Issues: (i) Validity of the sanction granted under Section 151(i) on 1 April 2022 after expiry of three years, including the temporal operation of the Finance Act 2023 proviso to Section 151; (ii) Whether third-party survey material established a live link between the assessee and alleged unaccounted sale consideration.

Issue (i): Validity of the sanction granted under Section 151(i) on 1 April 2022 after expiry of three years, including the temporal operation of the Finance Act 2023 proviso to Section 151.

Analysis: Sections 149(1)(a), 149(2), and 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 prescribe the limitation framework and identify the specified authority competent to approve reassessment. The three-year period for the relevant assessment year ended on 31 March 2022. Approval granted on 1 April 2022 by the authority under Section 151(i) did not meet the requirement applicable after expiry of that period. The time allowed for response under Section 148A(b) could not cure the jurisdictional defect under the unamended Section 151. The proviso inserted in Section 151 with effect from 1 April 2023 altered the computation of the three-year threshold for identifying the approving authority; it was a substantive jurisdictional change and was expressly prospective.

Conclusion: The sanction under Section 151(i) was without jurisdiction, and the Finance Act 2023 proviso to Section 151 did not retrospectively validate it. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether third-party survey material established a live link between the assessee and alleged unaccounted sale consideration.

Analysis: The impounded loose papers from a third-party survey contained neither the assessee's name nor particulars directly connecting her with the alleged on-money. The assessee had not sold the land to the person whose statement was relied upon, and no material established that person as her broker or otherwise connected her to the third-party transaction. The material was impounded nearly two years after the sale, without any demonstrated nexus to the assessee.

Conclusion: The third-party material did not establish a live link with the assessee or provide a sustainable basis for reassessment. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory safeguard governing approval for reassessment remained applicable under the law in force on the relevant date, and the evidentiary foundation for reopening was independently insufficient.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amendment altering the computation for identifying the competent reassessment-sanctioning authority cannot retrospectively cure a jurisdictionally invalid sanction unless the legislature clearly provides for retrospective operation.

Issues: (i) Whether software imported and supplied to educational institutions was customized software eligible for exemption or packaged software; (ii) Whether RSP/MRP assessment applied to such software despite the institutional or industrial consumer claim; (iii) Whether RSP could be determined from downstream invoices under the valuation rules; (iv) Whether extended limitation, confiscation, and penalties were justified.

Issue (i): Whether software imported and supplied to educational institutions was customized software eligible for exemption or packaged software.

Analysis: The material from software suppliers, educational institutions, and the importer's personnel established that the products were standard electronic-design and simulation tools with common functionality, supplied to varied users. Customer consultations, installation, training, and technical support did not establish client-specific development or alteration of the software. The products consequently met the definition of packaged or canned software under the applicable exemption notification.

Conclusion: The educational software was packaged software, not customized software, and was ineligible for the customized-software exemption; against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether RSP/MRP assessment applied to such software despite the institutional or industrial consumer claim.

Analysis: Retail sale under the Legal Metrology framework includes distribution or delivery through agencies or other instrumentalities for consumption by a group of individuals; it is not confined to sales through retail shops. The software was delivered as such to varied customers and was capable of off-the-shelf sale. After the relevant amendment, institutional or industrial consumer treatment additionally required a "not for retail sale" declaration on the package, which was absent. RSP-based assessment was therefore attracted under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Conclusion: RSP/MRP-based assessment validly applied to the imported packaged software; against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether RSP could be determined from downstream invoices under the valuation rules.

Analysis: Sales invoices of distributors and sub-resellers supplied contemporaneous market evidence of the maximum price at which the software was sold. The invoices did not segregate alleged support-service charges, while customer confirmations indicated that installation and training were provided without separate charge. Those invoices could consequently be used for RSP determination under Rule 6, with the prescribed abatement.

Conclusion: The RSP re-determination based on downstream sales invoices was valid; against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether extended limitation, confiscation, and penalties were justified.

