ITAT appellate jurisdiction is determined by the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. Where the assessment order originated from Mumbai, the appropriate appellate forum was the Mumbai Benches rather than the Delhi Bench. An appeal filed before the Delhi Bench was therefore not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The higher tax rate introduced from 1 April 2017 applies prospectively and does not govern undisclosed-income cash deposits made during financial year 2016-17. Tax treatment of those deposits remains governed by the law then in force. Where additional evidence concerning the source and taxability of disputed cash deposits is admitted, the addition and enhancement require fresh adjudication after examination of that evidence and an effective opportunity of hearing. The Assessing Officer must redetermine the cash-deposit issues on the expanded evidentiary record.

Valid tax jurisdiction is a necessary condition for an Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment and complete an assessment. Where the assessee had shifted to Delhi, notified the address change, filed returns from that address, and departmental records reflected transfer of jurisdiction to the Delhi Assessing Officer, the Faridabad Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction. The reassessment notice and consequential assessment order were therefore void and quashed. An assessment or reassessment made by an officer without jurisdiction over the assessee cannot be sustained.

Cash-deposit additions may not be sustained where documentary evidence establishes that deposits arose from registered sale proceeds and withdrawals from the taxpayer's individual and joint bank accounts. The supporting records substantiated the explanation for the sources of cash and rendered the addition unsustainable, resulting in its deletion.

Interest on loans used to acquire residential flats for temporary accommodation of consultants and staff was treated as allowable because the Revenue had accepted the same expenditure in earlier assessments completed on identical facts. In the absence of any demonstrated factual distinction for the relevant year, consistent treatment of the accepted claim was required. The loan's commercial expediency could not be rejected without a factual basis for departure, and the interest disallowance was therefore unsustainable and deleted.

Under the India-Singapore DTAA, an Indian associated enterprise performing sales support, installation, warranty, distribution and marketing support does not create a fixed place or dependent agency permanent establishment where it lacks authority to negotiate or conclude contracts, direct sales are made from Singapore, and its premises are not at the foreign enterprise's disposal. Principal-to-principal inventory arrangements do not establish a warehouse or sales outlet of the foreign enterprise. Nor can customer-employee statements establish a permanent establishment without cross-examination. On these facts, no business profits are taxable in India through permanent establishment attribution.

An intimation under section 143(1)(a) merges into a subsequent scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) and cannot independently sustain a tax demand; challenges to a deduction must therefore be adjudicated in the scrutiny-assessment appeal. Deduction under section 80IAB cannot be denied solely because Form 10CCB was filed after the return-filing due date where the audit report was furnished before completion of assessment. The requirement is satisfied by filing before assessment completion, while the rule concerning a declaration for deduction under section 10B(8) is distinguishable. The deduction claims were accepted for both assessment years.

Disallowance of related-party purchases under section 40A(2)(b) cannot rest on Form 3CD disclosures for a preceding assessment year. The relevant assessment year had no tax audit or Form 3CD, while the assessing authority relied on related-party purchase reporting from an earlier year. As the Revenue did not rebut this mismatch, the disallowance lacked a factual basis and was deleted.

Unexplained cash deposit addition required fresh verification where the assessee consistently claimed that the deposit was a redeposit of an earlier cash withdrawal. Assessment notices were returned unserved, affixture service indicated that she did not reside at the stated address, and the final notice was served on her daughter. Because the explanation had not been examined during assessment, the addition was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to substantiate the source of cash.

Audited and completed books supported by purchase bills, financial statements, tax audit reports, disclosed sales and recorded cash balances should not be rejected merely because survey-time records were incomplete or sales and cash balances increased compared with earlier years. A sales summary cannot be disregarded without defects in the underlying daily records, particularly where invoices are available and reported sales have been accepted in VAT returns. Cash deposited during demonetisation is explained where it arises from recorded cash sales, is supported by adequate stock, and no adverse material disproves the sales or cash balance. The additions for estimated business profit and unexplained cash deposits were deleted, and declared income was accepted.

