Limitation for penalties arising from contravention of cash-receipt restrictions runs under section 275(1)(c) independently of assessment proceedings, from the first action initiating penalty. A later reference or notice cannot revive an expired limitation period, and COVID-19 extensions do not extend a period that had already expired. Cash advances received by a company through a director acting in a representative capacity are company receipts, not the director's personal receipts. Consequently, penalty liability under section 271D does not attach to the director individually where the transaction and property belong to the company.

Cash deposits claimed as gifts from parents and husband require credible evidence of each donor's financial capacity, not merely confirmation of the gifts. Although accumulated savings remained a possible source, the recorded incomes of the father and husband did not establish capacity for the full claimed gifts, and the mother's income-tax return was unavailable. The explanation was accepted only partly, restricting the unexplained-money addition to half of the deposits.

Cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were explained by registered sale deeds and a cash-flow statement showing receipt of cash consideration on sale of agricultural land and its subsequent deposit. The documentary record established a direct nexus between the sale receipts and deposits. Sale of the land on the date of its purchase did not, by itself, displace that evidence. The unexplained cash-deposit addition was therefore directed to be deleted.

Deduction for donations required no fresh adjudication because the identical claim for the same assessment year had already been allowed in separate appellate proceedings, with a direction to grant the deduction. The pending appeal therefore became infructuous and was dismissed, as no unresolved donation-deduction issue remained for determination in that appeal.

Recorded cash supported by an adequate cash-book balance and an unrebutted explanation of bank withdrawals for business-site expenditure is not unexplained money under section 69A. Cash found in premises partly used for residence does not, by itself, displace recorded balances. Likewise, seized-paper expenditure reconciled with cash-book entries, vouchers and assessment-stage material is not unexplained expenditure under section 69C absent contrary evidence. The appellate authority may verify material already before the Assessing Officer through co-terminous appellate powers. Both additions were deleted.

Income of a statutory urban improvement trust may be exempt from Union taxation under Article 289(1) where the trust operates as an instrumentality of the State. State-controlled constitution and functions, exercise of municipal powers, public governmental character, and transfer of assets and liabilities to a municipal body on dissolution support that characterisation. Although statutory corporations ordinarily have separate legal personality and their income does not automatically constitute State income, the trust's activities were treated as governmental rather than independent commercial operations. Article 289(2) does not apply where those activities are not a trade or business carried on by or on behalf of the State.

Revisionary jurisdiction requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Where assessment records show specific enquiries and responses on a deduction claimed for CSR expenditure, acceptance of the claim may represent a legally plausible view. Divergent Tribunal decisions on the availability of deduction for CSR expenditure support the conclusion that a contrary preferred interpretation alone cannot justify revision. Revision is therefore unsustainable where the assessing authority adopted one legally plausible view after enquiry.

Cash-deposit additions require de novo factual adjudication where bank statements, a sale deed executed by a joint account holder, and deposit-wise reconciliation support the claimed source as agricultural-land sale proceeds. Treating the explanation as unsupported without verifying the documentary material is inappropriate, particularly where the assessment was completed without the taxpayer's participation. Verification of the asserted source must precede determination of the cash-deposit addition.

Completed or non-abated assessments under Section 153A require genuinely incriminating material indicating undisclosed or escaped income. Corporate records, valuation material and financial statements maintained in the ordinary course, without evidence of income suppression, do not support additions. Denial of Section 80-IA deduction requires an established breach of Section 47(xiii); where the same factual basis shows no breach and no fresh material emerges, the deduction cannot be denied on that basis.

Search additions for purported non-genuine cash purchases require corroborative incriminating material; admissions made during inquiry, without such material, are not conclusive. Vouchers recorded in regular audited books and VAT records, reconciled with accepted sales and stock, and a prompt affidavit retracting admissions did not establish bogus purchases; the cash-purchase additions were deleted. An unsigned loose sheet and a departmental computer-generated interest calculation did not prove an advance, receipt of interest, or enforceable right to receive interest. The statutory presumption for seized material is rebuttable, and unidentified entries remained a dumb document; the notional interest addition was deleted.