Analysis: The absence of the mandatory "not for retail sale" declaration, coupled with commencement of MRP declarations after departmental objection and the established nature of the software as packaged software, supported an intention to evade duty. These circumstances sustained invocation of the extended period and the consequential confiscation and penalties.

Conclusion: The extended period, confiscation, and penalties were rightly sustained; against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The RSP-based CVD re-determination and the related fiscal liabilities remain legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Standard software developed for varied users does not become customized software merely because customer consultations, installation, training, or technical support are provided; where it is capable of off-the-shelf sale and statutory retail-package requirements apply, it is assessable on the RSP basis.

Issues: Whether the service-tax demand on unaccounted cash receipts from flat purchasers was sustainable on the basis of recovered pen-drive data, signed printouts, and statements of the accounts manager and director.

Analysis: The pen drives were recovered under panchnama from the accounts manager, who explained their contents and signed the printouts. His statement was reaffirmed after eleven months and was also confirmed by the company director. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof concerning facts within their exclusive knowledge rested on persons maintaining the records. The statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were voluntary statements and remained usable evidence; their retraction only in the reply to the show-cause notice was a delayed retraction and an afterthought. The recovered electronic records and signed printouts provided corroborative documentary evidence of cash receipts, notwithstanding the absence of bank entries or buyer statements.

Conclusion: The unaccounted cash receipts and consequent service-tax liability were established; the order setting aside the demand was erroneous, and the original order confirming the demand, interest, and penalties was restored.

Issues: (i) Whether supplying food from premises provided by a hospital constituted taxable outdoor catering service notwithstanding payment of VAT; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether supplying food from premises provided by a hospital constituted taxable outdoor catering service notwithstanding payment of VAT.

Analysis: Under Sections 65(24), 65(76a), and 65(105)(zzt) of the Finance Act, 1994, a person supplying food in connection with catering from premises provided by the recipient falls within outdoor catering service. The food was supplied from hospital premises, bringing the activity within the expanded definition applicable from 16.06.2005. Payment of VAT established taxation of the goods component alone; statutory abatements had already excluded the permissible goods value from the taxable value. The earlier exemption for outdoor caterers in medical establishments had also been rescinded with effect from 01.03.2006.

Conclusion: The supply constituted taxable outdoor catering service, and payment of VAT did not displace service-tax liability on the service component. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The demand was founded on records maintained by the assessee. Mere failure to declare facts did not establish wilful suppression; invocation of the extended period required deliberate conduct intended to evade tax. The existence of reasonable cause under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 also precluded penalties for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The demand for the extended period and all penalties were unsustainable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Service-tax liability remains confined to the normal limitation period with applicable interest, while penalties do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Food supplied under an institutional arrangement from premises provided by the recipient falls within outdoor catering service, and VAT paid on the goods component does not preclude service tax on the separately taxable service component.

Issues: (i) Whether an application for refund filed on 04.06.2024 was within limitation where the appellate order was physically communicated on 08.03.2022 but its summary in FORM GST APL-04 was uploaded on 03.06.2024; (ii) Whether interest is payable on the directed refund.

Issue (i): Whether an application for refund filed on 04.06.2024 was within limitation where the appellate order was physically communicated on 08.03.2022 but its summary in FORM GST APL-04 was uploaded on 03.06.2024.

Analysis: Section 54(1), read with Explanation 2(d), ordinarily makes the date of communication of the appellate order the relevant date for a refund arising from that order. Rule 113(1) treats FORM GST APL-04 as a summary of the appellate order, while Rule 89(1) and FORM GST RFD-01 permit a refund application based on an order received physically; consequently, the physical communication on 08.03.2022 would ordinarily govern limitation.

Analysis: The appellate order had set aside the demand and specifically directed refund. The departmental delay in uploading the statutory summary, followed by the refund application on the next day, made it inappropriate to allow a procedural limitation to defeat that substantive relief. Continued retention of an amount unsupported by a subsisting demand would offend the constitutional safeguards against collection without authority of law and deprivation of property without authority of law.

