Availability of an efficacious statutory revision under the Customs Act is central to whether discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised against an appellate order of absolute confiscation. The revisional forum can examine factual and legal disputes concerning an alleged oral show-cause notice, a statement recorded under statutory powers, compliance with notice and seizure requirements, personal hearing, and confiscation. Alleged breaches of natural justice requiring review of the complete record do not, without more, justify bypassing that remedy, particularly where no vires challenge or jurisdictional defect is established.

Review jurisdiction was invoked against an earlier Supreme Court order. Examination of the petition and record disclosed no error apparent on the face of the record capable of warranting review. The review petition was therefore dismissed, with any pending applications disposed of. The operative standard applied was the presence of a manifest record-based error sufficient to justify review.

Explained loan credits in foreign companies' bank accounts, supported by lenders' tax returns and bank statements, constitute liabilities rather than undisclosed foreign assets or income under the Black Money Act. Gross commission credits must be assessed after corresponding operating debits are considered; where those debits produce a net loss, no taxable surplus arises. On these principles, additions for the loan credits and gross commission, and the related penalty, lack a basis.

Ad hoc disallowances of travel, conveyance, advertising, sales-promotion and miscellaneous-promotion expenditure require fresh verification where only sample supporting material was produced and the taxpayer undertakes to furnish complete evidence. The Assessing Officer must allow a reasonable opportunity before determining the expenditure's genuineness. Provision for bad and doubtful debts is allowable under the applicable statutory framework and is not restricted to banking businesses. Income enhancement based on an unavailable processing intimation cannot stand without disclosure of that intimation and an effective opportunity for the taxpayer to answer the proposed adjustments.

Enhanced compensation arising from the same compulsory acquisition of agricultural land qualifies for exemption where the original compensation had been accepted after verification of agricultural character, ownership and use, and land records support cultivation. The enhanced amount retains the character of the original compensation. Capital gains from sale of office premises may be assessed as long-term capital gains despite an erroneous short-term classification in the return and no revised return, where the transaction was disclosed and the record establishes legal and beneficial ownership, possession and the requisite holding period. Correcting the character of disclosed income is not a fresh claim for deduction, exemption or relief.

Before 1 April 2025, penalty jurisdiction for contraventions of Section 269SS under Section 271D lay with the Joint/Additional Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer. Section 271D neither requires recording of penalty satisfaction in the assessment order nor makes such satisfaction part of assessment proceedings, because penalty proceedings are independent. Accordingly, an Assessing Officer's failure to record satisfaction for Section 271D penalty could not render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Revisionary action under Section 263 on that basis was without jurisdiction, resulting in quashing of the revision orders and reinstatement of the assessments.

RBI monetary penalties for lending-related supervisory non-compliance are deductible under Explanation 1 to section 37(1) where the payment is not shown to relate to an offence or prohibited activity; regulatory power to levy the penalty is not conclusive. For banking companies, no section 14A and Rule 8D disallowance arises where securities are held as stock-in-trade and income is business income. Net depreciation on investments is allowable when computed under RBI guidelines and Part B of ICDS VIII, subject to the prescribed net-depreciation limitation. ESOP discount is deductible revenue expenditure because it is employee compensation, notwithstanding settlement through shares or no immediate cash outflow.

Section 205 prevents a direct tax demand against a deductee to the extent tax has actually been deducted from its income, even where the deductor fails to remit that tax to the Central Government. Tax withheld under the statutory withholding regime is retained on the Government's behalf, while recovery and other consequences of non-deposit apply to the deductor responsible for deduction and remittance. Accordingly, TDS credit on rental income cannot be denied solely because the tenant-deductor did not deposit the deducted amount, preventing the deductee from being taxed again on income already subjected to withholding.

Section 80P(2)(d) permits a co-operative society to deduct the full interest or dividend income earned from investments with another co-operative society. Eligibility does not depend on whether the interest constitutes operational business income or whether the invested funds were required for business purposes. Section 80P(4) prevents a co-operative bank from claiming the deduction on its own income but does not deprive it of its character as a co-operative society for an investing society's deduction claim. Interest from fixed deposits and savings-bank deposits with a co-operative bank falls within the deduction.

For property acquired under an earlier agreement, Section 56(2)(vii) requires the stamp-duty value on the agreement date where consideration, wholly or partly, was paid by non-cash mode on or before that date. Substitution of the higher registration-date stamp-duty value is therefore impermissible, and the resulting addition is deleted. Cash registration charges are not unexplained investment where presumptive business income accepted under Section 44AD demonstrates sufficient available cash to meet those charges; the related addition is also deleted.

