Revisionary jurisdiction requires both an erroneous assessment order and prejudice to Revenue. It cannot be exercised merely because the revisionary authority considers that the Assessing Officer should have made further or different inquiries. Where the assessee disclosed material supporting indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement, and the Assessing Officer considered the explanation before accepting the claim, the assessment reflects a conscious view. Revision cannot therefore substitute the revisionary authority's opinion for the Assessing Officer's considered decision on the disclosed material.

Revision of an assessment for lack of inquiry requires an erroneous and prejudicial order, not merely a different view of matters examined during scrutiny. Where the Assessing Officer made inquiries into depreciation on fixed assets, commission paid to a non-resident, and deductions for employing new workmen, and applied mind to the responses, revision was not sustainable. The Principal Commissioner had identified neither a flaw in the assessee's replies nor a specific defect in the prescribed audit report. The revision order was quashed, and the tax appeal was dismissed because the Tribunal's findings disclosed no legal infirmity.

Excess self-assessment tax refunded after appellate relief attracts interest as a statutory, non-discretionary consequence where tax ultimately chargeable is lower than tax paid. Refund entitlement arises when tax deducted at source, advance tax, self-assessment tax, or regular-assessment tax exceeds the final annual tax liability following appeal or other proceedings. Where prescribed computation categories do not govern, interest on excess tax runs from the payment date. Unpaid interest on the resulting refund must be determined and paid for the relevant period, including up to the point at which interest had already been granted.

Advance-tax payment otherwise payable is a precondition to admission of an income-tax appeal where no return of income has been filed, unless exemption is sought and granted for good and sufficient reason. A claimed absence of taxable income and corresponding advance-tax liability requires examination where neither the taxpayer nor the Assessing Officer has computed the liability; it cannot be rejected summarily merely because no exemption application was filed. Dismissal for non-compliance in those circumstances requires fresh consideration with an opportunity to explain the claim. Penalty appeals concerning under-reporting of income and audit default, where based on the same admission objection, follow the same treatment.

Genuine share transactions supported by banking records and transfer documents cannot be disregarded merely because they generate a tax loss. The discussion identifies that no adverse material established an artificial or pre-conceived arrangement, and the sale price exceeded the price at which another related purchaser had acquired the shares. On these facts, the short-term capital loss from sale of unlisted shares to a spouse was not treated as a colourable device, and its disallowance was deleted.

Transfer-pricing provisions apply to transactions between associated enterprises and cannot be used to benchmark royalty paid to an independent foreign licensor unless material establishes a deemed associated-enterprise relationship through a prior agreement or specific arrangement. Where the licensor was not disclosed as related and no such material existed, the royalty transaction remained independent. A bona fide royalty rate agreed under a licence agreement could not be disallowed under section 37 merely because it was considered excessive by reference to external royalty comparables. The royalty disallowance was deleted; remaining grounds were left open.

Under TNMM, comparables for an assessee providing ITeS support services to its associated enterprise must be functionally similar and capable of reliable comparison. Tata Elxsi was unsuitable because its design and engineering, digital-content, R&D and software-development activities involved substantial intangibles. TTEC India Customer Solutions was unsuitable because its BPO, technology and AI-enhanced offerings differed from the tested ITeS support services. CHEERS was unsuitable because its mixed ITeS and other operations lacked segmental information. All three were excluded from the final comparable set; the issue of the assessee's unaudited segmental information remained open.

Cost-to-cost reimbursements of third-party marketing, promotion, travel and other expenses involving no services or value addition do not warrant an upward transfer-pricing adjustment; domestic-group recoveries require verification. Salary and wage cross-charges from foreign associated enterprises remain subject to adjustment where shared employee services are insufficiently substantiated. Television-channel distribution licence fees should be benchmarked under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method where comparable licence agreements exist; software and IT distributors are not functionally comparable. A foreign-tax deduction claim not made in the return may be raised before appellate authorities, but requires factual verification where tax credit was unavailable or unclaimed.

Rectification of DRP directions that changed AMP benchmarking from the earlier approach to intensity-adjusted TNMM, on the CIT(DR)'s application, was unsustainable; the rectified directions and consequential assessment order were set aside. Original DRP directions requiring deletion of a protective AMP adjustment bound the assessment proceedings, so the protective adjustment based on the Bright Line Test was also set aside. AMP transfer-pricing adjustments derived through both the Bright Line Test and intensity-adjusted TNMM were unsustainable for the relevant year and corresponding subsequent years. The impugned assessment orders were set aside, while academic, consequential and unpressed grounds remained open or were not pressed.

Transfer-pricing benchmarking for administrative and marketing support services requires functional similarity and adequate segmental data. Engineering consultancy, construction-related activities, trading and mixed sales-service operations, commission agency and technical services are unsuitable comparables; a different financial year alone does not require exclusion where an appropriate adjustment is possible. For IT-enabled services, outsourcing businesses without segmental information and knowledge-process outsourcing providers are functionally dissimilar. Proposed comparables needing review of segmental or financial data, including those affected by a service-income filter, require verification and fresh computation. Claimed comparable-margin corrections and risk adjustments depend on substantiation, factual reconciliation and consequential examination.

