Statutory appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be filed within 45 days, with delay condonable for no more than a further 15 days. The resulting 60-day outer limitation period is non-extendable. Time spent obtaining a certified copy is not excluded where the application for that copy is made after expiry of the ordinary limitation period. Consequently, an appeal filed on the 62nd day falls outside the maximum condonable period, and review cannot reopen the time-barred appellate challenge.

Imported thermal/barcode printers fall under Customs Tariff Item 84433290 rather than 84433210, making differential duty recoverable only for the normal limitation period. A bona fide declared classification, available for verification at clearance amid a continuing classification dispute, does not establish suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty; the extended-period demand and penalty therefore fail. Redemption fine cannot be imposed after the goods have been cleared and are unavailable for confiscation. The surviving liability is limited to differential duty for the normal limitation period.

Section 68 cannot support an addition of the entire sale proceeds from allegedly rigged penny-stock transactions without accounting for the corresponding recorded purchase cost. Where purchases and sales produce an overall net profit, any addition based on treating both legs as non-genuine is limited to the net amount arising from the transactions rather than gross sale receipts. Regular share-trading activity and the absence of a discernible taxable benefit from the alleged arrangement further support deletion of an addition based on gross sale proceeds.

Section 263 revision requires a sustainable basis that the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Allegations of accommodation entries must identify the assessee's payment and explain the nexus between the entities said to be involved. Information merely describing funds moving to one entity through an unexplained chain involving another does not establish a definite transaction requiring inquiry and cannot, by itself, show assessment error or prejudice to the Revenue.

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) require the initiating notice to clearly state whether the allegation is concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to specify either distinct charge denies a meaningful opportunity to respond, shows non-application of mind, and invalidates both the notice and consequential penalty; the penalty was therefore deleted. Separate appellate hearing notices issued through the registered email address over an extended period, without any response or adjournment request, provided adequate opportunity. Accordingly, the ex parte appellate order did not breach principles of natural justice.

Cash deposits associated with business income declared under the presumptive taxation regime may, in the relevant factual context, be treated as business turnover despite incomplete reconciliation. Processing of the return under Section 143(1) did not justify treating the entire deposits as unexplained. The appropriate approach was a lump-sum addition rather than addition of all deposits, resulting in substantial relief.

Section 271E penalty for alleged cash repayment of loans is unsustainable where a corrected auditor certificate and banking records establish that repayments were made through account-payee cheques, NEFT or RTGS. Erroneous tax-audit reporting alone does not establish a contravention of Section 269T when no loan transaction occurred in cash. As the factual prerequisite for breach of the repayment restrictions was absent, the penalty was deleted.

Interest awarded on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is treated as an accretion to the acquired land's value and forms part of enhanced compensation, unlike Section 34 interest, which compensates for delayed payment. The receipt consequently qualifies for exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where its conditions are met, rather than taxation as income from other sources. Provisions taxing interest on receipt do not alter the character of Section 28 interest. A summary dismissal of a special leave petition does not establish binding law, and an assessment adopting the exemption view after inquiry is not erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue for revision purposes.

Functional comparability under the Transactional Net Margin Method requires alignment of functions and risk profile; a full-risk advisory and procurement consultant is unsuitable for benchmarking routine, low-risk corporate support services. Deduction for eligible units remains available where prior jurisdictional precedent governs profit allocation despite the absence of separate books. Bank guarantee fees are not commission or brokerage because the bank acts on its own account, without a principal-agent relationship; tax deduction at source and consequential disallowance therefore do not arise. Rule 8D may be applied only after recorded dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim. Rule 8D disallowance also cannot be added to book profit under minimum alternate tax provisions.

Section 32(1)(iia) permits the unclaimed balance of additional depreciation on new plant and machinery in the succeeding assessment year where the asset was put to use for less than 180 days in the year of acquisition. Where only part of the additional depreciation was allowed initially because of restricted use during that year, the remaining balance is available subsequently. This treatment follows binding jurisdictional precedent and is supported by an earlier determination on the same issue in the assessee's own matter.

Food-grain transactions conducted through an aartia did not establish bogus or accommodation purchase entries where the assessee advanced funds but neither took delivery nor paid or received the underlying purchase or sale consideration. The aartia independently purchased and sold goods on the assessee's behalf, while the assessee received only the net surplus disclosed in its return. On those facts, the addition for alleged accommodation purchase entries was deleted for both assessment years.

Cash deposits made during demonetisation and attributable to bullion sales recorded in audited books should not be separately added as income where the books show corresponding trading stock and bank deposits, no defects are identified, and the books are not rejected. As the sales have already been offered to tax, a separate addition of their deposited proceeds creates double addition. On these facts, the cash-deposit addition is unsustainable and requires deletion.

Completed or unabated assessment years under section 153A permit additions or appellate enhancement only when founded on incriminating material found during a search or requisition under sections 132 or 132A. Where no assessment proceeding was pending on the search date and the additions or enhancement lacked that material basis, they could not be sustained. The additions and enhancement for the completed assessment years were therefore deleted.

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c), when founded solely on an assessment framed under Section 143(3), cannot stand once that assessment is reversed following revision under Section 263. Removal of the foundational assessment eliminates the basis for the consequential penalty under the principle sublato fundamento cadit opus. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and deleted in favour of the assessee.

External development charges paid to HUDA attract tax deduction at source under Section 194C of the Income-tax Act. Binding jurisdictional precedent places these payments within Chapter XVII, so failure to deduct permits treatment of the payer as an assessee in default under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A), with consequential interest liability.

Deletion of stock addition is sustainable for assessment years sharing facts with an earlier year where the Assessing Officer's remand report accepts the assessee's case on merits. The earlier appellate finding stood unchallenged by the Revenue because the favourable remand report left it without a grievance. Applying the same factual position, deletion of the stock addition was confirmed for both assessment years.

Unexplained cash-credit addition for unsecured loans from farmers remained sustained because the loans' genuineness was not established before the appellate authority and no fresh material displaced that finding. A separate bank-reconciliation claim required factual verification before its tax treatment could be determined and was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication. The loan-credit addition therefore remained sustained, while the reconciliation claim awaited fresh determination.

Unexplained cash-credit additions require the taxpayer's initial evidentiary burden to be assessed through confirmations, financial records, banking evidence and statutory filings; non-service of third-party summons alone does not disprove documented transactions. Additions for unexplained money or expenditure require reliable material linking the taxpayer to actual unaccounted cash receipts or payments. Purchase disallowances require evidence beyond supplier non-compliance where invoices, stock records and sales support the purchases. Hundi-based additions apply only to transactions possessing hundi characteristics. For unabated search assessments, additions require incriminating material seized pursuant to the taxpayer's warrant; third-party material must be addressed through the statutory procedure for material belonging to another person.

Chapter VI-A deduction claims under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) made in returns filed in response to reassessment notices for years before AY 2018-19 are not barred solely because the returns were filed after the Section 139(1) due date; substantive eligibility and quantum remain subject to verification. From AY 2018-19, Section 80AC(ii) makes timely filing under Section 139(1) mandatory, and a belated return under Section 139(4) cannot cure non-compliance. Cash-deposit additions require cogent contrary material where an explanation based on the same business activity has been accepted in adjacent assessment years, applying the consistency principle.

Interest on fixed deposits placed with a co-operative bank by a co-operative credit society qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) where the deposits comprise funds generated through member-lending activity. The required "attributable to" connection is met because prudent placement of those funds has a proximate nexus with the society's credit business, allowing the interest to retain its business-income character. Dividend received from the co-operative bank also qualifies for the deduction, consistently with the treatment of dividend income earned by co-operative societies.