Provisional release of goods seized under the NDPS Act may be considered under Article 226 in exceptional circumstances where the goods remain in Customs custody and the dispute concerns the effect of a later export authorisation rather than criminal liability for seizure. Export remains subject to prescribed authorisation. Where an earlier authorisation expired before filing of the shipping bill, but the licensing authority cancelled it and issued a fresh valid authorisation for the same goods and overseas consignee, the later authorisation may support provisional release. A technical delay in obtaining authorisation, without intent to export unauthorised goods, need not defeat release; statutory adjudication and criminal processes remain available.

Optical fibre cable classification raises issues of alleged misclassification and suppression, sample and test-report evidence, burden of proof, extended limitation, adjudicating authority findings, and refund claims. A Larger Bench ruling, its Supreme Court stay, and Circular No. 12/2006-Cus are identified as relevant. The Civil Appeal was dismissed by reference to the dismissal of an identical appeal involving the same subject matter.

Depreciation attributable to capital grants, subsidies and consumer contributions requires asset-wise apportionment under Explanation 10 to section 43(1), using each asset's applicable depreciation rate rather than a uniform rate. Borrowing costs for capital work-in-progress remain capitalised on the actual project-specific basis where the accounts show no changed method. Advance financial assistance for installing solar home-light systems is revenue in nature because it supports implementation for beneficiaries rather than the recipient's own capital activity. Interest on staff loans and business-connected miscellaneous receipts are business income, whereas residual non-business receipts are income from other sources. Book-profit adjustments for grants and advances require identification and application of the relevant clause in Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2).

Rule 29 permits admission of additional evidence where it is necessary for effective adjudication or substantial cause exists. Bank and depository transaction statements directly bearing on disputed share purchases, payments, holdings and sales are material to assessing whether transactions occurred and whether a claimed short-term capital loss is genuine. Where such evidence was not examined by lower authorities, fresh factual verification at the first appellate level, with both sides heard on the additional material and complete record, is required before the loss claim can be determined.

Regular registration under section 12AB and connected approval under section 80G(5) require the time limit in section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) to be calculated from the trust's actual commencement of charitable activities. Provisional registration, granted without verification of underlying activities, does not by itself establish that commencement date. Preliminary or administrative expenditure and audited financial statements require factual examination to identify when activities actually began. The commencement date must be verified after providing a reasonable opportunity to submit supporting material, and the registration and approval applications must then be determined afresh.

Compensation paid under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 is characterised as retrenchment compensation arising from forced retirement rather than voluntary-retirement compensation. The distinction places the payment within the exemption for retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B), as a capital receipt, instead of the limited exemption framework applicable to voluntary-retirement payments under Section 10(10C). The analysis relies on consistent coordinate-bench treatment of identical facts and identifies no contrary High Court view.

Teaching or propagation of the Vedas, without more, does not by itself establish a religious purpose for classifying a trust as religious-cum-charitable under the Income-tax Act. Trust objects and activities centred on Vedic learning and Sanatana Dharma may therefore retain charitable status. Where refusal of approval allowing donor tax benefits rests solely on an untenable religious-cum-charitable classification, that refusal lacks a surviving basis and approval must be granted.

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies only on receipt of immovable property-land, building, or both-and, as a deeming provision, requires strict construction. Surrendering tenancy rights for entitlement to alternative accommodation, or holding a contractual right to a proposed but unconstructed redevelopment flat, does not by itself constitute receipt of land or building. Registration of a redevelopment agreement is distinct from actual receipt. Consideration paid for additional area must account for the tenancy-rights component rather than treating the entire redevelopment premises as an independent purchase. Taxability depends on verification of construction and actual receipt of a flat or alternative immovable property.

Prior written or electronic intimation to the assessee is mandatory before making an adjustment during return processing, including an adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)(vii). Failure to issue a show-cause notice or other prior intimation invalidates the resulting intimation and adjustment. Unavailability of accounts and absence of statutory notice, preventing access to the impugned order and timely pursuit of the remedy, constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal under Section 249(3).

Material additional evidence concerning the formation and operation of a special economic zone undertaking was admitted for fresh consideration of the deduction claim and transfer-pricing adjustment. Its relevance lay in determining whether the undertaking was newly established or resulted from splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business, and in examining interconnected functional and procurement arrangements affecting arm's-length determination and eligible profits. Fresh adjudication must consider the additional and relevant material after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing; no merits determination was made on either claim.

