Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot survive where the quantum addition forming its sole basis is deleted. The original assessment's addition for alleged bogus purchases was set aside, and the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation in the fresh assessment and deleted the addition entirely. As the penalty rested exclusively on that addition, its foundation ceased to exist, requiring deletion of the penalty.

Contract expenditure cannot be subjected to an ad hoc 30% disallowance solely because payees failed to respond to notices under Section 133(6) or had not filed income-tax returns, where the services rendered are not in doubt. In the absence of a stated basis for the higher disallowance, the disallowance was restricted to 5%, with the remaining amount deleted.

Transfer-pricing adjustment for the relevant assessment year requires reconsideration where the same issue, facts and grounds were examined in the succeeding year. Verification of transfer-pricing documentation and economic analysis in that year, following remand, resulted in no adverse arm's-length price inference. Appropriate relief is to be granted by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer consistently with the succeeding-year determination.

Assessment issued in the name of an amalgamating company that had ceased to exist is void from inception where the Revenue received prior written intimation and supporting amalgamation orders. Knowledge recorded in the case file remains attributable to the Revenue despite a later jurisdictional transfer. Section 292B cannot cure this defect because assessment of a non-existent entity, despite that knowledge, is a fundamental jurisdictional failure rather than a procedural irregularity. The position differs where amalgamation was suppressed or proceedings were substantively conducted against the amalgamated entity.

Section 56(2)(x)(b) could not apply retrospectively where an immovable-property purchase agreement was executed in 2013 and substantial consideration had already been paid through banking channels before the provision became applicable. The difference between stamp-duty value and the agreed purchase consideration was therefore not taxable under that provision, and the related addition was deleted.

Non-deduction of tax at source on leave fare concession reimbursements involving foreign travel did not render the bank an assessee in default where payments were made under a binding interim order restraining tax deduction. Although foreign travel was not eligible for the relevant exemption, the interim protection treated the reimbursements as not constituting income for withholding purposes and left employees to bear any eventual tax consequences. The bank was required to comply with that order and risked contempt for non-compliance. Its later vacation and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling did not retrospectively create default liability for payments made while the protection subsisted.

Notification No. 31/2023 enhanced the leave-encashment exemption ceiling for non-Government employees to Rs. 25 lakhs under Section 10(10AA)(ii). The beneficial enhancement applies to eligible claims for assessment years preceding the notification where the leave-encashment amount falls within the enhanced ceiling. Qualifying earlier-year claims may therefore receive exemption up to the revised limit.

Mandatory reassessment procedure requires recorded reasons for reopening to be supplied when requested after a return is filed in response to a reopening notice, with objections decided before further reassessment action. Failure to provide those reasons renders the reassessment unsustainable. Documented equity-share sale proceeds, supported by banking records, dematerialised holdings, recognised stock-exchange trades, registered brokers and securities transaction tax, cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit solely on general investigation material or suspicion of bogus long-term capital gains. In the absence of cogent evidence linking the taxpayer to cash transactions, entry operators or price manipulation, the share-sale and consequential commission additions do not survive.

Section 167B applies maximum marginal taxation to an association of persons or body of individuals only in specified circumstances where members' shares are indeterminate or unknown. A public charitable trust has no individual beneficiaries with distributable shares and is not subject to the maximum marginal rate merely because beneficiary shares cannot be identified. Its charitable character and relevant assessment records, including the trust deed, rectification application, return of income and original assessment order, require verification. Subject to that verification, the trust's income is chargeable at normal rates rather than under section 167B.

Long-term capital gains from listed-share sales supported by contract notes, demat records, banking-channel payments, stock-exchange transactions and securities transaction tax cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit solely on a general penny-stock investigation report. Where shares were held in demat form for a substantial period and no independent material links the taxpayer to price rigging or broker collusion, the documentary evidence remains unrebutted. The resulting gains qualify for exemption under Section 10(38), and an addition under Section 68 is unsustainable.

Stamp-duty valuation under Section 56(2)(x) must be determined for the property actually acquired; the value of an originally booked but distinct property at another location cannot be substituted. Where the agreement date differs from the registration date, the provisos permit use of the agreement-date stamp-duty value if consideration, wholly or partly, was paid through prescribed banking modes on or before that date. The addition therefore requires recomputation using the applicable agreement-date value after verification of qualifying payments, while the earlier booked property's value remains inapplicable.

