Registration under Section 12AB is confined to verifying the genuineness of charitable activities and compliance with material requirements of applicable law; it cannot become an income assessment based only on the mode, amount, or verifiability of donations. Recorded donations and expenditure towards stated charitable objects demonstrate that activities have commenced, absent any finding that those activities are non-genuine. Registration must therefore be granted where the relevant charitable activities and legal compliance are established. A delayed appeal may be admitted on sufficient cause where the explanation shows no mala fides or deliberate delay, with substantial justice prevailing over technicality.

Section 250 gives the first appellate authority powers coterminous with those of the assessing authority, allowing examination of fresh material supporting the assessee's position. Material cannot be rejected solely because it was not furnished during assessment where additions and disallowances arise from factual discrepancies requiring verification. The appellate authority should examine the material and, where necessary, obtain factual verification or a remand report. Additions and disallowances should be determined only after reasonable and adequate opportunity is provided and the discrepancies are factually verified.

Search-derived information concerning another person falls within clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 148, read with clause (c) of the proviso to section 148A. The ordinary section 148A process is therefore excluded. Approval limited to a proposed order under section 148A(d) does not establish the independent prior approval required to issue a section 148 notice. Observance of the applicable jurisdictional route and approval requirement is mandatory; approval under the excluded procedure cannot cure the defect. Absence of independent approval renders the notice jurisdictionally defective, requiring the consequent reassessment proceedings and assessment to be quashed.

Section 69A does not cover cash alleged to be returned from disclosed advances paid through banking channels without evidence of an independent unexplained accretion; the cash-return and alleged interest additions consequently fail. Section 56(2)(x)(b) may apply where the stamp-duty value of immovable property exceeds the consideration beyond the statutory threshold, regardless of whether the transaction is characterised as builder financing. Where stamp-duty value is disputed, valuation under the mechanism linked to section 50C is required before the taxable differential is determined. Denial of set-off of brought-forward long-term capital loss cannot rest on an alleged interest characterisation that fails, although eligibility remains subject to verification.

Consequential assessments following revision must remain confined to the matters specified for verification. Where revision requires examination of DCF valuation and projections supporting share premium, an unexplained-cash-credit addition for the entire premium under Section 68 exceeds that scope; any excess over fair market value is addressed, subject to statutory conditions, under Section 56(2)(viib). For AY 2014-15, loan credits require lender-specific proof of identity, transaction genuineness and creditworthiness. The later proviso requiring proof of a lender's source of funds does not apply, and evidence relating to each lender must be cumulatively evaluated.

Incorrect statutory-clause selection in Form 10AB for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G should not, by itself, result in rejection where the error is bona fide and inadvertent. Applications by institutions whose activities have commenced must be filed under the applicable statutory clauses. Where a prior application yielded provisional registration, rectification should be permitted and the applications considered on merits after an opportunity of hearing. The technical rejections were set aside and reconsideration was required.

For a kachha arhtia acting solely as an intermediary in vegetable sales for farmers, sales made for principals are excluded from turnover for the tax-audit requirement, and only gross commission is relevant. Where the intermediary receives customer payments, remits amounts to farmers, and earns commission, the claimed status must nevertheless be established through conclusive documentary evidence. If that status is verified, tax-audit applicability cannot be determined by reference to principals' sales, and penalty for failure to obtain an audit cannot be imposed on that basis.

Sale consideration from listed equity shares sold through a recognised stock exchange cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit merely on general penny-stock manipulation allegations. Genuineness is supported where purchases were bank-funded, shares resulted from a court-sanctioned amalgamation and were credited to a Demat account, the holding period exceeded two years, sales occurred through SEBI-registered brokers, securities transaction tax was paid, and proceeds were received through banking channels. In the absence of material showing cash payment, price rigging, or involvement in accommodation entries, suspicion cannot replace legal proof. Consistent treatment of identical transactions in the same scrip and assessment year further supports genuineness.

Reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 is sustainable where Investigation Wing information on substantial bank cash deposits constitutes tangible material and the Assessing Officer forms a belief that income escaped assessment, rather than acting on mere suspicion or a change of opinion. Cash deposits recorded as cash sales may be added as unexplained cash credits when the taxpayer cannot establish a nexus between the alleged sales, stock movement and bank deposits. Invoices and cash-book entries alone do not prove the genuineness of substantial cash receipts. On these facts, both the reopening and the unexplained cash-credit addition remain sustainable.

Pure reimbursement of common-area maintenance payments made at actual cost without mark-up does not attract tax deduction at source. Such payments merely recoup the underlying maintenance expenses and therefore cannot result in the payer being treated as an assessee in default for short deduction. No liability arises under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).

Section 56(2)(x) does not apply where the substantive property transaction was completed before its 1 April 2017 effective date, notwithstanding later registration. Full consideration, execution of the binding sale deed, delivery of possession and initiation of stamp-duty adjudication before that date establish pre-effective completion. Registration later merely culminates the earlier transaction. The stamp-duty valuation also lacked finality, while the valuer's report placed the property value below the agreed consideration. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore deleted.

