Documented sale proceeds from exchange-traded listed shares cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits merely because of alleged penny-stock manipulation where the taxpayer establishes purchase and sale through contract notes, demat records, broker ledgers, securities transaction tax and banking channels. Once this initial evidentiary burden is met, the Revenue must produce taxpayer-specific material linking the transaction to price rigging, accommodation entries or market manipulation. General investigation material and unusual price movements alone do not meet that burden; suspicion and presumptions cannot substitute for evidence or support the human-probabilities test. The long-term capital-gain exemption remains available where the documented transactions are not disproved.

Section 69C addition for the purchase price of shares requires cogent material establishing unexplained cash payment, accommodation entries, or non-genuine transactions. Share trades executed through a recognised stock exchange and broker, supported by the broker's ledger, indicate transaction settlement where no contrary evidence exists. Receipt of trading profit through banking channels and its disclosure as regular income, without an exemption or set-off claim, further supports the recorded nature of the transactions. In these circumstances, the share purchase price does not warrant treatment as unexplained expenditure.

Capital gains arising from the sale of land are not assessable in the hands of a registered power-of-attorney holder who acted solely for the owner. A power of attorney creates an agency relationship, authorising the attorney holder to execute and complete the sale on the principal's behalf, but does not itself transfer ownership or create a personal proprietary right. Where the sale deed and power of attorney establish such agency and the consideration was paid to the owner, the sale proceeds cannot be treated as the attorney holder's capital gains, and the addition is deleted.

Reassessment initiated within four years requires sanction under section 151(2) from the specified Joint or Additional Commissioner. Approval granted by a Commissioner does not cure the absence of approval from that designated authority, because statutory sanction assigned to a particular officer cannot be substituted by a superior officer's approval. Failure to obtain approval from the competent authority creates a jurisdictional defect and renders the reassessment void ab initio.

Estimated additions for undisclosed sales require a factual nexus between cash-balance differences and unrecorded turnover; applying a profit rate to an unexplained difference alone is insufficient. A bad-debt deduction is available where the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts, without requiring proof of actual irrecoverability where supporting particulars are available. Notional interest cannot be imputed on business advances merely from balance-sheet figures when recorded interest, the nature of advances, and customer advances have not been considered. These principles preclude additions based on presumption or unsupported estimation.

Section 68 additions for share capital and share premium require a reasoned basis to disprove the subscribers' identity, creditworthiness or the genuineness of the transactions. Income-tax returns, audited financial statements, PAN details, corporate records and receipt of funds through banking channels supported these requirements where the subscribers were active corporate taxpayers. Mere non-response to notices by some subscribers or failure to produce their directors personally, without identified defects in the supporting evidence, did not justify an adverse inference. The unexplained cash-credit addition was therefore unsustainable and deleted.

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.