Equity-oriented mutual-fund units are legally distinct from shares; their redemption therefore falls outside gains from alienation of shares under Article 13(3A) and may receive residual treatment under Article 13(4), subject to treaty entitlement. A Tax Residence Certificate satisfies an eligibility condition but does not conclusively establish entitlement where statutory anti-abuse rules apply. Revenue must identify and establish treaty abuse before invoking substance over form. Treaty relief and Article 27A require factual scrutiny of control, decision-making, regulatory compliance and commercial substance, with an effective opportunity to respond to adverse material.

India-Ireland DTAA provisions on software receipts and capital gains prevent Indian taxation where standard software and related support do not constitute royalty or fees for technical services. Article 13(5) covers only shares of a company resident in a contracting State; transfer of shares in a US company holding an Indian subsidiary instead falls within Article 13(6), allocating taxation to Ireland. Domestic definitions of transfer and the indirect-transfer deeming rule cannot enlarge treaty taxing rights absent genuine ambiguity or express incorporation. Domestic law may be consulted only to resolve treaty ambiguity; no treaty abuse or Multilateral Instrument application arises.

Revisionary jurisdiction requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Exemption for charitable purposes may remain supportable where the required audit report is furnished before reassessment is completed and the Assessing Officer has undertaken enquiries through scrutiny notices and supporting records. A legally plausible view reached after enquiry cannot be displaced merely because the revisional authority prefers another view. Subsequent rejection of condonation for delayed filing does not retrospectively make the assessment unsustainable. Where no complete lack of enquiry or identified factual or legal error exists, revision is not justified.

Capital gains computation requires the taxpayer to substantiate the cost of acquisition for the specific shares sold. Ledger extracts and accounting reconciliations, without transfer forms, share certificates, acquisition records, sale agreements, valuation details, or a scrip-wise reconciliation, do not establish that cost. Where sale consideration is undisputed but acquisition cost is unproved, the consideration cannot be treated as mere recovery of cost and may be assessed as long-term capital gain. Purchasers' identity or creditworthiness is irrelevant where the addition rests on failure to prove acquisition cost rather than unexplained credits.

Consideration received for an absolute and perpetual assignment of Indian trademark rights is treated as consideration for alienation of intellectual property, rather than royalty for use or the right to use the marks. Transfer of all rights, title, goodwill, registration, use and enforcement rights, coupled with extinction of the transferor's Indian rights, establishes ownership transfer despite territorial or product-related covenants. Fixed consideration not linked to future profits, productivity or use does not fall within the Protocol exception. Under the India-Switzerland DTAA, resulting gains fall within Article 13(6) and are taxable only in the transferor's State of residence, Switzerland.

Section 69B permits a deeming fiction for unexplained investment only when evidence establishes that actual investment exceeded the amount recorded in the books. A higher fair market value determined by a valuation report, without proof of payment beyond the contracted and recorded price, does not meet that burden. Valuation based on treating franchise fees as capital assets is defective where they are revenue expenditure, and the royalty-relief method is unsuitable where the brand cannot be sublicensed. Section 56(2)(viia) operates prospectively from 1 June 2010 and is inapplicable to an earlier assessment year. These principles supported deletion of the Section 69B addition.

Unexplained-money assessment under section 69A requires attribution to the person who owns and accounts for the deposits; section 115BBE then governs tax treatment. Where a partnership has been dissolved and its assets, liabilities, business and bank transactions have passed to a former partner's proprietorship, continuation of a bank account previously used by the firm alone does not attribute post-dissolution credits to the firm. Evidence such as the dissolution deed, PAN-linked bank records, return disclosures and balance-sheet entries establishes the proper assessee. A dissolved firm with no assessable income for the relevant year is not liable to penalty under section 271F for failure to furnish a return.

Receipts for structured online executive and professional courses provided by an educational institution to Indian students and corporate employees fall within the educational exclusion in Article 12(5)(c). That exclusion applies notwithstanding the definition of Fees for Included Services and is not confined to degree-granting, credit-bearing, campus-based or long-duration programmes. Technical or professional education, including customised and cohort-based programmes for commercial employees, remains teaching even when delivered off campus. Course customisation, non-credit status, and description as training do not convert educational instruction into technical consultancy services. Equalisation Levy treatment does not determine treaty characterisation. The make available test is therefore not determinative, and the receipts are not taxable in India as Fees for Included Services.

Sections 13(1)(c), 13(2)(c) and 13(3) require separate assessment of whether a founder or trustee is a specified person, whether remuneration was actually paid or credited, and whether it exceeded reasonable payment for services rendered. Founder or trustee status alone does not establish a violation, and section 13(3) imposes no general salary ceiling. An original Form No. 10B and a revised report must be tested against ledgers, financial statements, bank records, vouchers, payroll and TDS records, and the auditor's explanation. Any effect on exemption under sections 11 and 12 requires verification of payment, its nature, services and reasonableness.

