“Section 148(1)(d)”

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

For a charitable trust, a violation of Section 13(1)(d) does not lead to the denial of exemption under Section 11 on its total income. Instead, only income derived from investments or deposits made in violation of Section 11(5) or income diverted under Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) is taxable.

Approval granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner under Section 151 for reassessment proceedings under Section 148 must reflect due application of mind. A mere endorsement of "approved" without reasons or reference to material is insufficient, as the approval serves as a safeguard and must be meaningful, not ritualistic or formal.

A developer is entitled to proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for housing projects even if certain conditions, such as unit built-up area limits, are not fully met across all units. Additionally, the conditions introduced by Section 80IB(10)(d) apply prospectively to projects commenced and sanctioned before April 1, 2005.

Section 124(3) of the Income-tax Act, which restricts an assessee from objecting to an Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, applies only to disputes concerning territorial jurisdiction as conferred by Section 120(1) or (2). It does not apply to objections regarding the Assessing Officer's inherent jurisdiction to frame an assessment.

For claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB), the existence of recognition for a Research and Development (R&D) Centre is relevant, not necessarily the date of approval or recognition.

The assessment can apply the peak credit theory for additions related to unexplained credits or entries. Furthermore, assessment proceedings are not vitiated merely because the Department proceeded under an incorrect section if material existed to justify the assessment under a proper provision like section 148.

Mere cash deposits in a bank account, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind on reasons to believe, are not sufficient grounds to invoke jurisdiction under Section 147 for reassessment proceedings.