Revisional jurisdiction requires an assessment to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. An assessment based on a legally sustainable view reached after inquiry cannot be revised merely because the revisional authority disagrees or revenue is lost. Section 54B requires agricultural use of the transferred land during the two years immediately preceding transfer and purchase of other land for agricultural use within the prescribed period. It does not require agricultural income to be declared in tax returns for those years. Sale deeds and land records may provide material concerning the agricultural land.

Foreign exchange gains or losses are operating in nature for transfer pricing only if they have a direct nexus with the international transaction. Gains from trade debtor realisations and creditor payments qualify where that nexus exists; exchange loss on fixed-asset purchases was excluded. Comparability requires assessment of functional profiles and business characteristics. Substantial intangibles, software product revenues, diversified activities without a sub-service breakdown, and training activities were relevant to the exclusion of four companies. An earlier tribunal decision may be relied on where the relevant facts are the same. The assessee's margin remains subject to verification.

Misdescribing a revised draft assessment order as a draft assessment order does not warrant review as an error apparent when the undisputed basis of the decision remains unchanged. Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required a revised draft assessment order before the final assessment. An earlier draft had been issued, but no revised draft was passed; the misdescription therefore did not justify review of the order quashing the assessment.

Transfer-pricing comparability under Rule 10B is a factual, data-driven assessment of the functions and assets of potential comparables. A company with diverse functions and significant tangible assets and inventories may be excluded as a comparable for a contract service provider. Appellate interference with a factual comparability determination requires perversity. The assessment includes whether relevant material was excluded or irrelevant material considered.

Transfer-pricing comparability under Rule 10B requires a factual, data-driven assessment of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed. Functionally dissimilar entities may be excluded as comparables. No statutory provision prescribes an upper or lower turnover limit, but turnover and related factors, including economies of scale and bargaining power, can materially affect comparability. Rational turnover filters and factual comparability findings do not warrant interference unless perversity is demonstrated.

Territorial jurisdiction over an appeal from a tax tribunal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, depends on the location of the assessing officer who passed the assessment order. The appeal lies before the High Court with jurisdiction over that officer. The Tribunal's location and the successor company's registered office do not establish jurisdiction where the assessing officer was outside the High Court's territory.

Charitable registration under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires consideration of an entity's objects and activities against the definition of charitable purpose in Section 2(15). Activities benefiting member industries are not excluded from charitable status solely for that reason where they also benefit the public at large. Constructing and maintaining water supply, drainage and other utility schemes for member industries can qualify as charitable activity where it also benefits the public at large.

For alleged bogus purchases, the addition is restricted to 6% of the disputed purchase value in favour of the assessee, rather than being made for the full value of those purchases. An applicable High Court decision had already confirmed an addition at the same rate on the same issue involving disputed purchases.

General information about share-price manipulation does not justify treating share-sale gains as unexplained cash credits or denying long-term capital gains exemption without findings linking the taxpayer's transactions to the alleged market-price fluctuations. Relevant supporting records include contract notes, broker and demat account details, transaction statements, ledgers and bank records. Payment of securities transaction tax and the absence of blacklisting of the scrip and brokers during the relevant period are also relevant to the assessment.

Section 43CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits substitution of actual sale consideration with the stamp duty value where the latter is higher. Under Section 263, an assessment cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue merely because the revisional authority questions the correctness of a stamp duty authority's valuation certificate. Where certificates cover the entire property and no sale is identified with a stamp duty value exceeding actual consideration, revision solely on that basis is unsustainable.

Section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 creates a rebuttable presumption that a document found during a survey belongs to the person concerned and that its contents are true. Where part of the document corresponds with recorded receipts, a retraction and denial unsupported by cogent evidence may not rebut the presumption. An unrebutted survey document may therefore support an addition for unaccounted receipts.

Transfer-pricing comparability under the transactional net margin method requires functionally similar uncontrolled transactions. Companies with different activities, scale, brand value or intangible assets may be excluded, and reliable segmental financial information is needed to separate margins from diverse activities. Information obtained under Section 133 must be credible and verified. Comparable-selection decisions involving another assessee may provide a relevant basis where material facts and business activities are similar and there is no reason to distinguish them. A 15% related-party transaction filter helps identify uncontrolled margins; a narrower threshold is appropriate when it yields sufficient comparables, while a higher threshold depends on availability at the lower threshold.

Section 80-IA(4) permits a deduction for eligible enterprises developing infrastructure facilities under agreements with the government or specified authorities, but excludes mere works contractors. Work orders were issued directly to the assessee or its consortium. The assessee invested funds, carried out development work, deployed technical personnel and equipment, assumed entrepreneurial and investment risks, and undertook maintenance during the defect liability period. On those facts, the assessee qualified as a developer rather than a works contractor or subcontractor and was entitled to the deduction.

Section 14A and Rule 8D govern the disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income. Where no exempt income is earned during the relevant assessment year, expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 14A. Appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A is confined to substantial questions of law, including in disputes over such disallowance.

Interest on excess acquisition compensation under Section 28 forms part of the enhanced value of the acquired land, whereas interest under Section 34 compensates for delay in payment. An acquisition award may also include additional compensation and solatium. Where tax deducted from agricultural-land compensation has been deposited with the Income Tax Department, the Assessing Officer assesses the nature of the land and determines the refund claim.

For an eligible assessee, the faceless assessment procedure requires service of a draft assessment order before a final order where a transfer-pricing variation is prejudicial. The draft order enables the assessee to object before the Dispute Resolution Panel. Issuing a final assessment without first serving the mandatory draft order deprives the assessee of that opportunity and results in an incurable jurisdictional error, rendering the final assessment invalid.

The applicable 2018 circular excludes certain matters based on information from external law enforcement agencies from the monetary limit for Revenue appeals. Information received from the Sales Tax Department falls outside that exception, so the monetary limit applies to Revenue appeals based on such information. The 2024 circular, issued after the relevant Tribunal decision, is not applicable.

The validity of reopening proceedings was questioned on whether the reasons to believe reflected borrowed or independent satisfaction, in a matter involving disallowance of expenses related to purchases treated as bogus. The special leave petition was dismissed on merits, with no good ground to interfere with the High Court's order.

Recurring questions about mobile-squad enforcement jurisdiction in transportation checks fall outside monetary limits on departmental Tribunal appeals under the litigation circular. A detention-related penalty under section 129 requires intent to evade tax. An uncorroborated driver's allegation of an undisclosed dispatch point cannot sustain the penalty where the goods match the tax invoice and e-way bill and intent to evade is not established. An operational undisclosed facility must be independently established, and penalty discretion must be exercised judicially. Lack of warehouse verification and an opportunity to cross-examine the driver undermine the evidentiary basis for penalty; suspicion cannot replace legal proof.

The disputed integrated GST input tax credit is supported by verified invoices and a chartered accountant's certificate. Payments already made towards central and state GST must be appropriated against the remaining demands. Section 73(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act precludes penalties when tax and interest are paid within the prescribed period after notice. The integrated GST penalty is also unsupported by the records. No tax remains due under the disputed heads, and the consequential interest demand falls.