For a private discretionary trust taxable at the maximum marginal rate, surcharge must be calculated under the graduated surcharge-on-income-tax rates prescribed by the relevant Finance Act. The definition of maximum marginal rate incorporates both the income-tax rate and the applicable surcharge mechanism, but does not require automatic application of the highest surcharge rate. The applicable surcharge slab depends on the Finance Act's prescribed rate structure for the trust's income.

Sale consideration from jointly owned property, already disclosed and assessed as capital-gains consideration in one co-owner's hands through stamp-duty valuation, cannot again be assessed in full as unexplained income of the other co-owner. Taxing the same consideration in both hands would create a duplicate addition. The treatment prevents double assessment where the Revenue has accepted that the consideration has already been subjected to tax in the co-owner's reassessment.

Reassessment under section 147 permits assessment of other escaped income only when income forming the recorded reason to believe is itself assessed or reassessed; "and also" operates cumulatively and conjunctively. An unexplained cash-deposit addition unrelated to the recorded MCX share-transaction reason cannot be sustained where no addition is made on that recorded issue and no fresh reassessment notice covers the cash deposits.

Faceless reassessment procedures require notices under Section 148, from 29 March 2022, to be issued through the statutory faceless mechanism. A jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no authority to issue notices under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), or 148 outside that framework; reassessment founded on such notices is jurisdictionally defective and void. A bona fide misunderstanding concerning an appellate remand and an unaddressed jurisdictional ground may constitute reasonable cause for condoning a short filing delay, applying a liberal approach against technical exclusion.

Section 148 reassessment notices were required to follow the faceless-assessment procedure prescribed under Sections 144B and 151A. Initiation by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside that mechanism constituted a jurisdictional defect under prevailing jurisdictional High Court and coordinate-bench views. Pending Supreme Court consideration did not displace the applicable jurisdictional position. The non-faceless notice was therefore invalid, and the consequential reassessment order was vitiated in the assessee's favour.

Foreign investment received as a marriage gift was not undisclosed foreign income or an undisclosed foreign asset under the Black Money Act where it had been recorded in annual accounts and explained during assessment. A gift deed and donor confirmation merely corroborated the already disclosed source of the investment and did not constitute impermissible additional evidence. The documented source stood explained, and deletion of the addition was sustained.

Section 153D requires prior approval for each assessment year before an assessment or reassessment under Sections 153A and 143(3). A composite approval issued for multiple years on the same day as the approval request must demonstrate independent examination of draft assessment orders, seized material, appraisal reports and assessment records. Approval lacking evidence of such application of mind is mechanical and does not meet the statutory requirement. Invalid approval under Section 153D consequently invalidates the related assessment proceedings, which are liable to be quashed.

Issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory jurisdictional precondition for an assessment under Section 143(3), including reassessment proceedings under Section 147. Where no such notice is issued, the defect is not a curable procedural irregularity. A reassessment completed without the mandatory notice is jurisdictionally invalid, arbitrary, bad in law and void from inception; it must be quashed.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to a mistake apparent from the record that existed when the Tribunal pronounced its original order. The provision does not permit review or recall of a concluded decision. Therefore, a legislative amendment enacted after the original order, even where given retrospective effect, does not by itself render that order erroneous or create a rectifiable mistake apparent from the record.

Retrospective statutory amendments enacted after a Tribunal's original order do not, by themselves, constitute a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 254(2). An order quashing reassessment for lack of jurisdiction is assessed under the law prevailing when it was made; a later insertion of Section 147A cannot retrospectively render that concluded order erroneous on its face. Recall is unavailable where rectification would effectively review the decision based on a subsequent legislative development. Conditional restoration liberty remains dependent on final settlement of the relevant issue by the Supreme Court.

Special-audit proceedings for AY 2020-21 were stayed on a prima facie limitation objection. The sixth proviso to Section 153B(1) appeared inapplicable to that assessment year, and, without the six-month extension, subsequent procedural steps appeared to exceed the limitation period ending on 31 March 2023. The limitation issue remained undecided finally.

Limitation for the relevant assessment year remains unresolved, with competing calculations concerning exclusions for exchange-of-information proceedings and special audit requiring consideration. Assessment proceedings may continue pending the next hearing; however, any adverse assessment order cannot be given effect until then. No final determination has been made on whether the proceedings are time-barred or on the availability of the claimed exclusions.

