Section 69A does not cover alleged unrecorded cash payments for acquiring immovable property, because such payments constitute an investment rather than unrecorded money or another specified asset. The addition was unsustainable where the recorded consideration exceeded the stamp-duty valuation, no evidence established payment beyond the stated consideration, and the loose sheet was unsigned and lacked independent corroboration. A third-party statement could not support the addition without corroborating material. The presumption under section 132(4A) applies against the person from whose possession a document is found and cannot be applied against another person without corroboration. Denial of requested cross-examination also breached natural justice; the addition was deleted.

Revision under section 263 required the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. Detailed inquiries into the investment in concession rights and related depreciation, supported by responses and the concession agreement, negated any alleged lack of inquiry. CBDT's BOT road or highway circular did not apply where the taxpayer acquired a licence to collect tolls and operate and maintain a bridge rather than construct or develop it. Depreciation instead of amortisation affected only cost-recovery timing and caused no Revenue prejudice. As revision was initiated on an audit objection without independent exercise of jurisdiction, the revisionary order was invalid and the original assessment restored.

Section 10(10AA)(ii) exempts leave encashment received on retirement. The increased exemption ceiling of Rs. 25 lakh, notified on 24 May 2023 in place of the earlier Rs. 3 lakh limit, is characterised as a beneficial and remedial rationalisation rather than a new exemption. On that basis, the enhanced ceiling applies to pending claims for Assessment Year 2020-21 without impairing any vested revenue right, rendering the retirement leave-encashment receipt exempt.

Section 54F exemption remained available where the purchase of a new residential flat occurred after the prescribed two-year period because the entire seven-month and eighteen-day delay fell within the COVID-19 limitation exclusion period. The original asset's sale, the stamp-duty valuation used for capital-gains computation, and the genuineness of the flat purchase were undisputed. As a beneficial provision, section 54F requires liberal interpretation, and a delay caused by circumstances beyond the assessee's control during the excluded pandemic period did not defeat the substantive exemption claim.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to patent, manifest errors apparent from the record and cannot be used to review or reconsider debatable matters. Where limitation was already determined after considering relevant dates, a request to apply jurisdictional precedent differently requires re-appreciation of the legal position and of that precedent's applicability. Such reconsideration falls outside rectification jurisdiction; absent a record-based apparent error, rectification is unavailable.

Erstwhile directors of a struck-off company lack locus standi to maintain an appeal on the company's behalf against a first appellate order. A pre-emptive assessment may be made against a struck-off company to protect revenue pending restoration of its name, even where the company did not participate before the tax authorities. An erstwhile director may contest only personal liability in proceedings initiated under Section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the company's appeal cannot be maintained by that director.

Reconciliation of gross commodity-trading proceeds recorded in the speculative-profit ledger with net bank credits requires verification of audited accounts, broker ledgers, contract notes, bank statements and related records. A difference between gross and net figures alone does not establish separate unrecorded receipts. Where supporting documentation was not produced during assessment, the bank receipt requires fresh factual examination to determine whether it represents net proceeds already accounted for.

Disputed stamp-duty value for purposes of Section 56(2)(vii) requires use of the prescribed reference mechanism to determine fair market value before an addition can be sustained. Where no reference is made despite an objection to the adopted value, the valuation issue requires fresh determination after verifying any relevant valuation report. Agricultural-income additions likewise require fresh examination where evidence of landholding and agricultural activity is produced. Both issues require verification by the Assessing Officer and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before reassessment.

Section 40(a)(ia) addresses failure to deduct tax or to deposit tax already deducted, rather than a shortfall arising because tax was deducted at a lower rate or under a different provision. Such short deduction is distinct from complete non-deduction, and its consequences fall under the provisions governing an assessee in default. Interest paid for delayed payments to trade creditors is compensatory and bears an intrinsic nexus with business operations; it is therefore deductible as business expenditure.

Section 194H applies only where commission or brokerage is paid within a principal-agent relationship. Incentives directly credited by the principal to retailers did not accrue as income to the assessee, which recorded the gross amount solely to reconcile tax deducted at source reflected in Form 26AS. As the arrangement operated on a principal-to-principal basis and the assessee made no separate commission payment, no obligation to deduct tax arose. Consequently, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax was not sustainable and was deleted.

