Uncorroborated survey statements, particularly disclosures based on pro forma accounts rather than actual books, cannot alone establish unexplained money where no unrecorded assets are found and audited books have not been rejected. Corroborative evidence is required before estimated income may be treated as unexplained money. Failure to upload a tax-audit report may be protected from penalty where the audit was completed within time and a bona fide technical lapse, including an auditor's illness, establishes reasonable cause.

Foreign tax credit under Section 90 is treated as a substantive entitlement not defeated by delayed furnishing of the prescribed form where Rule 128(9) imposes a deadline without prescribing denial as a consequence. Late filing is not included among the specified grounds for non-allowance of credit, supporting a directory construction of the procedural requirement. A computation that records available foreign tax credit in its annexures but enters nil credit in the calculation contains an apparent internal inconsistency. Such an error is capable of rectification under Section 154, followed by consequential recomputation of the credit.

Rejection of books of account under section 145(3) is permissible where primary books, bills and vouchers are not produced and the correctness or completeness of accounts cannot be verified. An audit report does not replace underlying records. Best judgment assessment after such rejection requires an honest estimate with a reasoned nexus to supporting material; rejection alone does not justify an arbitrary expenditure disallowance. Where no specific bogus or inflated expenditure, basis for the selected rate, or corroborative material exists, the quantum requires verification. Audited financial statements from adjacent years may be admitted as additional evidence for verification under the applicable appellate rules.

Profit estimation on unrecorded sales requires a reasonable nexus to the assessee's accepted business results and supporting material. Where audited results, turnover methodology and prior-year treatment are accepted, a higher gross-profit estimate without justification lacks evidentiary foundation. Cash-credit provisions apply only to sums credited in the assessee's own books; entries found solely in an employee's electronic records, without corroborated receipt by the assessee, do not trigger the statutory burden regarding identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. Treating receipts already assessed as another person's group-fund income or as unrecorded sales turnover as separate taxable credits would also conflict with the real-income principle and create double taxation.

Section 68, as applicable to the relevant year, required a borrower to establish a loan creditor's identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness, but not the source of the creditor's funds. Corporate records, tax returns, confirmations, banking transactions, interest-tax deductions and documented brokerage supported the unsecured loans; a creditor's non-response to notice, without further Revenue inquiry or evidence of accommodation entries, was insufficient for an adverse addition. A novation agreement discovered after assessment in relation to an insolvent creditor fell within Rule 46A additional-evidence grounds. Interest capitalised to unsold land stock, rather than claimed as a revenue deduction, could not be disallowed.

A penalty notice under Section 274 must clearly specify whether proceedings concern concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Retaining both alternatives in a standard-form notice, while the assessment order alleges furnishing inaccurate particulars and the penalty order imposes penalty for concealment, fails to communicate a definite charge and shows non-application of mind. The assessee's participation or response on merits does not cure this defect. Consequently, the notice is invalid and the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.

Agricultural land within a municipality meeting the prescribed population condition is treated as a capital asset; aerial-distance criteria apply only to land outside municipal limits. Classification must rest on underlying municipal records, notifications or maps establishing jurisdiction on the transfer date, rather than an unverified report. Where the land qualifies as a capital asset, an alternative claim for capital-gains exemption for reinvestment in agricultural land may be raised in appellate proceedings despite not being made earlier. Relief remains conditional on evidence of prescribed prior agricultural use and timely purchase of replacement agricultural land.

Advertisement, publicity and sales-promotion outlays incurred recurrently to sustain business in a competitive market were treated as revenue expenditure because they neither acquired a capital asset nor produced an enduring benefit. Consistent acceptance of comparable expenditure as revenue in preceding and succeeding years, including scrutiny assessments, supported application of consistency where no material factual change existed. ITAT therefore allowed the expenditure in full and deleted its capitalisation-based disallowance.

Penalty proceedings under Section 270A require a notice under Section 274 to identify the precise statutory limb or sub-clause forming the proposed charge. A standard-form notice that omits this material specification indicates lack of application of mind and cannot validly support a consequential penalty. Consistency, judicial discipline and uniformity also require materially identical donation claims involving the same political entity and assessment period to receive equivalent treatment, unless a rational distinction exists. Denial of an exclusion allowed in parallel proceedings on identical facts makes the penalty unsustainable. The penalty proceedings and consequential penalty were therefore quashed and deleted.