Sections 69A and 69B require evidence of unexplained money or investment exceeding recorded amounts. Cash returned by builders that is traceable to accounted bank-channel advances, without proof of an independent unexplained source, asset, income or accretion, should not be separately treated as unexplained money or investment. Alleged interest from purported builder financing similarly requires material beyond an inferred financing arrangement. For immovable property acquired below stamp duty value beyond the statutory threshold, section 56(2)(x)(b) may apply irrespective of transaction characterisation. Where stamp duty value is disputed, the section 50C valuation mechanism requires fair market value determination through the Departmental Valuation Officer before taxability and quantum are finalised.

Section 270A(6)(a) excludes disclosed expenditure from under-reported income where the taxpayer gives a bona fide explanation and fully discloses material facts. Software-development expenditure, including impairment of an internally developed software asset and capital work-in-progress, was disclosed in audited financial statements. The dispute concerned whether that expenditure was revenue or capital in nature, not fictitious claims, inflated expenditure, false statements, or suppressed facts. Rejection of an arguable legal claim in quantum proceedings did not negate the bona fide explanation. The amount was therefore excluded from under-reported income and the penalty was deleted.

Compulsorily convertible debentures retain their pre-conversion contractual coupon obligation despite a future conversion requirement, particularly where holders lack equity rights before conversion and the conversion price is determined later at fair market value. Under the arm's-length principle, a nil price for CCD interest requires comparable-based analysis under the prescribed transfer-pricing method; long tenure, mandatory conversion, or no cash redemption may justify comparability adjustments but do not alone permit recharacterisation. Recharacterisation requires evidence that legal form and economic substance diverge or that the arrangement cannot be reliably priced. Interest deductibility or capitalisation depends on fund utilisation and supporting records, not merely on characterising unconverted CCDs as equity.

Under the project-completion method, income from sale of flats, including survey-disclosed on-money, accrues when sale deeds are executed and title transfers, not when advance consideration is received. On-money consistently offered in the respective registration years, including amounts covered by undertakings for subsequent years, receives corresponding treatment. Sustained additions require limited verification: amounts taxed in the relevant subsequent years must be deleted, while unoffered amounts may be assessed in the year under review, with no deferral beyond the undertaking period.

Related-party commission payments may be disallowed as excessive or unreasonable only where the payment exceeds the fair market value of services, the legitimate needs of the business, or the benefit derived. A payment to a specified related person does not itself justify disallowance. Commission benchmarks must be based on genuinely comparable businesses; comparison with an unrelated business model cannot establish excessiveness. Verification should address the actual services rendered and their commercial justification. Where no comparable material demonstrates that commission paid to a spouse's proprietary concern was excessive or unreasonable, disallowance of the expenditure is unsustainable.

Alleged bogus purchases may warrant a limited addition where banking payments and GST registration are unsupported by verifiable counterparties or contemporaneous records; only 3% of the disputed purchases remains added. Unexplained expenditure requires proof that the assessee actually incurred it and a nexus supported by invoices, payment trails, goods movement, or other independent evidence. Uncorroborated third-party statements and unilateral GST reporting do not establish such expenditure, so the accommodation-entry addition does not survive. Commission additions based only on presumption or estimation, without proof of payment or a financial trail, are also deleted.

Political-party donation deductions are unavailable when seized material and sworn statements establish an accommodation-entry arrangement, cash repayment after commission, and the taxpayer produces no rebuttal evidence. The statutory presumption concerning seized material and the evidentiary value of search statements support treating the contribution as non-genuine. Interest on borrowed capital claimed for house construction depends on proof of actual construction and loan use; a loan labelled personal may qualify only after verification of supporting evidence. Tax-credit and professional-tax adjustments must be given effect in accordance with law.

Reassessment jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 requires a reason to believe that taxable income escaped assessment based on correct and relevant facts available when jurisdiction is assumed. Where a registered sale deed already held by the Assessing Officer showed joint ownership, recorded reasons could not validly attribute the entire sale consideration to one owner. Acceptance of a lower ownership share during reassessment could not cure that initial factual defect. The notice and consequential reassessment proceedings were therefore void ab initio.

Unexplained expenditure and unexplained money additions require reliable evidence linking the alleged expenditure or funds to the assessee. Third-party entries alone are insufficient where the underlying seized material is not furnished, effective cross-examination is unavailable, and no independent corroboration-such as a cash trail, bank withdrawal, delivery record, stock discrepancy, or confirmation-establishes incurrence, possession, or ownership. Presumptive income disclosure does not by itself validate an alleged unrecorded purchase. On this evidentiary approach, additions under sections 69C and 69A, together with consequential tax and penalty consequences, lack a sustainable foundation.