Section 69A applies only where money is unrecorded or the explanation of its nature and source is unsatisfactory. Recorded cash balances, cash-book and ledger entries, audited accounts, bank-deposit records, trade practice, agent confirmation, debtor receipts and retail-sale proceeds supported the explanation that cash deposits during demonetisation arose from business transactions. Receipt or deposit of specified bank notes alone does not establish unexplained money without evidence of unaccounted cash or material disproving the stated source. The cash deposits were satisfactorily explained, making the Section 69A addition unsustainable and liable to deletion.

Approval under section 80G(5) cannot be denied merely because a trust's objects permit financial assistance to Indian students pursuing education abroad. Where grants are released in India, in Indian rupees, to Indian students and no foreign-currency remittance occurs, the income is applied in India. A student's subsequent use of the grant abroad does not amount to application of income outside India for section 11 purposes. In the absence of an adverse finding on the genuineness of activities, amendment of the object clause is not required to satisfy section 80G(5)(i), and refusal of approval is unjustified.

Revision under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. Where scrutiny records show that the assessing officer called for and examined evidence supporting a Section 80G claim, acceptance may represent a conscious, legally sustainable view even without detailed reasons in the assessment order; inadequate inquiry or a different view alone does not justify revision. Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) excludes CSR expenditure as a business expense but does not displace a separate Chapter VI-A deduction. CSR payments meeting Section 80G conditions, made without reciprocal benefit from the donee, may qualify as donations despite being mandatory.

Stamp duty paid to renew a mining licence is capital expenditure where it is substantive consideration for a transferable right to extract minerals and provides an enduring business benefit. Its label as stamp duty, term-based character, and recurring nature do not alter that character; it is not a current deduction under Section 37(1). The capitalised renewal cost forms the cost of an intangible business asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 and Rule 5. Suspension of mining operations does not allow immediate deduction of the full unamortised balance; recovery occurs through depreciation at the prescribed rate.

Section 153C jurisdiction requires the Assessing Officer of the searched person to record a valid satisfaction linking seized material to the other assessee. The satisfaction must identify whether the material belongs to, pertains to, or relates to that assessee. Failure to specify this statutory nexus is a fatal jurisdictional defect under a strict interpretation of Section 153C. Assessments initiated without such valid satisfaction are invalid and liable to be quashed.

Section 153C jurisdiction requires a separate, year-specific satisfaction note for each relevant assessment year. A consolidated note covering multiple years does not meet that requirement where it fails to record distinct satisfaction for each year. Regular ledger entries and ordinary books of account, without an explanation of their incriminating character, do not establish the necessary jurisdictional foundation. Reliance on a consolidated satisfaction note based solely on such ledger material therefore invalidates the assumption of jurisdiction.

Judicial discipline required deferral of a challenge to a reassessment notice because the identical validity issue was pending before the Supreme Court. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, proceedings before the competent authority were stayed until final determination of that issue. The final Supreme Court decision will govern the reassessment challenge.

Consensual remand required the income-tax matters to be determined on their merits because the Tribunal had addressed only the technical objection concerning the Document Identification Number (DIN). The matters were returned to the ITAT for merits adjudication, with the DIN objection excluded from consideration. The pending tax disputes will therefore be resolved on substantive grounds rather than the unaddressed technical issue.

Typographical corrections rectify the cause title of a tax order by replacing an incorrect tax appeal number with the correct number and inserting a previously omitted tax appeal number before the identified cross-objection. The corrected order is to reflect both amendments, and a corrected copy is to be uploaded to the website.

Further action under the DGGI show-cause notice was restrained until the next hearing. The proceedings raise whether a DGGI notice may continue where earlier State GST notices concern common parties and transactions, including the effect of the statutory bar against parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b). They also raise whether proceedings initiated under Section 73 may be pursued on allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression that could bring Section 74 into consideration, and whether self-assessment through shipping bills had attained finality. No final determination was made on these issues.