Arm's length price adjustments must use a prescribed method and be supported by comparable, valuation or economic analysis; an ad hoc reallocation of consideration cannot rewrite independently negotiated agreements absent sham, collusion or non-arm's-length dealings. The transfer-pricing adjustment was therefore deleted. Treaty-rate relief for dividend distribution tax under the India-Belgium treaty requires determination in line with the pending Supreme Court resolution, and the refund claim was remitted accordingly. Interest for delayed return filing was deleted because an e-filing portal malfunction beyond the taxpayer's control caused the delay.

Contributions reimbursing salary, allowances and employment-related costs of deputed supervisory staff did not attract tax deduction at source where the employing entity paid those costs and no markup or personnel-supply service consideration was established. Consequently, disallowance for non-deduction of tax under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted. Interest on delayed TDS deposit under section 201(1A) cannot be disallowed where it was not claimed as an expenditure; the question was remitted for factual verification of whether a deduction had been claimed.

Reassessment jurisdiction under section 148A(d) requires consideration of the assessee's timely reply and supporting material before issuing a section 148 notice. Reliance on electronic cash-deposit data that conflicts with bank statements, while incorrectly treating no reply as filed, invalidates the reassessment foundation. Section 69A cannot apply once the cash deposit's nature and source are accepted as explained. Recharacterising income from other sources as unexplained money also requires the statutory conditions and notice and opportunity for enhancement under section 251(2); consequential taxation under section 115BBE is unsustainable.

Treaty chargeability limits transfer-pricing adjustments: an arm's-length determination cannot independently create Indian taxability unless the computed amount satisfies the treaty conditions governing payment, character and source. Notional interest on receivables fails without evidence of outstanding consideration and payment or credit of interest. Standardised software and connectivity receipts are not royalty where users receive no copyright, equipment or process rights; connectivity remains non-taxable business profit absent an Indian permanent establishment. Testing, quality-control, visa support and soft-skills training do not meet the make-available standard for included services where no technical capability is transferred. Lease-rental adjustments between United States residents lack an Indian source where no Indian permanent establishment bears the liability. Advance-tax interest does not apply where tax was deductible by the payer at source.

Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars does not arise merely because returned income differs from assessed income. An amount omitted from a return filed under section 153A, but previously assessed, taxed and accepted, may constitute a bona fide oversight where no related search material exists, no fresh addition is made in the section 153A assessment, and no refund of tax is claimed. Explanation 1 does not apply solely because of the omission if the explanation is bona fide and material facts were already available in departmental records. Such an inadvertent error does not amount to concealment or inaccurate particulars.

Rebate under section 87A is available against tax computed on short-term capital gains taxable under section 111A where the taxpayer has opted for the section 115BAC tax regime for Assessment Year 2024-25. The position follows consistent coordinate Tribunal decisions allowing the rebate in such circumstances, with no contrary jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court ruling identified. The rebate therefore reduces tax liability arising from the specified short-term capital gains, subject to the applicable statutory conditions.

Unaccounted business receipts evidenced by third-party loose sheets require corroboration and a demonstrated nexus with the taxpayer; project-specific details and conduct in offering related profit supported the receipt quantum. Only the embedded profit in established on-money receipts is taxable, and an admission made to buy peace does not conclusively determine the applicable rate; absent material supporting a higher margin, profit was estimated using an 8% presumptive-tax benchmark. No further telescoping applies where unaccounted expenditure has already been treated as funded from those receipts. A challenge to penalty initiation is premature until a penalty order is made.

Reassessment under Section 148 requires the Assessing Officer's independent satisfaction, based on recorded material, that income has escaped assessment. Where an invalid return disclosed interest income, related expenditure and net profit, treating the entire gross interest income as escaped without material showing that expenditure was inadmissible did not establish a genuine basis for reopening. Reopening solely to comply with a CBDT instruction for invalid returns selected for scrutiny, rather than on independent satisfaction, renders the Section 148 notice and consequential reassessment void ab initio.

Reassessment initiated after four years is jurisdictionally invalid where the capital-gain transaction was fully disclosed, examined in the original assessment, and reopening rests on no fresh tangible material or identified failure of full and true disclosure. Reconsidering the same transaction constitutes a change of opinion. Reassessment is also invalid where a return filed in response to a section 148 notice is followed by no notice under section 143(2). Issuance of that notice is mandatory after receipt of the return; treating the return as non est or relying on delayed filing does not cure its omission. The reassessment order and consequential addition therefore cannot survive.

Rectification proceedings under section 154 can address a typographical error in reporting capital gains where co-owners each disclosed the full gain despite equal ownership. A mistaken variation in income under a particular head does not amount to a fresh claim requiring a revised return. An appellate authority may consider the correction in an appeal from a section 154 order and undertake verification to prevent taxation beyond the assessee's real income. Tax may be levied only in accordance with law under Article 265 of the Constitution; accordingly, taxability limited to the assessee's 50% share requires verification in accordance with law.