Conclusion: In the peculiar circumstances, 03.06.2024 was treated as the relevant date; the refund application was timely and the assessee is entitled to the directed refund. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest is payable on the directed refund.

Analysis: Section 56 provides for interest where a refund consequent upon a final appellate order remains unpaid beyond sixty days from the refund application. The refund claim was treated as having been validly made on 04.06.2024, and the interest direction balanced the delayed claim process with the subsisting appellate direction for refund.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the refundable amount from 15.08.2024 until payment, with 9% per annum applicable upon non-compliance beyond the stipulated implementation period. This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate direction granting refund remains enforceable, and belated administrative uploading of its statutory summary cannot result in continued retention of an amount no longer supported by a valid demand.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated departmental upload of the statutory appellate-order summary may exceptionally be treated as the relevant date for a refund claim where necessary to give effect to a final refund direction and prevent retention of tax without legal authority.

Issues: (i) Whether the audit report dated 02.08.2024 was completed within the three-month period under Section 65(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the show-cause notices issued under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should be quashed at the writ stage.

Issue (i): Whether the audit report dated 02.08.2024 was completed within the three-month period under Section 65(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 65(4) requires completion of an audit within three months from its commencement. The Explanation fixes commencement as the later of the date on which the required records are made available and the date on which the audit is actually instituted at the registered person's place of business. Since the completeness of documents supplied was disputed and the audit was actually instituted at the place of business on 19.06.2024, that later event governed commencement. The report issued on 02.08.2024 was therefore within time. Although the authorities should intimate outstanding documents within a reasonable time, their failure to do so did not invalidate the audit under the statutory framework.

Conclusion: In favour of Revenue, the audit report was completed within the prescribed period and remains valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the show-cause notices issued under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should be quashed at the writ stage.

Analysis: The notices permit a response in the statutory adjudicatory process, and a statutory appellate remedy is available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: Against the assessee, the show-cause notices are not quashed at the writ stage.

Final Conclusion: The audit remains effective, and the statutory proceedings initiated on its basis may continue.

Ratio Decidendi: For an audit under Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, commencement is determined by the later of the availability of records and actual institution of audit at the registered person's place of business.

Issues: (i) Whether the DGAP's methodology of comparing pre-GST credit and post-GST ITC against corresponding purchase values is legally and factually sustainable? (ii) Whether the Commencement Certificate dated 04.09.2017 precludes consideration of pre-GST purchase and credit data for determining additional ITC benefit? (iii) Whether the revised computation of profiteering based on the total project area, eligible sold area and per-square-foot benefit is factually and legally sustainable? (iv) Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is attracted?

Issue (i): Whether the DGAP's methodology of comparing pre-GST credit and post-GST ITC against corresponding purchase values is legally and factually sustainable?

Analysis: Section 171 requires the benefit of additional input tax credit to be passed on through a commensurate reduction in price. A turnover-based methodology is unsuitable for real-estate projects because buyer receipts, construction activity and ITC accrual do not necessarily correspond during a project's life cycle. The purchase-value methodology instead used actual pre-GST Service Tax and VAT credit and actual post-GST ITC against the corresponding project expenditure, quantified the project-level savings, and distributed it as a per-square-foot benefit. This project-specific methodology had a rational nexus with the credit benefit to be quantified. The 1.70% incremental ITC benefit was derived from the assessee's own credit and purchase-value data.

Conclusion: The methodology and the 1.70% additional ITC benefit were accepted. Against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commencement Certificate dated 04.09.2017 precludes consideration of pre-GST purchase and credit data for determining additional ITC benefit?

Analysis: The Commencement Certificate established the date of formal authorisation to commence construction, but did not by itself establish that no project-related goods or services were procured before GST. The pre-GST credit and purchase figures were drawn from certified statutory returns and records supplied by the assessee. No material established that those transactions lacked project nexus or related to another project.