Salary and rent paid by a charitable trust to specified persons may constitute prohibited benefits where they exceed the justified value of services or comparable market remuneration. Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(c) restrict application of trust income for such persons' benefit, affecting exemption under section 11. Substantial, unexplained salary increases, including increases of 38.80% in certain instances, and excessive rent were treated as benefits rather than eligible charitable application of income. The corresponding payments were therefore not eligible for exemption.

Section 69A permits cash owned by an assessee to be treated as unexplained income where it is unrecorded in the books and its nature and source are not satisfactorily explained. A bare claim regarding source, unsupported by a cash book, ledger, income-expenditure statement, or other corroborative material, does not meet that evidentiary requirement. Where cash is validly assessed as unexplained money under Section 69A, Section 115BBE applies the prescribed special tax rate. Search-related penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(b) may be linked to an unexplained-cash addition arising from a search seizure.

A challenge to an Assessing Officer's rectification order under section 154 must follow the statutory appellate sequence. Direct recourse to the Tribunal is non-maintainable where no appeal against the rectification order has first been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). An erroneous reference in the appeal form to a Commissioner (Appeals) order does not cure the failure to invoke the prescribed first appellate forum.

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires clear identification and proof of either concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars, which are distinct defaults. Inaccurate particulars concern incorrect, erroneous or false details in a return, whereas non-disclosure falls within concealment. Where a penalty order invokes both defaults without conclusively identifying either, and Explanation 1 does not apply because the taxpayer's explanation was neither found false nor rejected and formed the basis of the addition, statutory conditions remain unmet. The civil nature of the penalty dispenses with mens rea but does not make penalty automatic upon an addition.

Double taxation arises where recorded sales, already included in taxable profit, are treated as bogus while the alleged cash returned against those same sales is separately added to income. Audited books, sale bills, vouchers and stock records substantiating the sales support deletion of such an addition where no defect in those records is identified. The separate cash addition is unsustainable because it taxes the same recorded sales twice.

Share application money from identified corporate investors is satisfactorily explained under Section 68 when PAN details, board resolutions, bank statements, financial statements and confirmations establish investor identity, available funds and receipt through banking channels. Once this initial onus is discharged, an addition requires material evidence rebutting those records. An investigation report or a retracted third-party statement, particularly where cross-examination is not allowed, cannot alone sustain an unexplained cash-credit addition. Suspicion and presumptions cannot replace evidence; on these facts, the Section 68 addition was to be deleted.

Section 68 requires a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source of credits recorded in the assessee's books. Lender confirmations, PAN details, bank statements, instruction letters and affidavits may establish the lenders' identity, financial capacity and the genuineness of unsecured loan transactions routed through banking channels. Alleged diversion or misuse of funds earlier in the transaction chain does not render the assessee's credits unexplained unless a nexus with those credits is demonstrated. Non-production of lenders or unserved notices, without further enquiry or evidence disproving the records, cannot by themselves displace documentary evidence. Accordingly, a Section 68 addition is unsustainable where the loans are satisfactorily explained.

Under the transitional reassessment framework, proceedings under Section 148A and a fresh Section 148 notice must be completed within the surviving limitation period after applicable exclusions. A notice issued after that period is time-barred, rendering the consequential reassessment void ab initio and unavailable for revision under Section 263. Revision also requires a valid assessment order that is both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Where the Assessing Officer has examined share acquisition and sale records, contract notes, demat and bank records, securities transaction tax, accounts, and capital-gain claims, actual inquiry and application of mind cannot be treated as no inquiry merely because further inquiry is preferred.

Section 69A applies only to money not recorded in the books of account and not satisfactorily explained. Cash deposits arising from recorded cash sales during demonetisation are explained where audited books, cash book, sales and purchase registers, stock records, sales bills and VAT returns support the receipts, and no defect or contrary verification evidence exists. Increased turnover and a lower gross-profit rate may be explained by a shift to lower-margin jewellery trading and seasonal sales. Without rejecting the books under Section 145(3) or disproving the sales, the recorded receipts cannot be selectively assessed as unexplained money; doing so would also create double taxation.

Cash deposits in a banking correspondent's current account require fresh factual verification where evidence may show that they arose from customer deposits and withdrawals rather than unexplained money. Commission income subject to tax deduction and non-participation attributed to incorrect registered contact details support an opportunity to produce evidence. The character and unexplained portion, if any, of the deposits must be determined de novo before liability for penalty for unexplained income is considered. Consequently, an existing penalty is premature and cannot stand until the foundational determination is made.