RTGS credits claimed as gold-sale proceeds were treated as a benami transaction because cash deposits in entities controlled by the alleged benamidar, subsequent credits after commission deductions, and banking records established routing of demonetised cash. The gold-sale explanation lacked independent support, with no established relationship with remitters and anomalous invoice rates and weights; the attachment was therefore sustained. Denial of cross-examination did not breach natural justice because no intermediary statement existed, the benamidar's statement was disclosed, and the appellant showed no actual prejudice despite corroborative material. In benami proceedings, cross-examination is not invariably required where disclosed evidence independently supports the transaction.

Rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must rest solely on its averments and annexed documents. Pleadings that property acquired in a son's name came from joint family income and was held for the joint family do not, on their face, establish a benami transaction. The Benami Act excludes property held by a Karta or Hindu undivided family member for family benefit from known family sources, as well as property acquired in a child's name from known individual sources. A benami objection may be proved at trial but cannot justify threshold rejection unless the plaint plainly discloses a statutory benami transaction.

Arm's length remuneration paid to a dependent agent permanent establishment exhausts further profit attribution in India when it fully reflects the agent's functions, assets and risks. Additional attribution is permissible only if the transfer-pricing analysis is deficient or relevant functions or risks have not been priced. Where the enhancement rests solely on a revision order that has been quashed, the enhanced attribution is unsustainable. Profit voluntarily offered under the dual taxpayer approach remains chargeable, and the voluntarily offered attribution is to be accepted.

Registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G granted pursuant to a binding jurisdictional High Court judgment cannot be made conditional on a proposed Supreme Court challenge. A jurisdictional High Court ruling remains binding on authorities within its territorial jurisdiction unless stayed, modified or reversed. A contemplated or pending challenge does not reduce that binding effect. No statutory mechanism permits the authority to qualify statutory recognition or consequential benefits through a caveat based on possible future developments. The caveats were therefore directed to be deleted, leaving the registration and approval effective without qualification.

Delay in filing quantum and penalty appeals may be condoned where the assessee was not effectively informed of assessment and penalty proceedings because notices were sent to an accountant's registered email and were not received at the relevant addresses. Prompt action after learning of the demand, including obtaining certified copies and filing appeals within thirty days, supports condonation. Dismissing appeals without requesting a condonation application or supporting evidence denies a meaningful opportunity to establish service and causes prejudice. During transition to faceless proceedings, procedural technicalities should not override substantial justice where no malice or gross negligence is apparent; the appeals were restored for merits adjudication after hearing both parties.

A trust may file a subsequent application for registration under Section 12AB despite unappealed rejection of earlier applications, as the Act imposes no express bar on a fresh application. Registration must be assessed by examining the genuineness of the trust's activities and compliance with laws relevant to its objects; earlier rejection does not extinguish the statutory entitlement to apply again. Any registration granted on the later application operates only from that application's date. The registration matter was restored for fresh determination after allowing submission of supporting material.

Leave fare concession reimbursements involving foreign travel, made while binding interim judicial directions restrained tax recovery from employees, are examined in relation to employer TDS obligations. Although such foreign travel was subsequently treated as outside the Section 10(5) exemption, the employer's Section 192 obligation depends on a bona fide estimate of taxable income when payment is made. Subsequent reversal or vacation of interim protection does not retrospectively create default for payments made in compliance with those directions. The first proviso to Section 201(1) also protects cases where employees account for the income and pay the tax.

Penalty for non-compliance with tax notices is not sustainable where the taxpayer establishes reasonable cause and the default is neither deliberate nor wilful. Notices sent to an inaccessible email account and not served at the business address did not come to the taxpayer's knowledge; the explanation was not found false or mala fide. Subsequent participation in assessment proceedings and absence of Revenue material showing contumacious conduct supported deletion of penalty. Penalty for non-compliance with a notice under section 143(2) was also unsustainable because the assessment order recorded no satisfaction regarding that default. Technical or venial breaches do not attract penalty where statutory reasonable-cause protection applies.

For capital-gains computation under a joint development agreement, deemed consideration is described as being based on the stamp-duty circle-rate-supported construction value rather than an estimated construction cost stated in the agreement. Residential flats allotted and retained by the taxpayer may qualify for capital-gains exemption where gains are taxed on deemed transfer before consideration is received, subject to verification of construction completion. Capital gains on later sale of those flats require recomputation after resolving the earlier exemption claim and cost of acquisition. Penalty for concealment cannot independently persist where the underlying addition is deleted or remains subject to fresh verification.

Delayed furnishing of Form 10DA does not by itself defeat a third-year employment-linked deduction where eligibility arose from employee costs accepted in earlier years and the report is later produced; the claim remains subject to factual verification of prescribed conditions. Notional interest on outstanding associated-enterprise receivables requires factual support for an arm's length financing charge, including evidence of financing cost, economic prejudice, or comparable independent-party practice. Where the taxpayer has sufficient own funds, no interest-bearing borrowings, and no such evidence, the adjustment is unsustainable.