Conclusion: The post-GST commencement date did not render the pre-GST purchase and credit data inadmissible or irrelevant for the Section 171 determination. Against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the revised computation of profiteering based on the total project area, eligible sold area and per-square-foot benefit is factually and legally sustainable?

Analysis: The revised exercise was undertaken to address the discrepancy between the earlier project area and the area reflected in the Occupancy Certificate. Although the total built-up area included common facilities and could not automatically be equated with saleable area, the assessee did not furnish the directed detailed reconciliation. The revised computation consistently adopted total project area of 5,36,891 sq. ft. and eligible sold area of 3,34,570 sq. ft., yielding a per-square-foot benefit of Rs. 43.56 and a base profiteered amount of Rs. 1,45,73,861. GST collected on the excess realisation formed part of the profiteered amount.

Conclusion: The revised computation of Rs. 1,63,22,724 inclusive of GST was accepted. Against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is attracted?

Analysis: The penalty provision came into force on 01.01.2020, and the investigation period extended beyond that date until 31.03.2023.

Conclusion: Penalty liability under Section 171(3A) arises, subject to the statutory exemption where the profiteered amount is deposited within thirty days. Against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The project-specific additional ITC benefit is enforceable through commensurate price reduction and proportionate passing on to eligible homebuyers, together with applicable interest; GST collected on the excess realisation forms part of that benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: In a real-estate anti-profiteering determination, actual pre-GST credit and post-GST ITC may be compared against corresponding purchase values, rather than turnover, to quantify project-level savings and derive a per-square-foot benefit, provided the underlying transactions have a project nexus.

Issues: (i) Validity of the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2014-15 to 2019-20; (ii) Availability of exemption under sections 10(20), 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and tax immunity under Article 289 of the Constitution of India; (iii) Eligibility for exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iv) Whether non-identification of a specific head of income invalidated the assessments; and (v) Computation of the assessee's taxable income.

Issue (i): Validity of the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2014-15 to 2019-20.

Analysis: For assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19, no returns had been filed despite surpluses exceeding the taxable threshold. This constituted deemed escapement of income under Explanation 2(a) to section 147, and the notices were within limitation and supported by the prescribed approvals. The second proviso to section 12A(2) did not bar reopening because the action was not only on account of non-registration. For assessment year 2019-20, the procedure under section 148A was followed, a return was filed in response to notice, and no procedural infirmity was established.

Conclusion: The reassessments are valid, and the jurisdictional challenge fails against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Availability of exemption under sections 10(20), 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and tax immunity under Article 289 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 10(20) did not cover an urban improvement trust constituted under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. Exemption under sections 10(46) and 10(46A) required a Central Government notification; the notification issued under section 10(46A) operated only from assessment year 2026-27. Article 289(1) protects the income of a State, whereas a statutory body corporate with its own assets, funds, liabilities, and capacity to sue and be sued has a separate legal personality and its income is not the income of the State. Public functions, State control, or status as an instrumentality for Article 12 purposes do not establish constitutional immunity from Union taxation.

Conclusion: No exemption under sections 10(20), 10(46) or 10(46A), and no immunity under Article 289, is available; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Eligibility for exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The retrospective application of trust registration under the first proviso to section 12A(2) required pending assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer on the date of registration. No such pending assessment proceedings existed for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19; an inquiry under section 133(6) was not an assessment proceeding, and reassessment proceedings commenced later. For assessment year 2019-20, registration was in force, but the claimed application and accumulation of income had not been verified. The direction for verification and recomputation was not challenged by the Revenue.

Conclusion: Exemption under sections 11 and 12 is unavailable for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19; for assessment year 2019-20, verification and recomputation of the claim is maintained, without an immediate allowance of exemption.

Issue (iv): Whether non-identification of a specific head of income invalidated the assessments.

