Penalty under Section 271G cannot survive when the transfer-pricing adjustment forming its basis has been deleted in quantum proceedings and that deletion stands affirmed. Consistency also supported following the earlier assessment year, in which an identical penalty on substantially similar facts had been deleted and the deletion sustained. The penalty was therefore deleted because its underlying foundation no longer existed.

TNMM comparability under Rule 10B requires exclusion of entities whose profitability is materially affected by controlled transactions, abnormal events, different functions or business models, valuable intangibles, or unreliable segmental results, where reliable adjustments cannot neutralise those differences. The related-party transaction filter must consider not only related-party revenue but also operating costs and other operating dealings; entities exceeding the applicable threshold fail comparability. A taxpayer may challenge entities initially selected in its transfer-pricing study because there is no estoppel against determining a reliable arm's length price. The arm's length price must therefore be computed using comparables that satisfy functional, asset, risk and profitability criteria.

Addition for alleged unexplained excess stock cannot rest solely on a difference between survey-date market valuation and earlier closing-stock rates where physical stock quantities match book records. Physical quantities of sugar and molasses found during survey matched recorded stock, and price fluctuations explained the valuation difference without contrary material. The addition was therefore deleted. Telescoping against undisclosed income declared by the managing director was also accepted after consideration of additional evidence, the remand findings, and the settlement order.

Extension of a stay of outstanding tax demand pending appeal was warranted because circumstances had not changed, the assessee was not responsible for the delay in disposal, and 20% of the disputed demand had been paid as directed. The stay was continued for a further 180 days or until disposal of the appeal, whichever occurred first.

Extension of a stay on outstanding tax demand may be justified where circumstances remain unchanged from the original stay, the taxpayer establishes a prima facie case, the balance of convenience supports continued protection, and appeal-disposal delay is not attributable to the taxpayer. On these factors, recovery protection was continued for 180 days from the order date or until disposal of the appeal, whichever occurred earlier.

Under TNMM, IT transactions with associated enterprises and non-associated enterprises should be separately benchmarked where their functions, assets, risks and margins materially differ; a blended entity-level margin can distort the controlled transaction. Transfer-pricing adjustments should therefore be confined to associated-enterprise international transactions. Turnover-based comparability may require excluding substantially larger software-service enterprises through an upper turnover filter. Where shareholder funds exceed investments, no interest disallowance arises under rule 8D; indirect expenditure must be computed only on investments capable of generating exempt income. Arm's length pricing and exempt-income expenditure consequently require recomputation on those bases.

Cash advances received in connection with the transfer of immovable property constitute a specified sum and must comply with the prescribed mode of receipt under section 269SS. Section 273B prevents penalty under section 271D where the recipient proves reasonable cause. A genuine sale agreement, completed transfer, confirmed transaction, substantial secured housing liability, modest income, and the need to raise funds to repay that liability may establish bona fide financial exigency. In the absence of evidence of fictitious dealings, undisclosed-money introduction, or tax evasion, reasonable cause makes the penalty unsustainable.

For assessment year 2012-13, section 54 permitted exemption for investment in adjoining flats that were acquired and intended to function as one residential accommodation; the later restriction to one residential house in India did not apply. Capital-gains computation for a property comprising land and a building must include indexation of the accepted allowable cost of the building, rather than indexation of land alone. Sufficient cause for delayed filing may be established by bona fide circumstances, including advanced age, difficulty accessing electronic communications, and prompt action upon learning of the appellate order.

Section 69 additions for capital introduced and unreconciled bank credits require verification of the taxpayer's explanation and supporting bank records. Identified sources, including personal-bank funds, loan repayment, maturity proceeds and FD/OD withdrawals, must be reconciled with confirmations and documents; where substantiated, the additions cannot survive. GST late fee for delayed tax payment is deductible business expenditure because it compensates for delay and is not incurred for an offence or a purpose prohibited by law under Explanation 1 to section 37(1).