Under TNMM, product-development expenditure for an unfinished product intended for the non-AE segment, with no related revenue or nexus to tested AE transactions, is treated as non-operating and excluded from operating cost. Acquisition and integration expenditure directed to non-AE business expansion, including due diligence, compliance, retention and consolidation costs, is likewise excluded where unconnected with AE software-development transactions. Internal TNMM is unsuitable where domestic non-AE transactions and export AE transactions lack sufficient comparability. The AE segment may instead be benchmarked against suitable external comparables, and exclusion of unrelated non-operating costs supports satisfaction of the arm's-length standard.

Segmental results for benchmarking software-development services require factual verification where audited segmental accounts and cost-allocation records are material to determining the arm's length price. Rejection without examining the segmentation methodology on merits is not sustainable; the matter requires verification and recomputation if necessary. Notional interest on associated-enterprise receivables should not be selectively imputed when comparable non-associated-enterprise receivables carry no interest and the associated enterprise's average realisation period falls within the permitted credit period. On those facts, the receivables adjustment cannot survive.

A jurisdictional High Court judgment remains binding on authorities within its territorial jurisdiction unless stayed, modified, or reversed by a competent court. A proposed or pending Supreme Court challenge does not reduce that binding force. Accordingly, registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G granted in compliance with such a judgment cannot be made conditional on a possible future outcome. As no statutory mechanism permits effective registration or approval to be converted into tentative recognition through caveats, the conditions attached to the registration, approval, and consequential benefits were unsustainable and were directed to be deleted.

Penalty for under-reporting income may apply where a non-corporate assessee failed to file a return within the prescribed time and assessed income exceeded the maximum non-taxable amount. Income disclosed only in response to a reassessment notice does not cure the original filing default, and acceptance of that income without further reassessment additions does not prevent the statutory deeming rule from operating. Tax deducted at source and the department's access to income information do not remove the obligation to file a return. No exclusion from under-reporting was established, so penalty was leviable.

Condonation of a six-year delay in filing a cross-objection requires sufficient and reasonable cause beyond the assessee's control. A conscious decision not to file within the statutory period because the prevailing legal view was adverse constitutes a deliberate litigation strategy, not sufficient cause. A later favourable judicial decision in the assessee's own matter does not create a fresh cause of action or revive a remedy barred by limitation. Allowing stale remedies to be revived following changes in judicial interpretation would compromise certainty and finality in litigation.

Eligibility for immunity from penalty under Section 270AA requires fresh examination where Form No. 68 was prima facie filed within time and a subsequent rectification eliminated the assessment demand and created a refund. The Assessing Officer must consider whether the rectification affects compliance with the requirement to pay tax and interest, along with the timely filing of Form No. 68, absence of a quantum appeal, and other applicable conditions. The immunity claim is to be reconsidered through a speaking order.

Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA(2) permits an assessee to value unquoted equity shares using either the prescribed Net Asset Value formula or the Discounted Cash Flow method. While the Assessing Officer may examine the valuation report, reject projections unsupported by reliable data, and obtain a fresh valuation, the review must remain within the method chosen by the assessee. The Assessing Officer cannot substitute the Discounted Cash Flow method with the Net Asset Value method, and projections must be assessed using information available on the valuation date rather than later actual results. Accordingly, an addition based on such substitution lacks jurisdiction and is deleted.

Corporate guarantees for associated enterprises fall within international transactions and require arm's length benchmarking; the guarantee commission was restricted to 0.5%. Transfer-pricing adjustments for related-party specified domestic transactions under the omitted Section 92BA clause were unsustainable because the omission contained no saving clause. Head-office common-cost allocations at cost were not independent business-support services, so no markup-based adjustment arose under Section 80IA(8). Interest-free advances to associated enterprises remained subject to transfer-pricing review, and notional interest at 4.331% was sustained. Recurring expenditure on advertising designs, market research and brand ambassadors was revenue expenditure because it created no enduring capital asset or advantage.

Additions for alleged on-money receipts from flat sales require independent evidence of actual undisclosed consideration; loose papers and a promptly retracted search statement were insufficient where reconciliations, purchaser affidavits, sale deeds and audited accounts supported the explanation. The additions were deleted. Cash deposits recorded in unrejected audited books and sourced from business receipts already offered to tax could not be treated as unexplained, as this would result in double taxation; those additions were deleted. Partners' capital credits arising from an accepted and final Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 declaration, reflected in audited accounts, could not be treated as unexplained without contrary material; the addition was deleted.

Section 68 additions concerning identified penny-stock trades require cogent evidence linking the taxpayer to non-genuine or manipulated transactions; general investigation material alone is insufficient where trading records, demat accounts, exchange trade summaries and bank statements remain unrebutted. Recorded trading profits and losses, already included in taxable income without any exempt capital-gain claim, do not establish an undisclosed tax benefit. Alleged unsecured loans or fictitious trading profits also require evidence identifying the actual credit, creditor or source. Where no such evidence exists and the alleged profit has already been taxed, the additions are unsustainable.