Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies only to transactions on or after 1 April 2017. The remaining addition for unexplained cash deposits is assessed under the normal provisions. Documented cash withdrawals and cash availability are relevant to relief from an addition under Sections 68 or 69, even where the explanation has shortcomings. Relief may reduce the addition without removing it entirely.

Technical failure of the official provident fund payment portal precludes disallowance of employees' contributions deposited after the prescribed deadline where timely payment was attempted but prevented by circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control, and payment was made once the portal resumed functioning. The doctrine of impossibility applies to the resulting delay despite the deposit deadline under the Income-tax Act. Acceptance of the payment without interest or penalty supported the evidence of a technical glitch.

Taxation of a private discretionary trust at the maximum marginal rate does not automatically require surcharge at the highest rate. The applicable Finance Act prescribes surcharge slabs separately from the income tax rate, and surcharge is computed by reference to those slabs. This distinguishes the income tax rate used to calculate the trust's tax from the surcharge applied to that tax.

Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot survive when the underlying quantum addition is deleted in the assessment proceedings. Where the penalty is based on an addition under section 43CA, deletion of that addition removes the basis for the penalty, making it unsustainable.

For deposits of specified bank notes with a cooperative credit society during demonetisation, section 68 concerns whether the amounts are unexplained cash credits. Furnishing relevant member identification and KYC details shifts the onus to the revenue under the applicable precedent. An addition cannot rest solely on the society's alleged lack of authority to accept demonetised notes where relevant depositor particulars have been furnished.

Interest earned by a co-operative credit society on deposits with co-operative and scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) when the deposits consist of income derived from its business. Such interest is attributable to the society's business. This treatment distinguishes investment of the society's own business income from investment of retained amounts belonging to members.

Revisional jurisdiction requires an assessment to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; disagreement with a plausible view adopted after enquiry is insufficient. Excess stock disclosed during a survey may be treated as business-derived rather than unexplained income where enquiry supports its business source. Records of tax deduction and deposit on contract payments, and job-work payments within applicable deduction thresholds, are relevant to review of tax compliance. Consistent revenue treatment of right-of-way expenses in earlier years, without a material change in facts, is also relevant. Lack of enquiry is distinct from inadequate enquiry.

Share capital and share premium are examined under section 68 for the subscribers' identity and creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. Bank records, source certificates, financial statements and returns can support these requirements. Failure to respond to information notices alone is insufficient to disregard supporting evidence or sustain an unexplained cash-credit addition when all three requirements are established.

Revisional proceedings initiated against a deceased assessee are a nullity, making a revision order passed against that person invalid. Proceedings initiated after death are distinguished from proceedings begun during the assessee's lifetime and continued against legal heirs. Where the assessee had died before the assessment and revision orders were made, and the legal heir had informed the tax authorities of the death, the revision could not stand.

Bank interest received by an association was assessed separately as income from other sources, and expenditure was disallowed under section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The association's accounts included bank interest and member contributions but showed an overall loss, raising the issue of loss set-off under section 70. The separate addition of bank interest was to be deleted and income recomputed in accordance with the return.

Contingent excess interest spread from securitised debts is taxable as it accrues, not upfront based on an estimated present value, where its receipt and amount depend on collections and payments under the agreed waterfall. The accrual method is assessed against real income and prudence principles and Accounting Standard 9. Amortised premiums on foreign currency forward contracts hedging foreign currency borrowings are allowable expenditure, not speculative losses. The claim for 100% depreciation on temporary structures remains subject to verification of expenses.

Cash deposits in specified bank notes during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained income solely because of the form of deposit when supported by identified business receipts. The relevant tax framework covers unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and taxation under Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act. Audited accounts, customer ledgers, invoices, bank statements, VAT returns, sales-tax records and customer identification can support the source of deposits. Transactions in specified bank notes before the appointed date were not prohibited under the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, provided the source of deposits could be established.

Unexplained expenditure established as relating to a sole proprietorship's business is attributable to its proprietor, rather than to a person named in a ledger who manages the business. A digital ledger image containing chronological entries of purchases, freight and receipts is not a dumb document. A cash payment absent from the firm's books was attributed to the proprietor because it related to the business.

Section 14A and Rule 8D address expenditure incurred in earning exempt income. Disallowance under those provisions cannot exceed the expenditure actually claimed as a deduction. Where the calculated disallowance exceeds the deduction claimed, it is restricted to the claimed expenditure, and the balance is deleted in favour of the taxpayer.

Income-tax assessments made after an assessee's death in the deceased person's name are a nullity and cannot stand. Under section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, proceedings begun before the assessee's death are treated as proceedings against the legal representative and may continue against the legal representative from the stage reached at death.

The due date for depositing employees' provident fund and employee state insurance contributions raises the question whether the relevant period should be reckoned from the month in which salary is disbursed. The issue requires examination in light of earlier coordinate-bench observations, and no final ruling has been made on the due-date question.

Transfer pricing benchmarking under the transactional net margin method requires functional comparability and reliable segmental information. Product activities, significant intangibles, brand, scale, knowledge-process services, research and abnormal growth can affect the selection of comparables. Profit in one of three relevant years can prevent application of a persistent loss-making filter. A comparability objection concerning the related party transaction filter may be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Working capital adjustments address material differences affecting net margins and may rely on publicly available information without requiring unavailable daily balances. Entitlement to an adjustment and its amount require consideration.

For assessment year 2017-18, failure to file an income-tax return did not by itself bar an otherwise eligible educational institution from exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad). The institution carried on educational activities and had receipts below the prescribed ceiling. Section 139(4C) imposed a return-filing obligation, while section 80AC concerned specified deductions rather than the exemption claimed. The twentieth proviso to section 10(23C) applied from assessment year 2023-24 and did not apply to the earlier year.

Under the applicable CBDT instruction, non-corporate returns in Delhi declaring income above Rs. 20 lakh fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of an Assistant or Deputy Commissioner. A reassessment notice issued by an Income-tax Officer despite that allocation has an incurable jurisdictional defect and cannot sustain the resulting assessment. A wealth-tax addition based on alleged property ownership was unsupported where the record contained neither a sale deed nor evidence of payment.

Reassessment notices must be issued by officers with lawful jurisdiction over the assessee. A notice issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction is incurably invalid and cannot support a consequential reassessment. Participation without a jurisdictional objection is distinguishable where the assessee raises an objection and does not acquiesce. An objection was raised within one month, but no order disposing of it or material establishing the issuing officer's jurisdiction was shown.