Analysis: Section 4 charges total income, while the heads under section 14 operate for computation. The taxable subject was identifiable as the surplus disclosed in the income and expenditure accounts. The omission to specify a head of income for two assessment years did not invalidate the assessments, particularly when the head remains open for determination in the fresh computation.

Conclusion: The assessments are not invalid for want of a stated head of income, and the additional ground fails against the assessee.

Issue (v): Computation of the assessee's taxable income.

Analysis: Registration status did not determine whether particular receipts constituted real income. The claims concerning State shares of premium and lease receipts, fees, and refunded advances require factual determination of diversion of income by overriding title or of liabilities rather than income, on the basis of statutory instruments, accounting treatment, and evidence of remittance or refund. These matters had not been examined on merits.

Conclusion: Computation for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 is restored for fresh determination, including the head of income, while the rejected exemption and constitutional-immunity claims cannot be reopened.

Final Conclusion: The statutory and constitutional exemption claims stand rejected, while fresh quantification of taxable income remains necessary for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19; the verification framework for assessment year 2019-20 remains intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority possessing a separate corporate personality and its own assets, funds, and liabilities cannot treat its income as the income of the State for immunity under Article 289(1) merely because it performs public functions or is subject to State control.

Issues: (i) Whether royalty paid pursuant to a demand raised during the relevant year for rejection/waste dumps sold in preceding financial years was deductible in that year; (ii) Whether interest paid for delayed payment of royalty was a deductible business expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether royalty paid pursuant to a demand raised during the relevant year for rejection/waste dumps sold in preceding financial years was deductible in that year.

Analysis: Under the mercantile system of accounting, a liability that remained unasserted and was first demanded and quantified during the relevant year crystallises in that year. In the absence of earlier demands and given the bona fide belief regarding royalty on rejection/waste dumps, the payment was not disallowable merely as prior-period expenditure; the matching concept did not defeat the deduction.

Conclusion: The royalty payment was deductible in the year in which the liability crystallised, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest paid for delayed payment of royalty was a deductible business expenditure.

Analysis: Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Interest arising from delayed payment of royalty following the demand was compensatory, not penal, and was incurred as a matter of business expediency without breach or infraction of law.

Conclusion: The interest on delayed royalty payment was compensatory and deductible as business expenditure, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The royalty and consequential compensatory interest constituted deductible business outgoings for the relevant assessment year.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory liability and consequential compensatory interest first demanded and crystallised in a relevant year are deductible business outgoings in that year, notwithstanding that the underlying transactions relate to earlier periods.

Issues: Whether penalty for failure to deduct tax at source could be sustained under section 271C where the assessee established reasonable cause for the failure.

Analysis: Section 273B excludes penalty under section 271C where the assessee proves reasonable cause for non-deduction. The assessee's conduct in deducting tax on other payments, its bona fide understanding regarding the commission payment, and the disruption in tax-compliance functions caused by changes in key accounts personnel established that the defaults were inadvertent and without an intention to evade tax.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271C is deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a newly raised legal challenge to the reassessment notice, together with grounds not adjudicated by the first appellate authority, could be decided by the Tribunal or required remand to the first appellate authority.

Analysis: The additional legal ground, involving no fresh factual investigation and going to the root of the reassessment, was admitted as a pure question of law. As certain legal grounds had not been adjudicated by the first appellate authority, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine grounds not arising from the impugned first-appellate order. The matter therefore required adjudication at the first-appellate stage.

Conclusion: The impugned first-appellate order was set aside and the reassessment challenge along with the other grounds was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication; no ruling was made on the validity of the reassessment or the addition.

Issues: Whether rebate under Section 87A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was available against short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A where the assessee's total income was below the prescribed threshold.

Analysis: The total income, including short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A, was below Rs. 7,00,000 and the claimed rebate was below Rs. 25,000. The restriction on rebate noted in respect of long-term capital gains under Section 112A(6) did not extend to short-term capital gains under Section 111A.

