Rectification under section 154 is confined to an obvious, patent error apparent from the record and cannot resolve matters requiring substantive evidence or extended inquiry. The relevant record may include connected assessment records of the taxpayer; therefore, an addition of share capital and securities premium in an incorrect assessment year may warrant fresh determination after verification of supporting material and coordinated consideration with the original assessment proceedings. Conversely, an addition for share application money received in the relevant year, where identity, source and genuineness require evidentiary appraisal, falls outside rectification. The former claim requires fresh adjudication, while the latter remains unrectifiable under section 154.

Cancellation of charitable registration under sections 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) requires the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to have demonstrable jurisdiction over the assessee under section 120 and applicable jurisdictional orders or notifications. Centralisation of assessment proceedings with a Central Circle does not, by itself, transfer separate jurisdiction over registration or its cancellation. A Central Commissioner may exercise such functions only where a valid assignment under section 127 places the matter with an Assessing Officer subordinate to that Commissioner. In the absence of a produced transfer order, notification, or other instrument establishing that assignment, cancellation jurisdiction is not established; the cancellation is without jurisdiction and registration remains restored on its original terms.

Territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction remains necessary for cancellation of charitable registration; designation as a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner does not itself confer authority over exemption registration. Exemption jurisdiction continues with the designated exemption authority unless lawfully transferred. Centralisation of group assessments for investigation does not establish transfer of registration jurisdiction without a transfer order, notification, or other jurisdictional instrument assigning an Assessing Officer under the relevant Central Commissioner. Notification No. 70/2014 applies only where such assignment is proved. On these principles, cancellation of registration for want of jurisdiction was quashed and the original registration restored, while the underlying allegations and retrospective-cancellation issue remained unresolved.

Goodwill arising from acquisition of a going-concern business under a slump-sale agreement may constitute a depreciable intangible asset where assumed liabilities exceed acquired assets and are subsequently discharged. Such excess liabilities represent economic consideration for business and commercial rights, notwithstanding the absence of separately stated consideration or individual asset valuations. The Finance Act, 2021 exclusion of goodwill from depreciable intangible assets operates prospectively. Where depreciation on goodwill is allowable under normal provisions, no consequential add-back is warranted in book-profit computation. TDS credit is available in the year in which corresponding income is assessable, subject to verification that the income was offered to tax in that year.

Section 28(iv) covers non-monetary benefits arising from business or profession, including land acquired in a real-estate business for consideration below its established value. The ITAT treated the difference as a real business benefit received in kind, rather than a notional gain, and distinguished loan-waiver principles. It sustained taxation of the benefit and rejected the constitutional objection. The taxable benefit does not increase the land's deductible cost: where no corresponding expenditure was incurred, deduction is limited to the actual acquisition cost despite a revenue-neutrality claim. The addition was sustained and the appeal dismissed.

Project-completion accounting, when consistently followed by a real estate developer, is a recognised method and cannot be rejected merely because substantial sale proceeds were received or the Assessing Officer preferred a different revenue-recognition method. Rejection under section 145 was unsustainable because no specific defect showed that the accounts were unreliable, while estimated profit was applied to recorded receipts without an independent basis. Differing flat agreement values also did not establish undisclosed consideration without cogent evidence of actual on-money receipts. Payments for extra work under separate agreements could not be attributed to the developer solely through a director's connection. The book rejection and additions were deleted.

Return-processing adjustments cannot disallow diminution in the value of a business-purpose investment in a wholly owned subsidiary solely because a tax audit report describes it as capital expenditure where binding jurisdictional precedent permits an analogous business loss. Once an intimation is issued after considering the taxpayer's response, the Centralised Processing Centre performs a quasi-judicial function and must follow binding High Court law. Failure to consider a jurisdictional High Court decision delivered before the intimation, and specifically raised in a rectification application, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The resulting disallowance requires rectification in accordance with that precedent.

Penalty for under-reporting attributable to misreporting applies where inadmissible deductions are claimed against interest income from nationalised banks and dividend income. The statutory protection based on a bona fide explanation is confined to under-reported income and does not extend to under-reporting resulting from misreporting. Once the Assessing Officer classifies the conduct as misreporting and applies the corresponding charge, penalty follows at the prescribed rate. Payment of tax and interest after disallowance in scrutiny assessment, while penalty proceedings remain pending, does not constitute voluntary disclosure or establish a bona fide mistake. The penalty for misreporting was sustained and the appeal dismissed.

Penalty under section 271AAC(1) was not sustainable where unexplained cash deposits were assessed only by estimating and restricting the addition to a profit percentage. An ad hoc estimated addition did not, by itself, establish conscious concealment or undisclosed income. The penalty levied solely on that estimated addition was therefore deleted, and the appeal was allowed.

TNMM aggregation prevented separate benchmarking of IT support services where accepted segmental margins already included the associated-enterprise markup and the services were inextricably linked to the core business. The transfer-pricing adjustment on the IT support-services margin was deleted. Notional interest on overdue associated-enterprise receivables was unwarranted because the taxpayer was debt-free, incurred no significant interest cost, and no new material justified departure from earlier treatment; the related adjustment was deleted. Capital expenditure on an in-house scientific-research facility remained deductible under section 35(1)(iv) despite the concessional tax regime and absence of valid Form 3CM, which was relevant to section 35(2AB), not section 35(1)(iv).