Revision under Section 263(1) was valid because the reassessment lacked requisite inquiry and verification of purchase genuineness. Unanswered supplier notices, absent confirmations, no proof of goods movement or transporter payments, and no effective follow-up rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue under Explanation 2(a). Issuing notices alone did not complete the inquiry, and applying a 2% profit rate was not a sustainable or conscious determination. Setting aside the assessment for fresh examination of purchases was justified, without a change of opinion.

Cash supported by documented bank withdrawals, available cash balances and contemporaneous cash-book entries is not unexplained money where no contrary evidence establishes a different source. Once the taxpayer provides this explanation, the evidentiary burden shifts to the Revenue; an accountant's statement without cross-examination does not displace it. Business accruals may be assessed as business income rather than unexplained money. Withdrawals from a regularly maintained company-shareholder running account do not constitute deemed dividend when an adequate credit balance in favour of the shareholder supports the withdrawals.

Reassessment approval for proceedings beyond three years was invalid because the proforma invoked Section 149(1)(b) despite alleging escaped income below the applicable threshold. Approval by the PCIT required demonstrable application of mind to the statutory conditions. Consequently, the order under Section 148A(d), notice under Section 148, and consequential reassessment were quashed.

Rebuttable presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C, together with search statements, do not independently prove personal beneficial ownership or taxable income. A seized cash worksheet found on a company employee's computer, without evidence of an individual's receipt, assets, expenditure, or financial trail, cannot establish that individual's undisclosed income. For a company, running cash entries may evidence off-book transactions but cannot make gross receipts wholly taxable where the worksheet includes payments, disclosed withdrawals, group-entity transactions, cash recycling, and unreliable balances. Taxable additions require a reliable nexus to the relevant transaction and identification of the net unaccounted income component; estimation at 25% was treated as permissible on the available evidence.

Acceptance of turnover and presumptive income under Section 44AD prevents an unexplained-expenditure addition under Section 69C merely because transportation details, GST particulars, cash-book entries, or purchase records are unavailable. Section 44AD does not require maintenance of books of account, and an addition cannot rest solely on missing supporting records where neither accepted turnover nor presumptive income has been disturbed. The specific nature of a facilitator's business does not by itself determine the validity of claimed purchases. Section 115BBE cannot sustain the consequential tax treatment where the Section 69C addition fails.

Section 80GGC permits deduction only for genuine qualifying political contributions. Banking-channel payments and donation receipts do not, by themselves, establish genuineness where investigation material, unrecanted statements, bank-trail analysis, and the recipient political party's established operating pattern show systematic accommodation-entry activity. The human-probabilities and preponderance-of-probabilities tests can establish that an apparent contribution does not reflect its real character, rendering the claimed donation ineligible for deduction.

Political-donation deductions under Section 80GGC require a genuine qualifying contribution. Banking-channel payments and donation receipts do not by themselves establish genuineness where investigation material, search statements, bank-trail analysis, and evidence of systematic layering indicate that a political party was used to provide accommodation entries. Applying human probabilities and the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, apparent documentation may be rejected when the surrounding evidence shows that the transaction was not real. A non-genuine political donation does not qualify for deduction under Section 80GGC.

Long-term capital gain exemption claims involving penny-stock shares require substantiation beyond stock-exchange routing and banking records. Under Section 68, abnormal price appreciation, lack of comparable investment activity, unrebutted investigation material, and inability to establish share acquisition may support treating the receipts as unexplained cash credits, with tax consequences under Section 115BBE. Disclosure of share transactions in the return does not establish their genuineness where surrounding evidence indicates accommodation entries. Where the underlying addition for a non-genuine transaction is sustained, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) may also arise. The evidential burden is assessed on the preponderance of probabilities.

Cash deposits attributed to Banking Mitra transactions require verification of bank records, appointment documents, transaction particulars and commission statements before they may be treated as unexplained money under section 69A and taxed under section 115BBE. Where the explanation is that only commission income accrued, de novo adjudication with a reasonable hearing is required to determine the deposits' nature and source. A penalty under section 271AAC(1) founded solely on that addition cannot continue once the quantum addition is set aside, although fresh penalty proceedings may follow the reassessment outcome if warranted by law.

Section 2(15) treats education as a charitable purpose, while Section 12AB registration examines an institution's objects and the genuineness of its activities. Substantial fees and surplus generated through educational activities do not, by themselves, establish a profit-making purpose where the surplus is applied or accumulated for educational objects and is not diverted to non-charitable purposes or members' benefit. Delay in filing Form 10AB may be condoned where the applicant submits a condonation request supported by an explanation. These principles support renewal registration for a qualifying educational society.