Conclusion: Rebate under Section 87A was available in respect of the short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A; the disallowance was correctly deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Eligibility for rebate under section 87A where the assessee's total income, including short-term capital gains taxable at special rates, did not exceed Rs. 7,00,000.

Analysis: Under the proviso governing rebate under section 87A, an assessee chargeable under section 115BAC(1A) is entitled to the prescribed tax rebate where total income does not exceed Rs. 7,00,000. The assessee's total income was Rs. 4,89,910. The restriction of the claimed rebate from Rs. 24,995 to Rs. 4,329 was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the full rebate of Rs. 24,995 under section 87A.

Issues: Whether reassessment notice issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was valid when the income chargeable to tax alleged to have escaped assessment was below Rs. 50 lakh.

Analysis: The notice under Section 148 was issued for Assessment Year 2015-16 after expiry of three years. The transaction relating to agricultural land was not treated as taxable, leaving only the cash deposit of Rs. 20 lakh as the alleged escaped income. The extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) was therefore unavailable, since it applies only where income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of an asset, amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 50 lakh or more.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and consequential assessment were barred by limitation; the legal ground was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under section 50C(2)(a) could be sought in the second round of proceedings after the stamp-duty valuation issue had attained finality; (ii) Whether exemption under section 54B was available in respect of the short-term capital gain arising from transfer of agricultural land; (iii) Whether the addition for unexplained investment of Rs. 10,00,000 was sustainable; and (iv) Whether the addition for unexplained bank credit of Rs. 5,00,000 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under section 50C(2)(a) could be sought in the second round of proceedings after the stamp-duty valuation issue had attained finality.

Analysis: Section 50C(2)(a) permits a valuation reference where the assessee disputes the stamp-duty value before the Assessing Officer, subject to the statutory conditions. No such objection was raised in the assessment or in the earlier appellate proceedings, and the earlier remand did not keep the valuation issue open. The limited remand could not be used to reopen an issue that had attained finality.

Conclusion: The request for a valuation reference was rejected; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether exemption under section 54B was available in respect of the short-term capital gain arising from transfer of agricultural land.

Analysis: Section 54B does not confine relief to long-term capital gains, but requires proof that the transferred land was used for agricultural purposes by the assessee or a parent during the two years immediately preceding its transfer. The description of land as agricultural in the sale deed did not establish actual agricultural use, and no reliable agricultural records or other evidence proved fulfilment of that condition. A claim made through a revised computation did not dispense with the substantive eligibility requirements.

Conclusion: Exemption under section 54B was unavailable, and the short-term capital-gain addition of Rs. 18,56,000 was sustained; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition for unexplained investment of Rs. 10,00,000 was sustainable.

Analysis: The claimed cash payment and subsequent cheque transaction lacked a satisfactorily established source and nexus. The stated opening cash balance was unsupported, while the bank cash deposits occurred after issuance of the cheque. Confirmation and income-tax records of the intermediary, without reliable evidence of the source and genuineness of the payment arrangement, were insufficient.

Conclusion: The unexplained-investment addition of Rs. 10,00,000 was sustained; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the addition for unexplained bank credit of Rs. 5,00,000 was sustainable.

Analysis: Identity evidence and banking-channel receipt did not establish the nature and genuineness of the credit. The alleged underlying agreement for sale of land, its cancellation, and the asserted cash repayment were unsupported by contemporaneous documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The unexplained bank-credit addition of Rs. 5,00,000 was sustained; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The stamp-duty valuation remained undisturbed, the claimed capital-gains exemption failed for want of proof of agricultural use, and the disputed investment and bank credit remained unexplained.

Issues: Whether the Revenue appeal was maintainable where the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed for departmental appeals.

Analysis: The tax effect was Rs. 20,680, which was below the Rs. 60,00,000 monetary threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 for Revenue appeals before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Revenue appeal was not maintainable on account of low tax effect, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition for gold jewellery found in the assessee's bedroom was sustainable despite the claim that all jewellery found at the jointly occupied residence should be assessed collectively by extending the benefit under CBDT Instruction No. 1916 to the brothers' family members.