Separate cash capital contributions from the same partner cannot be aggregated under Section 269ST merely because they are credited to the partner's capital account. Aggregation requires cash receipts of at least Rs. 2 lakh in a single day, for a single transaction, or for transactions relating to one event or occasion. Contributions received on different dates, each below the threshold, do not satisfy these conditions where no evidence establishes a common transaction or event. Consequently, penalty under Section 271DA is not sustainable.

Cash-credit additions require the assessee to establish both creditor creditworthiness and transaction genuineness; banking transfers, confirmations, tax returns and repayment records may establish only a paper trail. Where creditors ignore summons, their directors identify the entities as accommodation-entry providers, and the assessee cannot produce them, the burden of proof and human-probabilities test support treating unsecured loans as unexplained credits. Separately, after rejection of books, income for the relevant assessment years is computed at 2% of sales to maintain consistency with the prior assessment approach and substantially similar preceding-year facts. Related interest disallowance remains unaffected.

Reassessment under the Income-tax Act requires the Assessing Officer to form a legally sustainable reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Third-party information from a departmental authority may be relevant material, but cannot alone establish that belief without independent inquiry, verification, and application of mind linking it to the assessee's alleged income escapement. Recorded reasons reflecting only unverified third-party information amount to a reason to suspect, not a reason to believe. Reassessment initiated on that basis is unsustainable, and consequential additions cannot survive.

Unexplained investment in intangible assets under section 69, and consequential depreciation disallowance, require verification of books, invoices, agreements, ledgers, payment records, salary records, and evidence of software customisation and development to establish asset cost and source. Section 115BBE governs taxation where an investment's nature and source remain unexplained. Assessed-income computations based on return-processing adjustments also require comparison of original and revised returns, the intimation, tax audit report, income computation, and assessment order to identify duplicate expense disallowances. Fresh adjudication must follow after a reasonable opportunity to provide supporting evidence and explanations.

Section 69A applies only where money is established to be unexplained. Cash receipts recorded in regular books as collections from identified business debtors are supported where party-wise ledgers, debtor details, audited accounts, sales and purchase registers, stock records and VAT returns substantiate them. Absence of debtor confirmations alone does not displace such documentary evidence, particularly where books are not rejected, no defects are identified and no independent party verification is undertaken. Acceptance of Specified Bank Notes during demonetisation does not establish an undisclosed source without contrary material. Suspicion cannot substitute proof.

Share and securities gains, including short-term gains from transactions through a portfolio management service, are taxable as capital gains rather than business income when the overall circumstances show investment holdings. Classification depends on the investor's conduct, the nature of holdings, transaction frequency and volume, and whether securities were held as investments or stock-in-trade. Portfolio-manager execution does not itself establish a share-trading business because the investor retains direct ownership; transaction numbers alone are not determinative.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, permits FIR quashing where allegations taken at face value disclose no prima facie cognizable offence or continued prosecution abuses process. A delay in filing the revised audit report, supported by an explanation, did not establish criminal breach of trust, cheating, extortion, or another alleged offence. The FIR and criminal proceeding therefore warranted quashing.

Search-based assessment of a person other than the searched person must proceed under Section 153C where reassessment rests exclusively on material seized during a Section 132 search. A satisfaction note regarding that material is a jurisdictional precondition. Sections 147 and 148 may be invoked only where independent material, apart from the search material, supports a belief that income escaped assessment. Reassessment initiated solely on search material without a satisfaction note or independent supporting material is therefore impermissible and without jurisdiction.

Section 154 permits rectification only for a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to resolve a debatable issue. Divergent judicial views on whether surcharge and education cess form part of minimum alternate tax credit under section 115JAA prevent their inclusion from being treated as an apparent error. Consequently, rectification to reduce MAT credit by excluding those components exceeds section 154's scope, particularly where the credit was allowed in a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3); the originally allowed MAT credit remains available.

Prior approval under Section 153D must be granted separately for each assessment year in search assessments, following an independent application of mind to the relevant material. A composite approval for several years improperly disregards year-specific facts and fails the statutory procedure, which requires a power to be exercised only in the prescribed manner. Approval cannot be ritualistic or mechanical. Consequently, consolidated approvals are invalid and assessments based on them cannot be sustained.

Provision for contributions to an approved gratuity fund falls within the specific deduction rule under Section 40A(7)(b). Although Section 43B(b) generally requires actual payment for gratuity-related deductions, it does not override the specific treatment of approved gratuity fund contributions. The provisions are reconciled by applying the specific rule over the general actual-payment requirement. Accordingly, the contribution provision is deductible, and revision under Section 263 based solely on Section 43B(b) is unsustainable because the contrary view involves a debatable issue.