Documented penny-stock capital-gains transactions cannot be treated as unexplained solely on investigation-wing information where the taxpayer provides purchase and sale records, broker details, bank records, demat statements and contract notes. Independent verification of those materials, evidence from brokers or banks, examination of the company's financials, or proof that the taxpayer received accommodation entries is required to displace the documentary record. A mismatch between the transaction value adopted in assessment and broker-supported records further weakens the addition. Additions for unexplained credits and estimated commission expenditure were deleted because suspicion did not constitute cogent contrary evidence.

Departmental monetary limits bar Revenue appeals arising from regular assessments where the tax effect is below the applicable threshold; the international-taxation exception for tax-treaty disputes is confined to TDS/TCS litigation and does not extend to assessments under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3). The appeals were therefore not maintainable. Consideration for software and software upgrades was not taxable as royalty because no material displaced the appellate finding applying the governing Supreme Court decision. The deletion of royalty additions was sustained for all relevant assessment years.

Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA DTAA treats technical or consultancy receipts as fees for included services only where they make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, or involve developing and transferring a technical plan or design. Access to product analytics software and related support provided customers with software-generated analytics and commercial information, but did not transfer source code, technical processes, or the ability to apply the underlying technology independently after the subscription. Use of sophisticated software or receipt of its reports does not itself meet the make-available requirement. The receipts are therefore not taxable as fees for included services.

Assessment limitation depends on completion of the assessment and determination of tax liability within the statutory period; subsequent dispatch or service does not invalidate a timely order. For unsecured loan credits, prior-year credits cannot be added in the relevant year, but PAN, return and confirmation alone do not establish identity, genuineness and creditworthiness for current-year credits; unverified lender evidence requires further enquiry and fresh adjudication. For valuation of transferred land, its legal character at the transfer date governs. Land remaining agricultural in revenue records and not converted by a competent authority cannot be valued using residential circle rates despite surrounding development or lack of cultivation.

Pendency of a writ petition, later withdrawn to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, constituted sufficient cause for delay in filing the first appeal. Rejecting the appeal solely as time-barred without considering the explanation and condonation material was improper. The delay was condoned, and the first appellate authority was directed to admit and decide the appeal afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Denial of a requested video conference hearing in faceless appellate proceedings breaches principles of natural justice where no valid reason is given. The applicable framework requires a requested personal hearing to be afforded, preferably through video conference. As the hearing request was not granted, the cash-credit addition was not examined on merits. The appellate order was set aside for fresh adjudication after granting the requested hearing.

Interest disallowance depends on proving business purpose or commercial expediency for interest-free loans and partnership-capital advances, while advances supported as business-related may qualify for relief. Work-in-progress transferred at book value does not permit imputed profit, although attributable finance costs require capitalisation; shared sponsorship costs may be apportioned. Further expenditure disallowance against exempt income is restricted by exempt income and requires recorded dissatisfaction with the taxpayer's accounts. Bad-debt write-off may be allowed when recorded in the books, but unsupported debts may be disallowed. Notional interest requires actual accrual rather than presumptions. Consultancy and cash-imprest claims require verification of their character and accounting treatment. Deemed dividend requires the recipient to hold the requisite beneficial shareholding in the payer company.

Section 80-IA(9) prevents overlapping Chapter VI-A deductions only to the extent profits have already received a deduction and limits aggregate deductions to eligible business profits. It does not require a deduction under Section 80-IB to be reduced from gross total income or business profits when computing the Section 80-HHC deduction. Applying this interpretation, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the assessment was remanded for tax recomputation without reducing business profits by the Section 80-IB deduction for Section 80-HHC purposes.

Deduction under Section 80-IB must be considered while computing deduction under Section 80-HHC in accordance with the subsequently pronounced Supreme Court decision identified in the text. The Tribunal's contrary approach to computing these deductions could not stand. The tax computation was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination consistent with the binding Supreme Court ruling.

An area of 1.0241 hectares has been de-notified from the Information Technology and Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone at Pallipuram Village, Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha District, Kerala. The de-notification covers specified survey-number parcels and was issued after the statutory requirements for modification of the notified SEZ area were found fulfilled. The SEZ's resultant notified area is 12.0547 hectares.