Taxability of a stamp-value differential on purchase of immovable property under Section 56(2)(x) depended on an increase in valuation between payment of registration charges and execution of the registered sale deed. Additional registration charges were paid following that increase. Before the revised valuation, the difference between the purchase consideration and stamp-duty value fell within the 10% tolerance limit. The addition, made without a valuation-officer reference, was treated as unsustainable and directed to be deleted.

Advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure paid to third parties does not constitute an international transaction merely because it may benefit an associated enterprise. A transfer-pricing adjustment under Chapter X requires the Revenue to establish an agreement, arrangement, or understanding between associated enterprises concerning the AMP expenditure. The bright line test cannot replace proof of an underlying international transaction. In the absence of such evidence, AMP expenditure is outside transfer-pricing adjustment and no arm's-length-price determination is permissible.

Section 40A(3) applies only where an assessee incurs expenditure and makes payment outside the prescribed modes. Loan funds received from finance companies and passed to identified borrowers by a vehicle-finance facilitator do not constitute its business expenditure where only commission or brokerage is recognised as income. Finance records, payment advices, agreements and confirmations may establish the facilitator's intermediary role. Routing loan funds through its bank account does not, by itself, convert onward disbursements into expenditure incurred by the facilitator; consequently, disallowance under section 40A(3) does not apply.

Section 153B(1) required search-related assessments to be completed within twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the final search authorisation was executed. Where the final authorisation was executed in financial year 2020-21, the statutory deadline was 31 March 2022. The COVID-19 limitation extension applied only to judicial and quasi-judicial matters, including appeals, suits and petitions, and did not extend deadlines for original assessment proceedings. Assessments completed on 11 April 2022 were consequently beyond limitation and invalid.

Completed, unabated assessments may be subjected to additions under Section 153A only where the search yields incriminating material relating to the assessee; absent such material, the additions are unsustainable. Reassessment requires recorded reasons founded on correct material facts and genuine application of mind; an erroneous factual premise prevents valid formation of the requisite belief and renders reopening void from inception. A concealment penalty cannot continue where its sole underlying quantum addition has been deleted, because no independent basis remains.

Transfer-pricing comparability requires alignment with Rule 10B, including consideration of turnover, brand value, economies of scale, bargaining power and ownership of intangibles where those factors materially affect profitability. An upper turnover filter may therefore support exclusion of high-turnover software-development comparables that are materially larger and functionally dissimilar. A question concerning comparables that was not raised before the Tribunal does not arise for consideration at the subsequent stage. The exclusion of identified high-turnover comparables remains sustainable on comparability grounds.

Interest under Section 244A(1)(b) applies to refunds arising after an order treating a deductor as an assessee in default is quashed, where the refund falls outside Section 244A(1)(a). Interest runs from the date of payment until the refund date. Section 244A(1B), inserted with effect from 1 April 2017, does not deny interest on a refund processed before its commencement. Retention of money without authority warrants compensatory interest for the period of its use and retention.

Recall application was allowed, restoring the writ petition. The petition was then closed with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings on the same cause of action, including a challenge to Section 147A. Existing protection was continued for 90 days, preserving interim safeguards while permitting a renewed statutory challenge on the same factual basis.

Section 270AA permits determination of an immunity application only after expiry of the statutory appeal period, as grant of immunity is conditional on that expiry and other prescribed requirements. Rejection remains impermissible without a meaningful opportunity of hearing under the proviso to Section 270AA(4). A one-day notice to appear, followed immediately by rejection, does not provide adequate time to produce records and substantiate the immunity claim and breaches principles of natural justice. Immunity applications must therefore be reconsidered after an effective hearing and consideration of submissions and supporting material.

Assessment proceedings under section 153A were challenged because the section 153D approval was allegedly vitiated by total non-application of mind. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its Article 136 jurisdiction to interfere with the High Court order, dismissing the special leave petition and disposing of related interlocutory applications, where applicable.

Composite works-contract services supplied to the Government or a local authority for specified water supply, water treatment, sewerage treatment or disposal infrastructure attracted GST at 12%, comprising 6% CGST and 6% SGST, on 1 June 2022. The concessional rate entry remained operative until its omission took effect on 18 July 2022. Contractual recovery or reimbursement of an increased tax burden from the other contracting party falls outside the matters eligible for an advance ruling under the CGST Act. Consequently, the advance-ruling mechanism cannot determine entitlement to recover additional tax arising from a later rate change.