohibited payment.

Conclusion: Deduction of 50% of normal business expenditure against commission income is allowable. The issue is decided against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Beneficiary-wise verification must be undertaken before applying Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to bank credits, while normal expenditure remains deductible in computing commission income.

Ratio Decidendi: An accommodation-entry provider must identify the beneficiary of each credit to confine taxation to commission; absent a satisfactory explanation, the credit is assessable as unexplained, while illegality of the activity alone does not deny deduction of legitimate business outgoings in computing real profits.

Issues: (i) Whether unreconciled jewellery found in search constituted undisclosed income under the Explanation to section 271AAB; (ii) Whether penalty on that income was leviable at 10% under section 271AAB(1)(a) or 30% under section 271AAB(1)(c).

Issue (i): Whether unreconciled jewellery found in search constituted undisclosed income under the Explanation to section 271AAB.

Analysis: The statutory definition requires income of the specified previous year to be represented by an asset or material found in search and to have remained unrecorded in regular records or undisclosed before search. The jewellery was found during search, was not reconciled with wealth-tax records or other contemporaneous material, and was admitted in the section 132(4) statement and later offered as income for the relevant year. The assertion that it had been acquired in earlier years lacked supporting evidence. Reconciliation of other jewellery did not establish the source of the unreconciled portion.

Conclusion: The unreconciled jewellery constituted undisclosed income within the Explanation to section 271AAB, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty on that income was leviable at 10% under section 271AAB(1)(a) or 30% under section 271AAB(1)(c).

Analysis: Clause (a) applies where undisclosed income is admitted during search, its manner is specified and substantiated, tax and interest are paid, and it is declared in the return; clause (c) is residuary. The disclosure specifically identified the unreconciled jewellery, was not retracted, tax was paid, and the amount was included in a revised return before assessment completion and accepted in assessment. Identification of the particular asset sufficiently disclosed the nature and manner of the unexplained investment, especially as no further particulars were sought during search. Although omission from the original return precluded complete immunity, it did not warrant application of the residuary rate where substantive conditions of clause (a) stood fulfilled.

Conclusion: Penalty was leviable under section 271AAB(1)(a) at 10%, and not under section 271AAB(1)(c) at 30%, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty attributable to the undisclosed jewellery was confined to the statutory 10% rate.