Interest awarded under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is treated as an accretion to land value and an integral component of enhanced compensation. It differs from interest for delayed payment under section 34, which has a separate character. Statutory provisions governing taxation of compensation interest determine the timing of taxability but do not change the character of section 28 interest. Consequently, such interest is not taxable as income from other sources and qualifies for the exemption applicable to enhanced compensation.

Office premises acquired and fully paid for before the end of the relevant year form part of the depreciable block of assets for Section 50 computation, even if physical possession was not obtained and the premises were not used for business during that year. Acquisition, rather than possession or actual use, governs inclusion in the block. Actual business use is relevant to depreciation entitlement but not to whether an acquired asset enters the block for capital-gains computation. Tax liability requires recomputation on this basis in favour of the assessee.

Penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable where the tax sought to be evaded is nil. Although Explanation 3 may deem delayed non-filing of a return to constitute concealment in specified circumstances, Explanation 4(c) requires computation after reducing advance tax, tax deducted or collected at source, and self-assessment tax paid before issuance of a reassessment notice. Where the reassessment return is accepted without variation and the entire tax liability was paid before the notice, no tax remains sought to be evaded; consequently, the penalty is deleted.

Compulsorily convertible debentures remain debt instruments until conversion for transfer-pricing purposes. Chapter X requires benchmarking of the transaction actually undertaken, and a valid borrowing cannot be re-characterised as equity merely because conversion is compulsory or because of regulatory or accounting classifications. Interest therefore cannot be assigned a nil arm's length price on that basis; the CUP analysis and any Rule 10B comparability adjustments require examination on their merits. Bad-debt deduction is available where trade receivables are actually written off and the statutory conditions are met. Continuing dealings with debtors, or the absence of recovery action, does not by itself disprove a bona fide write-off.

Foreign Tax Credit arises substantively under Section 90 and applicable double-taxation avoidance arrangements, while Rule 128 governs the procedural documentation for claiming it. Delayed furnishing of Form No. 67 does not itself forfeit credit because Rule 128(9) prescribes no consequence of denial for late filing. Where foreign income is taxed in India, foreign tax has been paid, and Form No. 67 with supporting evidence is furnished, procedural delay should not defeat relief and cause double taxation. The condonation mechanism does not limit appellate relief where substantive conditions are satisfied. Credit must be examined on merits, including verification of foreign-tax payment and absence of a foreign refund.

Under TNMM, material economic differences between a first-year tested party and established comparables require reasonably quantifiable adjustments. Underutilised capacity may be adjusted using average available capacity data from final comparables, and pre-commencement expenditure unrelated to benchmarked international transactions should be excluded from operating cost. Working-capital adjustment may be computed from publicly available opening and closing balances without unavailable intra-year or trade/non-trade data. Comparable companies are not persistently loss-making if profitable in one of the three relevant years. The applicable tolerance band must be applied after revised benchmarking, deleting any adjustment within that range. Abnormal packing cost remains operating cost unless shown unrecoverable. UPS is functionally part of a computer system for depreciation purposes.

Aircraft-rental income under Article 8(1) of the India-Ireland DTAA is taxable only in Ireland where aircraft are operated in international traffic and the foreign lessor has no fixed place permanent establishment in India. The Multilateral Instrument cannot deny treaty benefits without specific notification under section 90(1), and bona fide commercially supported operating leases do not fail the Principal Purpose Test. Aircraft redelivery and the lessor's retention of ownership risks support operating-lease characterisation. A leased aircraft is not at the lessor's disposal where the lessor lacks personnel, infrastructure, and operational control in India. Domestic tax provisions yield to Article 8(1), requiring deletion of additions on qualifying lease rentals.

Unexplained investment may be assessed only in the hands of the actual investor, unless positive evidence establishes that another person supplied the funds. Association with purchasers, facilitation of bookings or a common group description does not by itself establish the required evidentiary nexus for on-money attributable to separately identifiable agreement-holders. Material recovered during a coordinated search may be used in an assessment of a person independently searched without separate other-person proceedings where jurisdiction for the search assessment exists and the material directly relates to that person. Electronic chats recovered from the person's mobile device may be relied on, but additions require rational, consistent quantification and supporting evidence; unsubstantiated turnover or profit-only claims do not displace the addition.

Advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure incurred for an assessee's own business is not an international transaction merely because an associated enterprise receives an incidental brand-related benefit. A transfer-pricing adjustment requires evidence of an agreement, arrangement or understanding obliging the assessee to incur expenditure for the associated enterprise's brand promotion. In the absence of such evidence or a material factual change from earlier years, the bright line test cannot be used either to infer an international transaction or to compute an adjustment. The proposed adjustment was therefore impermissible and the addition was deleted.

Matched accommodation purchase-and-sale entries recorded on a one-to-one quantitative basis in unrejected books do not justify a further ad hoc gross-profit addition where the disclosed transaction profit has already been taxed. Additional profit estimation requires support such as rejected books, quantitative discrepancies, undisclosed procurement, or evidence of indirect-tax benefit. A gross-profit rate derived from manufacturing activity, involving value addition and overheads, cannot be applied to trading or accommodation transactions merely to estimate further income. Where corresponding sales are recorded and no unaccounted purchases or undisclosed sources are established, the trading margin disclosed remains the relevant basis.

