GST turnover reconciliation precludes a gross-profit addition where the difference between monthly GSTR-1 turnover and book turnover results from duplicate reporting rather than unaccounted sales. Although non-compliance may permit a best-judgment assessment under the Income-tax Act, the assessment must determine correct taxable income. A monthly GST mismatch, without independent evidence of unaccounted sales, purchases, receipts, or bank transactions, does not establish suppressed turnover. Where sales ledgers, monthly GST returns and annual GSTR-9 reconcile the variance, and annual turnover matches the books and profit and loss account, gross profit cannot be estimated on the alleged differential turnover.

Transactions recorded in an impounded diary, comprising cash sales, bank deposits and business-cash movements in an ice-cream and milk-products business, were treated as business receipts rather than wholly as unexplained income. Despite the absence of complete transaction-wise correlation, the recorded sums were subjected to income estimation under the presumptive taxation framework in section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Income was estimated at 8% of the recorded sums, restricting additions to the estimated profit component and deleting the balance.

Bank credits arising from transfers between an assessee's own accounts, sourced from salary subject to tax deduction at source, are explained and cannot be assessed as unexplained money under section 69A; the corresponding addition was deleted. Admitted rental income remains eligible for the statutory 30% standard deduction under section 24 even where no return of income was filed, because the Act imposes no such bar. The rental-income addition was therefore sustained only after allowing that deduction.

Alleged suppressed sales inferred from a stock shortage cannot be treated wholly as undisclosed income where the stock originated from explained opening stock disclosed in audited accounts. Rejection of books for non-production may support estimation, but absent a finding of undisclosed investment or excess unexplained stock, the sale value represents turnover rather than income. Taxability is limited to the profit embedded in the unrecorded sales. Applying the gross-profit rate already used in assessment, only 2.32% of the alleged suppressed sales was treated as taxable, while the balance was deleted.

Penalty for concealment cannot be sustained where the sole unexplained cash-credit addition forming its basis has been deleted in quantum proceedings. With no surviving addition under the cash-credit provision, the factual foundation for alleging concealment or inaccurate particulars ceases to exist. The penalty is therefore required to be deleted because it rested entirely on the deleted addition.

Receipts from sale of flats built on long-held land may constitute business income where the overall facts show commercial development rather than capital realisation. Relevant indicators include the nature and volume of the asset, improvements made to increase saleability, financing and sale arrangements, and intention shown by surrounding circumstances. Construction of multiple flats, buyer advances funding substantial construction costs, and sales to unrelated persons supported treatment as an adventure in the nature of trade despite long holding and absence of regular property dealings. Section 54 relief was therefore unavailable, while proportionate land and construction costs attributable to flats sold were deductible in computing business income.

Section 87A rebate remains available for the relevant assessment year to an eligible resident individual whose total income is within the prescribed threshold, including against tax on short-term capital gains taxable at special rates under Section 111A. Section 87A does not distinguish between normal-rate and special-rate income, while Section 111A contains no express exclusion. The express restriction in Section 112A(6) for long-term capital gains confirms that an exclusion requires statutory language. Section 115BAC(1A) governs concessional-regime computation without limiting the separate Section 87A rebate. A Finance Act, 2025 restriction operates prospectively and does not affect the relevant assessment year.

The first proviso to Section 149(1) bars reassessment notices under the new regime for assessment years beginning on or before 1 April 2021 if proceedings could not have been initiated under the earlier reassessment or search-assessment regime. For a person other than the searched person, the relevant date under Section 153C is when seized material reaches that person's jurisdictional Assessing Officer. As the material was treated as received in the previous year 2022-23, the six-year period extended only to assessment year 2017-18. The notice for assessment year 2012-13 was consequently time-barred, rendering the consequential assessment void ab initio and the remand infructuous.

Section 145(3) permits rejection of accounts that are substantially incorrect or incomplete, including where stock or inventory records and essential purchase, sales and expense ledgers are not maintained or produced. Once books are rejected, net profit must be estimated on a rational, verifiable basis supported by industry standards, business conditions, comparable material or other stated rationale; an ad hoc percentage is insufficient. A preceding five-year average declared net-profit rate may provide the basis for recomputation. Changes in sundry-creditor opening balances require evidence of their nature and source, including confirmations, before treatment as unexplained cash credits.

Transitional reassessment limitation preserves only the unexpired period under the applicable jurisdictional time limit after information is supplied and the taxpayer's response period ends. For assessment year 2014-15, eight days remained, requiring a fresh notice by 16 June 2022; a notice issued on 27 July 2022 falls outside that period. For assessment year 2015-16, the statutory outer limit expired on 31 March 2022, and transitional directions cannot enlarge it. A notice issued within limitation is essential to reassessment jurisdiction; taxpayer participation or acquiescence cannot cure a time-barred notice. Consequential reassessments based on invalid notices lack jurisdiction, while the merits of additions remain unaddressed.