GST portal availability is a statutory method of serving notices and orders, but its use must afford a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard in demand proceedings. Section 169 recognises portal upload and e-mail as service modes, while Sections 73 and 75 require a show-cause response, consideration of representations and a hearing before an adverse decision. Rule 142 requires electronic DRC-01 and DRC-07 summaries alongside the underlying statutory process; summaries do not replace the full notice or reasoned order. Portal-only service may be vulnerable where notices are inaccessible, technically unreliable, or produce an ex parte order without effective communication. Actual participation may cure prejudice, whereas ineffective service may justify remand while preserving adjudication on merits.

TNMM requires operating profit and operating cost to be computed consistently for the tested party and comparable companies. A provision for doubtful debts linked to sales and trade receivables, and routine business levies such as rates and taxes, may be operating expenses because of their business nexus; income-tax on profits remains excluded. Rule 10B requires FAR-based functional comparability, reliable segmental data and reasonably accurate adjustments for material differences, including scale. A search matrix is evidentiary discipline rather than a statutory bar: an out-of-matrix comparable requires substantiated functional fit and filter compliance, while rejection solely for matrix absence is inappropriate. Contemporaneous documentation must support searches, exclusions, classifications and margin adjustments.

Section 110 of the Customs Act requires the proper officer to form and contemporaneously record objectively supportable reasons to believe that goods are liable to confiscation before seizure. For gold, Section 123 shifts the burden of proving non-smuggled origin only after a valid Customs seizure made in the reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled. A general panchnama recital, suspicion, foreign markings or high purity alone cannot substitute for pre-seizure reasons or corroborative evidence. Retracted statements require independent support and cannot retrospectively cure a deficient seizure. Where the statutory foundation is absent, the reverse burden does not arise; smuggling must instead be established through independent evidence. Seizure records should separately disclose the factual basis for the officer's belief.

Section 80GGC permits deductions for eligible non-cash contributions to registered political parties or electoral trusts, but banking-channel payments, receipts and recipient registration do not conclusively establish genuineness. A claim may be disallowed where credible investigation material and taxpayer-specific circumstances support the conclusion that the payment was an accommodation entry rather than a genuine contribution. General allegations concerning a recipient do not, without a sufficient nexus to the taxpayer's transaction, necessarily negate the claim. Initiation of penalty under section 270A is not a final liability determination; under-reporting, misreporting, bona fide explanation, full disclosure and hearing requirements must be independently examined before penalty is imposed.

Section 93 of the CGST Act permits post-death determination of GST liability against a legal representative, including fresh proceedings where no notice or assessment began during the deceased person's lifetime. Where the business was discontinued, tax, interest and penalty are recoverable only from the inherited estate and only to the extent it can meet the charge; the heir's independent assets remain outside that liability. Where the business continued, liability depends on material establishing continuation by the representative or another person. Notices must be issued to the legal representative in that capacity, not to the deceased, and adjudication must comply with applicable limitation, hearing, reasoned-order and service requirements.

Non-confirmation of seizure under FEMA requires due effect where the competent authority, after hearing both sides, finds that recorded material does not establish the statutory "reason to believe" required for suspected contravention. The protective seizure mechanism and substantive adjudication serve distinct functions, but an adjudicating authority cannot effectively overturn a non-confirmation order while the statutory appeal against it remains pending. Section 37A(4) applies only to confirmed seizures and does not preserve a seizure that has been set aside. FEMA adjudication must provide disclosure of relied-upon material, an effective opportunity to respond, and conclusions confined to the notified allegations. Writ review may be available for demonstrable jurisdictional defects, procedural unfairness, or prejudgment.

Pending appeal against dismissal of an oppression and mismanagement petition does not, without a stay, restore former directors' corporate authority or suspend the operative effect of the Tribunal's order. Relief for oppression or mismanagement requires qualifying membership, conduct prejudicial to members, public interest or the company, and the statutory foundation for remedial or interim orders. Challenges to director removal must distinguish procedural validity from the broader threshold for oppression. Banks ordinarily should follow formally authorised company instructions rather than adjudicate unresolved internal-management disputes, absent a competent restraint. Collateral participants must independently establish locus and comply with proper recall, impleadment and appellate procedures.

Post-facto shareholder approval cannot retrospectively validate diversion of preferential-issue proceeds contrary to issue-specific objects disclosed to shareholders and the market. A special resolution authorises the issue but does not permit unrestricted use of proceeds. Periodic deviation reporting, audit-committee review and utilisation disclosures promote transparency; they do not enable diversion followed by later regularisation. Immediate diversion, inadequate commercial justification and missing documentation may indicate that disclosed objects were not genuinely intended to be performed. Later amendment of corporate objects or shareholder ratification cannot cure a completed securities-market disclosure breach.