For proceedings under section 153C against a person other than the searched person, the relevant search date is the date when the jurisdictional Assessing Officer receives seized material or records satisfaction. The statutory assessment block is calculated by including the assessment year relevant to that date. Even if the searched person's satisfaction-note date is used, Assessment Year 2009-10 falls outside the permissible period. Consequently, the section 153C notice, assessment order and consequential demand are time-barred and invalid.

Tax-evasion prosecutions under the Income-tax Act depended on the assessment order relating to the relevant return. Once that order was set aside and remanded for fresh assessment, the prosecution lost its underlying foundation and the complaint was not maintainable. The resulting convictions and sentences were set aside, and the accused were acquitted of all charges.

Sufficient cause for delayed filing before the Commissioner (Appeals) requires a bona fide, adequately supported explanation covering the material period of delay. Bereavement of counsel may explain delay only until counsel resumes work; a later illness must be substantiated by medical or other supporting evidence. An assessee's own non-cooperation can defeat a claim that counsel alone caused the delay. In an appeal under Section 260-A, concurrent factual findings refusing condonation are not reappraised unless perverse, unsupported by material, or made in disregard of relevant material; failure to establish sufficient cause raises no substantial question of law.

Section 148A requires an assessee to receive an opportunity of personal hearing before a determination is made that reassessment notice should be issued, where such hearing has been sought. Service of a show-cause notice and consideration of a written response alone do not fulfil that requirement. Denial of the requested hearing breaches the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice, invalidating the determination. Fresh reassessment proceedings may be initiated only after affording the assessee a personal hearing.

For searches initiated on or before 31 March 2021, the statutory saving under section 149 preserves the search-assessment framework under sections 153A and 153C. Material found in such a search must be addressed through that framework rather than reassessment proceedings under sections 148A and 148. Reassessment may proceed on material independently obtained after the search only where the applicable statutory conditions are met; it cannot substitute the prescribed search-assessment route for incriminating search material.

Registration under Section 12AB requires assessment of a trust's objects as a whole to determine whether they advance public charitable purposes. Objects concerning sectoral development, research, training, information dissemination, professional standards, public information, community development and social welfare may benefit the public at large where they extend beyond society members and do not involve religious activities. Section 13(1)(b) addresses the availability of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 and should ordinarily be examined during assessment on the material then available. It cannot, by itself, justify refusal of registration at the initial registration stage.

Section 254(2) confines ITAT rectification jurisdiction to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit review on merits or reappreciation of matters already decided. Reliance on new considerations relating to distributor confirmations and cash-receipt patterns, when those matters neither formed part of the rectification grounds nor the original appellate order, falls outside that limited jurisdiction. Rejection of a rectification application on such new grounds exceeds the permissible scope of rectification.

Reopening of a completed scrutiny assessment after four years requires the assessee's failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment. Where unabsorbed depreciation was disclosed, no depreciation was claimed for the relevant year, and delayed TDS deposit had been examined and dropped in the original proceedings, reassessment cannot be used to review or revisit those matters. The notice under Section 148 and the consequential reassessment order were invalid and quashed.

Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Where the Assessing Officer examines written explanations on CENVAT credit valuation, excise-duty refund and additional depreciation, and adopts a legally permissible view, revision cannot rest merely on the Commissioner's preference for another view. Lack of detailed reasoning in the assessment order alone does not establish error or prejudice. On these principles, revision was invalid because the relevant matters had been considered and no addition was warranted on their merits.

Internal TNMM acceptance in determining arm's length pricing is governed by the transfer-pricing framework in sections 92 to 92C and Rule 10B. Where binding precedent has already resolved an identical challenge arising from the same impugned order, the issue is fully covered and does not raise a substantial question of law. The transfer-pricing adjustment deletion therefore remains unaffected.

Denial of an assessee's requested and acknowledged video-conference personal hearing breaches the mandatory personal-hearing requirement under the faceless assessment procedure. Where the assessment is completed without granting that hearing, despite a request made in response to the show-cause notice, the assessment order and consequential tax demand cannot be sustained. The requirement protects the assessee's opportunity to be heard before finalisation of the assessment.