Reassessment proceedings initiated after an assessee's death must be commenced against the legal representative under Section 159(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The statutory fiction for continuation through a legal representative applies only when proceedings were validly initiated during the assessee's lifetime. A notice under Section 148 issued to a deceased person is non est, cannot be cured by Sections 292B or 292BB, and is not validated by the legal representative's participation after a timely objection. Consequently, reassessment and assessment made in the deceased person's name are void, while the underlying additions remain unexamined.

Transfer-pricing analysis of interest on non-convertible debentures requires comparability filters supported by reliable data and an economic rationale. A minimum-tenure threshold cannot be treated as appropriate merely by assertion where comparable evidence does not show a consistent relationship between tenure and coupon rate. For interest-limitation purposes, the section 94B computation is confined to interest on debt issued by a non-resident associated enterprise. Interest paid to non-associated enterprises must therefore be excluded, and the computation must reflect any transfer-pricing adjustment deletion and existing voluntary disallowance to avoid duplicate disallowance.

Compulsorily convertible debentures retain their debt character until conversion into shares, even where they are hybrid instruments, compulsorily convertible, and lack ordinary principal repayment. Transfer-pricing analysis cannot substitute equity for debt solely on those features where the governing terms remain unchanged. Recharacterisation as equity requires invocation of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule framework, including a declaration of an impermissible arrangement and compliance with prescribed safeguards and procedure. In the absence of such action, pricing interest at nil by treating the debentures as equity is unsustainable, requiring deletion of the transfer-pricing adjustment.

Compulsorily convertible debentures remain debt until actual conversion for transfer-pricing purposes. Prospective mandatory conversion does not itself justify equity recharacterisation, and regulatory, accounting, FEMA and RBI classifications operating in separate fields do not alter a valid borrowing's transfer-pricing character. Interest on INR-denominated debentures is benchmarked against comparable domestic lending rates rather than foreign-currency rates. The moratorium period must be reflected in the instrument's effective economic borrowing cost; an effective rate within an interest-bearing comparable range supports arm's-length recognition. Interest carry-forward requires separate treatment under the applicable statutory framework.

Section 68 requires proof of the nature and source of credited sale proceeds; formal contract notes, demat records, stock-exchange transactions and banking receipts do not establish genuine long-term capital gains where operator records, implausible price movements, preferential allotments and fund trails indicate accommodation entries on human-probabilities and preponderance tests. Related commission expenditure supported by seized material may be treated as unexplained expenditure. Expenditure relating to exempt income requires a fresh Section 14A determination where relevant exempt gains were not considered. A credit may be assessed only in the person's hands where seized material supports that attribution. Unexplained loans require proof of lender creditworthiness and transaction genuineness. Penalty notices must specify the precise charge; omnibus notices for concealment or inaccurate particulars are invalid.

For Section 56(2)(vii)(b), where an allotment letter identifies the specific flat, area, consideration and material purchase terms, and part consideration is paid through banking channels on allotment, stamp duty value is determined as on the allotment date. A later registered sale agreement resulting from project-completion delay does not displace that valuation date. The proviso applies when the allotment fixes consideration and the required payment condition is met, preventing an addition based on the stamp duty value at registration.

Section 115BAD concessional-regime election was not completed where the return claimed deduction under section 80P and expressly recorded that no option had been exercised, despite inadvertent filing of Form 10-IF on the same date. Processing the return under the concessional regime solely because of Form 10-IF conflicted with the election declared in the return. The assessee could not be compelled to adopt section 115BAD; disallowance of the section 80P deduction and computation under the concessional regime were unsustainable.

Penalty proceedings for an alleged contravention of Section 269SS require foundational satisfaction recorded and discernible during assessment proceedings. Although the authority imposing penalty under Section 271D may differ from the assessing authority, a later show-cause notice cannot replace absent satisfaction in the assessment order. Participation in penalty proceedings does not cure that jurisdictional defect. Where the assessment order neither identifies a contravention of Section 269SS nor indicates initiation of Section 271D proceedings, the penalty proceedings are invalid and the penalty cannot be sustained.

CBDT jurisdictional allocation instructions under the Income-tax Act place reassessment authority for specified non-corporate assessees in mofussil areas with the ACIT/DCIT rather than an ITO where returned income exceeds the prescribed threshold. A notice issued by an officer lacking that pecuniary jurisdiction constitutes a jurisdictional defect and invalidates the consequential reassessment and assessment. Penalty for under-reporting of income, when imposed solely on an addition made in such reassessment, has no surviving basis once the reassessment order and addition are quashed.