Portfolio management service charges incurred in relation to the transfer of securities may be deducted in computing capital gains where divergent reasonable Tribunal views exist and no binding High Court or Supreme Court ruling directly resolves the issue. The favourable construction of the taxing provision applies in such circumstances, resulting in allowance of the charges as capital-gains expenditure.

Subscription charges for database and journal access do not constitute royalty where customers receive only limited rights to search, view, display and print material for personal use. Customers acquire no copyright or rights to reproduce, exploit, modify or create derivative works, and have no control, access or dominion over the overseas servers hosting the content. The consideration is therefore for access to copyrighted material, not for use of copyright, industrial, commercial or scientific experience, or equipment. As the business model and relevant facts remained unchanged from earlier years, consistent prior treatment applies. Such charges fall outside Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act and Article 12(3) of the India-US DTAA.

Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires independent proof of the statutory conditions. Acceptance without variation of income declared in a return filed in response to a reassessment notice does not, by itself, establish concealment or inaccurate particulars. Delayed filing of the original return and filing only after reassessment proceedings begin are insufficient grounds for penalty. Reassessment does not automatically justify separate penalty proceedings; the Revenue must demonstrate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars independently. On these principles, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable and required deletion.

Alleged bogus coal-purchase additions cannot rest solely on a supplier-group person's statement where tax invoices, delivery challans, e-way bills, bank records, supplier confirmations, stock registers and consumption records support the transactions. Absence of identified defects in the accounts or stock records, and failure to address the supporting material, makes a full purchase addition unsustainable. Any profit-based addition requires verification of the gross-profit chart on record and application of the highest appropriate rate.

Penalty for under-reporting of income under Section 270A cannot survive where its basis, an addition under the stamp-duty valuation mechanism in the original assessment, no longer exists. After the original quantum assessment was set aside, the fresh assessment accepted the returned income without modification, addition or demand. The absence of any surviving assessed addition removed the foundation for the penalty, rendering it unsustainable.

Section 12AB registration scrutiny is confined to charitable objects, genuineness of activities and material legal compliance. Receipt quantification, activity-wise profitability, income application and annual exemption conditions are assessment-stage matters and cannot alone justify denial of registration. The proviso to section 2(15) applies only to the general-public-utility limb, not to specified charitable purposes such as relief of the poor, education, yoga, medical relief or environmental preservation. Net presentation of activity results, where gross receipts and expenditure are disclosed, does not establish false information, concealment or wilful misrepresentation under the specified-violation standard. Registration proceedings also require a meaningful opportunity to answer proposed adverse findings; consequential section 80G approval cannot be withheld solely on an unsustainable registration denial.

Bank-deposit and reported-turnover mismatches require examination of the nature and source of each credit; an aggregate comparison with GST turnover cannot by itself support unexplained-money additions. Sales receipts, inter-bank transfers, capital entries, contra entries and redeposits must be reconciled to prevent double taxation. Business-profit estimation must rest on the nature of business, past results, comparable cases or other supporting material, rather than an arbitrary rate. Delay in filing may be condoned and relevant additional evidence admitted where sufficient cause and material relevance are established. A purported motor-vehicle sale generating short-term capital gain requires verification where tax-collected-at-source records prima facie indicate a purchase.

Reassessment based on Investigation Wing information may be valid where the information identifies the lender and specific loan transaction, provides tangible material linked to potential income escapement, and reflects independent application of mind rather than borrowed satisfaction. For unsecured loans, the taxpayer may discharge the burden of proof by establishing the lender's identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness through confirmations, tax records, audited financial statements and bank evidence. Interest payment with tax deduction and repayment may support genuineness. Third-party investigation material alone cannot justify an unexplained cash-credit addition without independent incriminating evidence connecting the taxpayer to accommodation-entry activity.

Section 270A distinguishes under-reporting from misreporting and requires the penalty charge to identify the precise statutory default, including the applicable circumstance of misreporting. Failure to specify the relevant limb of Section 270A(9) in the notice and penalty order deprives the assessee of clear notice and invalidates the penalty proceedings. Further, an assessee's bona fide adoption of a plausible view on the taxability of interest on enhanced compensation, supported by divergent Tribunal views, does not constitute misreporting. Penalty for misreporting therefore cannot rest on an unspecified charge or a debatable legal position.

Bona fide delay in pursuing tax appeals should be condoned where there is no deliberate inaction, negligence or undue advantage and refusal would prevent adjudication on the merits. For a non-resident, foreign salary is taxable in India only within the scope of section 5(2), and salary for overseas services is ordinarily earned where those services are rendered. Payment by an Indian employer or Indian tax deduction does not alone establish Indian taxability. Relief under the India-Korea tax treaty requires verification of the Tax Residency Certificate, Korean tax return and evidence of Korean tax payment. The foreign-salary claim requires fresh verification and a reasoned decision after hearing the taxpayer.