Section 54F is a beneficial capital-gains exemption provision that calls for liberal interpretation. Its conditions do not require the cost of a new residential house to be funded exclusively from the sale proceeds of the original capital asset or solely through withdrawals from the capital gains account. Timely deposit of sale consideration in that account meets the statutory deposit requirement. Investment records and municipal tax assessment evidence may establish construction of the residential house within the prescribed three-year period, supporting entitlement to exemption where the remaining statutory conditions are met.

Leave-encashment received by a non-government employee qualifies for exemption under Section 10(10AA) within the enhanced limit prescribed by Notification No. 31/2023. The enhanced limit applies retrospectively, supported by the explanatory memorandum confirming that no person is adversely affected by retrospective application. Where the factual and legal position remains unchanged, exemption cannot be restricted to the former lower limit. Accordingly, the stated leave-encashment receipt falls within the enhanced exemption threshold.

Reasonable cause for delayed filing was established by the taxpayer's residence shift, overseas employment and non-receipt of hearing notices, warranting condonation and merits adjudication. Audited accounts, books, transaction bills, creditor confirmations and supporting statements substantiated the cash deposits and unsecured loans. An inspector's report not confronted to the taxpayer could not wholly displace that evidence under natural justice principles. The additions were consequently confined to an aggregate amount over returned income, with the remaining addition deleted and income to be recomputed.

Section 69 applies only where the assessee made an investment that was not recorded in its books and whose nature and source remained unexplained. Payments made before the assessee firm existed, and confirmed as payments by a predecessor firm, could not constitute the assessee's investment merely because it assumed the related project liability. Any unexplained cash source required examination in the predecessor firm's assessment. Cash-flow details, buyer particulars and bank entries were not displaced through enquiry, and suspicion could not substitute evidence. A bank payment subsequently returned to the payer did not establish a separate cash payment without corroboration. No unexplained investment arose, and the related addition, tax treatment and interest were deleted.

Cash-balance additions based solely on the difference between opening and closing cash are unsustainable where the opening balance is carried forward from audited accounts, the books remain unrejected, and no individual cash receipt or payment is identified as unexplained. Brought-forward cash is not a fresh credit or receipt of the relevant year unless material establishes that it did not exist or represents current-year income. In the absence of false or unverifiable cash-book entries, the cash-balance addition was deleted.

Ordinary territorial jurisdiction for an appeal and cross-objection follows the location of the Assessing Officer who issued the assessment order, rather than the assessee's location or that of the appellate authority. Where the originating assessment order was issued by an Assessing Officer at Chennai, the Mumbai Bench lacked jurisdiction over both proceedings. The parties may pursue them before the appropriate jurisdictional Bench, with merits remaining open.

Valid and timely notice under Section 143(2) must be issued by the competent jurisdictional Assessing Officer for an assessment under Section 143(3). A notice issued after the statutory deadline cannot sustain the assessment. An earlier timely notice issued by a non-jurisdictional officer is ineffective unless jurisdiction was validly transferred under Section 127. Without a valid transfer order and timely notice by the competent officer, the assessment is void ab initio, and relief to the assessee stands sustained.

Cash-deposit verification relief applies to an individual without business income for demonetisation-period deposits up to Rs. 2.50 lakh, reducing the addition to that extent while sustaining the balance. For Assessment Year 2017-18, ambiguity over the temporal application of the amendment increasing the Section 115BBE rate was addressed through the favourable interpretation of a taxing provision. The enhanced rate was treated as applying only to transactions from 1 April 2017; the surviving addition was therefore taxable at the pre-amendment rate.

Discounted Cash Flow valuation permitted under Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA must be assessed using information available on the valuation date. Subsequent financial performance or initial operating losses alone do not establish that contemporaneous projections were unreliable or justify replacing the valuation with the Net Asset Value method, particularly where an independent report supports the assumptions. Section 69C applies only where the source of expenditure remains unexplained. Differences between recorded expenditure and vendor confirmations do not constitute unexplained expenditure when entries appear in audited books, payments are made through banking channels, and the business source of those payments is undisputed.