Deduction for expenditure allegedly disallowed in an earlier year for tax-deduction-at-source default requires evidence that the earlier disallowance was made under the relevant provision; a revised computation cannot support the balance annuity deduction without that factual foundation. A return-processing adjustment must be challenged through the separate statutory appeal already filed where no fresh addition is made in the assessment order. Exemption for an entity under section 10(46) requires the prescribed notification; a pending writ petition, absent a stay or specific direction, does not suspend proceedings or establish exemption eligibility. The deduction and exemption claims were rejected, and all appeals were dismissed.

Goodwill write-off already added back in computing taxable income should not be added again in assessment; an ambiguous rectification that potentially disallows goodwill beyond withdrawal of consequential depreciation cannot prejudice the assessee. The further goodwill disallowance was deleted, while the depreciation disallowance was sustained on the assessee's concession. A claim for set-off of brought-forward business losses requires verification of its quantum and eligibility from earlier-year records where it has not been adjudicated. That claim was remitted to the AO for verification and lawful set-off after reasonable opportunity. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Search-related assessments initiated on or after 1 April 2021 must proceed under the reassessment framework, rather than regular scrutiny assessment provisions. Where seized material belongs to a third party, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction that it pertains to the assessee and obtain prescribed approval; non-compliance can invalidate the assessment. For unsecured loans, identity, creditworthiness and genuineness may be established through corporate, financial, banking, confirmation and repayment records, while untested third-party statements cannot alone support additions. Transfer-pricing analysis should respect accepted guarantee-pricing methods and avoid separate interest adjustments where delayed receivables are already r.....

Taxability of receipts reported in Form 26AS depends on the real nature of the underlying transaction, not solely on the deductor's description of them as commission. Form 26AS reflects deductor-reported TDS information and is not conclusive of the recipient's taxable income. Invoice-wise reconciliation of recharge-voucher purchases and sales may establish that the difference between reported receipts and declared commission represents trade discount. Where the Revenue produces no material disproving that reconciliation or showing the discount to be fictitious, trade discount cannot be assessed as commission income merely because it is reported as such in Form 26AS.

Interest on enhanced compensation for compulsorily acquired agricultural land is taxable under the provisions governing such interest where binding jurisdictional precedent so requires. Rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to review, modify, or avoid binding jurisdictional precedent on the basis of a contrary Coordinate Bench view; relief through rectification is therefore unavailable. Where the interest is taxable as income from other sources, the statutory fifty per cent deduction must be allowed. Taxable interest must consequently be computed after granting that deduction where it has not already been provided.

Recovery of erroneously paid drawback under Rule 16, despite the absence of an express limitation period, must be initiated within a reasonable time where fraud or suppression is not alleged. Mere non-production of proof of realisation of export proceeds does not equate to fraudulent availment. An inordinate, unexplained delay in commencing recovery proceedings, compounded by delay in adjudication, rendered the recovery unsustainable. The belated recovery order and consequential bank-account attachment were set aside; the availability of an appellate remedy and delay in seeking writ relief did not bar relief because the order lacked statutory authority.

Customs reclassification of mixed-fibre polyester warp knitted fabrics requires Revenue to establish, through cogent technical evidence, that the declared residual classification is incorrect. Fibre composition and textile construction under Chapter 60 cannot be determined solely from commercial documents, visual examination, or a generic polyester description. Where samples, laboratory reports, and evidence of misdeclaration or suppression are absent, an accepted self-assessment cannot be reopened or replaced with multiple alternative tariff entries. Classification under Customs Tariff Item 6005 9000 and the related concessional basic customs duty benefit therefore remained available, and the differential duty, interest, and penalties were unsustainable.

Article 226(2) permits writ jurisdiction where part of the cause of action arises within a court's territory, but its discretionary operation requires consideration of forum conveniens and the principal, substantial nexus. Issuance of an investigation order from Delhi and an affidavit filed by an SFIO officer there did not create a sufficient nexus with Delhi. Mumbai was the appropriate forum because the companies' registered offices and records, the relevant Registrar of Companies, insolvency proceedings, the competent Special Court, and related investigation proceedings were situated there. The writ petition was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, without examining the investigation's merits.

Approved insolvency resolution plan waivers of indirect-tax liabilities did not extend to GST liabilities arising after 1 April 2022. The cited Supreme Court precedent on the binding effect of resolution plans was inapplicable on the stated facts, while a High Court ruling was identified as clarifying the position. The challenge based on the resolution plan was not accepted; the taxpayer could pursue the statutory appeal on meeting the prescribed pre-deposit requirement.

PMLA provisional attachment challenges should ordinarily proceed through the statutory adjudicatory framework: the Adjudicating Authority examines the attachment after hearing the affected person, followed by appeals to the Appellate Tribunal and High Court. Availability of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction, but a writ petition will generally not be entertained where that remedy is efficacious and no exceptional circumstance, such as patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice or statutory violation, is shown. Objections on proceeds of crime, jurisdiction and attachment validity may be raised before the statutory forum. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to pursue PMLA remedies.