Registered development agreements conferring substantial, enforceable and commercially exploitable property rights constitute transfers, with capital gains taxable to the society holding title and executing the agreement rather than its members. Mutuality does not shelter income involving an independent developer. Section 50D does not apply where consideration is determinable, while section 45(5A)'s deferral is confined to individuals and HUFs. Consideration must be determined as of the transfer date; later GST invoices, built-up area, GST and amenity charges, member-paid tax, and liquid-fund dividend eligibility require fact-based examination to prevent duplication and allow lawful deductions or credit. TOLA may extend assessment limitation, and delayed jurisdictional objections can be barred.

Revision under section 263 is impermissible where the Assessing Officer has made relevant enquiries, verified foreign donations and their charitable application, and adopted a legally possible view. Revision requires both an erroneous assessment order and prejudice to revenue; a Commissioner's different view does not suffice. Section 13(1)(c)(ii) applies only when trust income or property benefits a person specified under section 13(3), including a concern in which that person has substantial interest. Payments applied to charitable COVID-19 relief do not attract the restriction without proof of direct or indirect benefit to a specified person or qualifying concern.

CBDT recovery instructions did not require restoration of the earlier refund adjustment because no stay application had been filed before recovery exceeding 80% of the disputed demand, although the adjustment without a hearing was arbitrary. Restitution was also declined because more than three years had elapsed. The later refund adjustment, made while writ and stay proceedings were pending after substantial recovery, was unlawful. Tax authorities remain bound by applicable recovery instructions despite default status and must give the requisite Section 245 intimation before a further adjustment. The later adjusted amount was refundable with applicable interest, and the pending statutory appeal required expeditious disposal.

Initial registration under Section 12A requires examination of the institution's stated objects, project report and purpose. Non-commencement of operations and recovery of subsidised or concessional accommodation or service charges do not, by themselves, establish commercial activity; an undertaking not to sell units also addresses concerns of an outright-sale model. Initial charitable registration should therefore not be refused solely on anticipated commercial conduct. Approval under Section 80G, which enables donor tax deductions, remains distinct from Section 12A registration and requires independent satisfaction of statutory conditions. It cannot follow automatically from registration and requires fresh determination where the necessary inquiry has not occurred.

Tax deduction at source on external development charges paid to a development authority was not required under Section 194I because an earlier binding determination had conclusively resolved the issue in the assessee's favour. Orders treating the payer as an assessee in default under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A), and the consequential rejection of rectification, were therefore illegal and quashed. Resort to the appellate remedy was redundant and inefficacious where the impugned orders contradicted the binding determination.

Limitation for an appeal against an ITAT order commences when the aggrieved party receives the Tribunal's communicated signed order, rather than when it merely learns that the order was pronounced. Section 254(3) of the Income-tax Act and Rule 35 require communication of the order to the assessee and Commissioner; no certified-copy application is required before appeal. Knowledge of the result alone does not disclose the findings and reasons needed to frame an effective appeal. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a bona fide, stage-wise explanation of delay, without deliberateness, mala fides, or irreparable prejudice to the other side, may establish sufficient cause for condonation.

Unpaid excise duty on closing stock retained in a bonded warehouse cannot be added to taxable income under the actual-payment and stock-valuation provisions where the goods were not removed, duty had not become payable, and no deduction was claimed. The exclusive accounting method did not route the amount through the profit and loss account, and its non-inclusion did not reduce taxable income. Disallowance or addition is therefore impermissible unless the amount was claimed as an allowable statutory expense or otherwise affected taxable income.

Section 107 of the CGST Act confines condonation of delay to its fixed additional period; the First Appellate Authority has no inherent power to extend that outer limit. Fact-specific writ directions do not enlarge statutory appellate jurisdiction, and equity cannot override an express limitation provision. Accordingly, an appeal filed beyond the statutory maximum cannot be admitted. Where the Department has implemented an order restoring GST registration and the taxpayer has continued business and filed returns on that basis, estoppel prevents the Department from challenging the restoration because no effective appellate relief remains available. The implemented restoration cannot therefore be undone through that challenge.

Section 129(3) transit penalties require evidence of a contravention supporting tax evasion, not merely technical or administrative variations. Where physical verification confirms that goods match valid tax invoices and e-way bills, the declared dispatch premises is registered, and no diversion, unaccounted stock, or unrecorded supply is evidenced, the statutory basis for penalty is not established. An allegation that goods were loaded from an undeclared premises also requires objective corroboration. An uncorroborated driver statement, particularly without cross-examination and contrary to registration and weighbridge evidence, is insufficient to establish the alleged contravention.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit accumulated under an inverted duty structure before 18 July 2022 remains available where the claim is filed within the prescribed limitation period. The notification effective from that date operates prospectively and does not curtail credit that had already accrued on eligible inward supplies. Withdrawal of an earlier refund application and filing of a fresh application after 18 July 2022 cannot, by itself, defeat a claim relating wholly to the earlier period. The application-date restriction in the relevant circular is inapplicable insofar as it denies such pre-notification credit without statutory authority.