Section 14A read with Rule 8D does not support a disallowance where investments neither yielded nor could yield exempt income, dividend income was taxable in the relevant assessment year, and recorded expenses related to taxable income. Rule 8D may be invoked only after the Assessing Officer records valid satisfaction regarding the assessee's claim. On these facts, including consistency with accepted positions in earlier and subsequent years, the Section 14A disallowance was deleted.

Accepted sales and unrejected books of account preclude treating the entire value of alleged bogus purchases as non-genuine when those purchases support recorded sales. The taxable addition is confined to the profit element embedded in purchases from non-genuine suppliers. On the stated facts, a 12.5% gross-profit estimate was excessive, and the addition was limited to 5% of the disputed purchases as business income.

Cash deposits during demonetisation recorded in unrejected audited books and supported by verifiable prior bank withdrawals satisfy the source-explanation requirement for unexplained cash credits. Where books are not rejected and bank records substantiate withdrawals and subsequent deposits, the deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income. The enhanced tax rate with surcharge under section 115BBE does not apply for assessment year 2017-18. Accordingly, additions for the cash deposits and their treatment as unexplained income were unsustainable.

Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land bears the character of enhanced compensation rather than separately taxable interest. It forms part of the enhanced value of the acquired land and consequently receives the same exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as the underlying compensation.

Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA permits valuation of unquoted equity shares using prescribed methods, including the Discounted Cash Flow and Net Asset Value methods. The assessee may choose a prescribed method, while the Assessing Officer may scrutinise the valuation's assumptions, projections, discount rates and other inputs. Past losses or reliance on management projections do not, by themselves, justify replacing a Discounted Cash Flow valuation with the Net Asset Value method. Replacement requires identified arithmetical errors, factual inaccuracies, internal inconsistencies or foundational defects in the chosen valuation. In their absence, substitution of the valuation method is impermissible.

Deletion of the negative working capital adjustment through rectification requires recalculation of the assessee's revised margin to determine whether it remains within the permissible arm's length range. The consequential appeal-effect order must implement the rectification, consider the revised-margin claim, and allow a hearing before reaching a different conclusion. If the revised margin is within the permitted range, no transfer pricing adjustment survives; any grievance against the consequential order may be pursued through revival of the appeal.

Section 127 transfer orders govern all proceedings, including reassessment proceedings initiated after transfer, and divest the transferor Income-tax Officer of jurisdiction. Sections 147 and 148 permit reopening and issuance of a foundational reassessment notice only by the Assessing Officer holding jurisdiction under Section 2(7A) and applicable jurisdictional directions. Administrative PAN-database entries cannot confer or retain jurisdiction contrary to a subsisting statutory transfer order. Consequently, a reassessment notice issued by the former officer, and resulting proceedings, lack legal authority.

Reassessment cannot be initiated solely on unverified Insight portal information suggesting possible income escapement. Verified material must establish a nexus between the assessee and the alleged transaction, and the record must demonstrate application of mind. Where notices and orders disclose no transaction details, attribute identical alleged income to multiple taxpayers, fail to quantify the assessee's alleged benefit, and do not supply or verify the underlying information, reassessment amounts to an impermissible roving and fishing inquiry. Such reassessment initiation is invalid for lack of material linking the assessee to the alleged escaped income.

Income-tax recovery sought through debit notes as a component of electricity tariff involves disputed factual and documentary questions concerning liability. Tariff-related claims, including tax components, fall within the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission under the regulatory framework. Such disputes should therefore be raised before the Commission, which can determine liability after hearing all affected parties, rather than pursued through writ jurisdiction.

Belated refund claims may be admitted within the prescribed six-year period where the claim is correct and genuine and refusal would cause genuine hardship. The authority must assess those criteria independently, may verify the claim, and give a reasoned decision based on recorded grounds. A separate sufficient-cause explanation for delay, analogous to the Limitation Act standard, is not an independent requirement under this framework. Factors relevant to hardship include employment loss, the refund sought and final comparable decisions. The framework calls for fresh consideration of condonation without deciding the underlying exemption claim.

Reassessment of an investor cannot rest solely on allegations that a mutual fund manager manipulated accounting methodology. The Assessing Officer must possess information establishing a rational nexus or live link between those allegations and the investor's own escaped income, including material connecting the investor to a sham arrangement or fictitious loss. Where no material showed the investor's knowing participation and binding coordinate precedent governed the identical issue, the reassessment notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were quashed.