Analysis: CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 provides guidelines for seizure of jewellery during search and does not confer an unconditional exemption from assessment. The nature, ownership and source of jewellery must be established on the facts of each case. The jewellery was separately identified by bedrooms; the benefit for the assessee and his family had already been allowed, while jewellery found with the brothers was separately considered in their assessments. Joint residence alone did not establish common ownership or show that any eligible benefit attributable to other family members remained unutilised for adjustment against jewellery found in the assessee's bedroom.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained gold jewellery was sustained, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessee-bank could be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax on leave fare concession reimbursements made during the operation of an interim judicial direction restraining such deduction.

Analysis: Section 201(1) applies where a person required to deduct tax fails to do so, while liability for interest under section 201(1A) is consequential to such default. Although leave fare concession reimbursement involving a foreign travel leg was substantively taxable and did not qualify for exemption under section 10(5), the payments in question were made while an operative interim judicial direction required that such reimbursement not be treated as income for tax deduction at source. The assessee was therefore bound to comply with that direction and could not simultaneously deduct tax. A subsequent declaration of the substantive tax position could not retrospectively convert conduct undertaken in obedience to the binding judicial direction into a default under section 201(1).

Conclusion: The assessee-bank could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1); consequently, interest under section 201(1A) could not survive. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the sustained additions for foreign travel expenses, unexplained cash and unexplained share capital constituted undisclosed income liable to penalty under section 271AAB(1)(c), and the applicable penalty rate; (ii) Whether penalties under section 271(1)(c) were invalid for want of a specific charge or recorded satisfaction, or because the quantum additions had been reduced.

Issue (i): Whether the sustained additions for foreign travel expenses, unexplained cash and unexplained share capital constituted undisclosed income liable to penalty under section 271AAB(1)(c), and the applicable penalty rate.

Analysis: The definition of undisclosed income in Explanation (c) to section 271AAB covers income represented by money, entries or transactions found in a search that was not recorded or disclosed before the search. The sustained additions retained that character, as they were not disclosed in the return and no legal or factual basis was established to exclude them from the statutory definition. Reduction of the quantum additions did not, by itself, establish that the additions were estimated or exonerate the assessee from penalty. At the material time, the minimum applicable penalty rate was 30% rather than 60%.

Conclusion: The additions were undisclosed income liable to penalty under section 271AAB(1)(c); the penalty was restricted from 60% to 30%, partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties under section 271(1)(c) were invalid for want of a specific charge or recorded satisfaction, or because the quantum additions had been reduced.

Analysis: The penalty notices expressly specified concealment of income as the charge, rather than invoking both statutory limbs ambiguously. The assessment record also contained satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. A reduction in the quantum additions did not extinguish the charge of concealment where the surviving additions continued to represent concealed income.

Conclusion: The penalties under section 271(1)(c) were validly sustained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The search-related penalty liability was recalibrated to the statutory minimum rate, while the separate concealment-penalty liabilities remained sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Reduction of a quantum addition does not by itself negate penalty where the surviving amount remains undisclosed or concealed income and the penalty notice and assessment record specify the applicable charge.

Issues: Whether penalty for misreporting under section 270A could be sustained where the notice did not specify the applicable clause of section 270A(9) and the political-donation deduction was withdrawn in the return filed after reopening.

Analysis: Section 270A(9) identifies the circumstances constituting misreporting of income. The notice issued under section 274 read with section 270A did not identify any particular clause from clauses (a) to (f) of section 270A(9) that was alleged to apply. Further, the deduction claimed under section 80GGC was withdrawn in the return filed in response to the reopening notice, and the revised income was accepted in the assessment. The precedent concerning a notice that specifically identified the relevant clause of section 270A(9) was therefore distinguishable.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 270A was unsustainable and was deleted.