Under the Transactional Net Margin Method, selling commission paid to associated enterprises forms part of the operating cost of the software development services segment when it is closely linked to that segment. Where TNMM is accepted as the most appropriate method and the segment is accepted as arm's length, the commission cannot be isolated for separate benchmarking or assigned a nil arm's-length price after its inclusion in the segmental operating margin. Verification under an appellate direction resulted in deletion of the transfer-pricing adjustment, and the Revenue's challenge to the verification and consequential relief failed.

Third-party seized diaries and excel sheets cannot support additions for alleged cash rebate repayment or unaccounted molasses sales unless they clearly establish the transactions and are supported by independent corroborative evidence. Unsigned, ambiguous entries, a retracted statement, and denial of cross-examination undermine their evidentiary value and breach natural justice; the related additions were deleted. Disallowance computed under section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be imported into book-profit computation under section 115JB, requiring deletion of that adjustment. Components integral to a cogeneration plant, without standalone function, qualify for the higher depreciation rate applicable to the plant; the depreciation disallowance was deleted.

Gold imported outside Reserve Bank of India-authorised bulk-import channels or the passenger-import regime under the Baggage Rules is prohibited goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The definition extends to goods restricted under any law in force and is not limited to prohibitions expressly notified under the Customs Act. Consequently, penalties applicable to improper importation of prohibited goods apply. A penalty order is not jurisdictionally invalid merely because it cites an incorrect provision or does not specify the relevant clause, provided the adjudicating authority had substantive power and its reasoned order identifies the goods as prohibited.

Target Plus Scheme requires a broad nexus, not a strict product-to-product nexus, between duty-free imported inputs and exports within the product group specified in the duty credit certificate. Continuous cast copper rods could therefore be imported duty-free where linked to the Engineering Products group, but not merely because they bore nexus to one of several groups covered by a certificate. Extended limitation and customs penalties require intent to evade duty through fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression. Policy ambiguity, a bona fide exemption understanding, valid uncancelled certificates, and export documents already held in Customs records precluded such findings. The duty demand and consequential penalties were set aside.

Conditional customs duty exemption for an imported aircraft requires use solely for authorised non-scheduled charter services. Commercial operation without the required regulatory approval breaches the post-import exemption condition, making the aircraft liable to confiscation, redemption fine, consequential customs duty and penalties on the importer and responsible managing personnel. Duty following redemption of confiscated goods arises as a consequence of confiscation proceedings rather than as a non-levy or short-levy demand, so the limitation framework for such demands does not apply. Where actual freight and transit-insurance costs are available, customs valuation must use those costs rather than notional additions; duty requires recomputation on that basis.

Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009, caps the penalty for a cargo handling operator's acts of omission or commission at Rs. 50,000. An adjudicating authority cannot impose a penalty exceeding that statutory maximum under the Regulation, and an earlier departmental precedent cannot displace the clear ceiling. The penalty was accordingly restricted to Rs. 50,000, with the appeal partly allowed through modification of the impugned order.

Import-policy amendments requiring an importer warehousing newsprint to be an RNI-registered Actual User operate prospectively from 3 June 2016 and do not invalidate earlier imports. Where the applicable customs exemption contains no RNI-registration or Actual User requirement, non-registration alone does not defeat the exemption. Customs should not independently characterise imports as contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy without a DGFT reference on the disputed policy interpretation. Confiscation and penalties for alleged clearance to dummy units require the Department first to establish foundational evidence of illicit import, improper clearance, or culpable conduct; rebutted procedural allegations and missing relied-upon material cannot support those consequences.

Basic customs duty exemption under Notification No. 24/2015-Cus., available through debit of MEIS duty credit scrips, results in no Social Welfare Surcharge being payable on imported PET coke. The surcharge demand was treated as unsustainable where the underlying basic customs duty stood exempt under the MEIS Scheme. This treatment applies the settled position that Social Welfare Surcharge does not arise when basic customs duty is fully exempted under the relevant MEIS notification, with consequential relief following from the deletion of the surcharge demand.

Without-prejudice deposits in Section 7 insolvency proceedings cannot, by themselves, constitute an unconditional admission of liability where objections to maintainability and to the existence of debt and default remain pending. Such a deposit may indicate solvency but cannot replace the required determination of financial debt, default and maintainability. A subsequent demand containing materially different components does not independently establish a financial debt, and permission to pursue legally maintainable claims is not an adjudication of them. Closure of the insolvency application without deciding these objections was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration subject to re-deposit of the released amount.

Death of a natural-person resolution applicant after committee of creditors approval does not automatically render a resolution plan unimplementable or permit liquidation. A resolution applicant acts as a promisor, not an office-holder with non-heritable obligations, and liquidation remains confined to specified statutory contingencies. The resolution request and plan terms should govern continuation; if silent, inherent powers may require the committee of creditors to examine implementation by an eligible, competent and willing heir or reconsider earlier plans before forced liquidation. A pending CIRP withdrawal application based on settlement with the sole committee member must be considered and cannot be denied merely because liquidation was ordered. Liquidation was set aside, CIRP revived, and the withdrawal application directed for consideration.