For anticipatory bail, the expression "jurisdictional Court" includes both the High Court and the Court of Session, allowing applicants to choose either forum rather than requiring an approach to the Principal Sessions Court. In alleged GST evasion, custodial interrogation was not considered necessary where the maximum punishment was five years, the offences were compoundable, documentary and digital evidence was substantially secured by authorities, and the applicants had business roots and agreed to cooperate. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions including deposit, passport surrender, reporting requirements, bonds, and continued cooperation with the investigation.

GST liability arising from works contracts spanning the pre-GST and GST regimes must be determined under the applicable statute, while reimbursement of any incremental GST burden depends on the contractor-employer contract. Contractual directions may govern work calculation, representations and GST adjustment, but cannot alter statutory assessment, recovery, interest, penalty, return limitations or enforcement by tax authorities. Assessment orders may be challenged through appropriate proceedings, with the time spent pursuing writ petitions excluded when calculating limitation.

Rule 90(2) limits scrutiny of a GST refund application to its completeness under Rule 89(2), (3) and (4); it does not permit a deficiency memo to decide merits. Objections concerning the correct refund category, required statutory statements, adequacy of foreign-remittance evidence, or limitation require substantive examination by the competent authority. An Advice of Foreign Inward Remittance cannot be rejected solely by its label without assessing whether its contents meet the purpose of a Bank Realisation Certificate or FIRC. Deficiency memos on those grounds were unsustainable, and refiled applications had to be accepted for merits consideration after the applicable opportunity.

Input tax credit mismatches between Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A may support tax determination under section 73, but do not by themselves justify section 74 proceedings or penalties. Section 74 requires clear evidence connecting wrongful credit availment with fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts intended to evade tax; merely reciting those terms is insufficient. Payment of tax and interest before notice, including after verification, falls within section 73(5) where no intent to evade is established. A supplier's default cannot automatically be attributed to the recipient as suppression.

Section 74 penalties for excess input tax credit and irregular transitional credit require positive material proving fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax; audit mismatches, record-based discrepancies, and mechanical allegations are insufficient. Where returns and credit declarations are available on the departmental portal and tax and interest are paid before a show cause notice without deliberate evasion, the payments fall within Section 73(5) read with Section 73(8). On those principles, the Section 74 penalties were deleted, and the pre-notice tax and interest payments were treated as voluntary payments. Departmental hierarchy alone also does not establish a real likelihood of institutional bias in statutory appellate proceedings.

Wrongful treatment of an individual as a company's Principal Officer can undermine criminal prosecution for delayed deposit of tax deducted at source when the prosecution is founded on an incorrect assertion that the individual was a director. The show-cause notice, designation order, sanction and complaint must rest on accurate corporate status. Where the Department accepts that the accused was never a director, vicarious liability cannot be sustained on that premise; the prosecution was quashed on its particular facts without precedential effect.

Clean-slate protection applies where a corporate debtor is sold as a going concern in liquidation: past liabilities and related investigations are extinguished, preventing an alleged past interest cessation from being imposed on the purchaser. Reassessment cannot rest on a presumption that unpaid interest was deducted when accounts and the taxpayer's reply showed otherwise. The same alleged cessation from one transaction cannot be taxed repeatedly across assessment years. Failure to address the clean-slate defence and binding precedents rendered the reassessment notice and section 148A(3) order for AY 2021-22 unsustainable and quashed.

Section 13(1)(b)'s restriction on trusts benefiting a particular religious community applies when exemption under section 11 is considered, rather than at the section 12A registration stage. A trust whose objects are largely charitable and directed to the public at large is not disqualified merely because its objects include services to pilgrims and religious places. Where the trust is not established wholly for a particular religious community, its application for approval under section 80G(5) requires fresh consideration after verification and an opportunity of hearing. No substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's direction for such reconsideration.

Section 92CA confines the Transfer Pricing Officer's role to computing the arm's length price of a specific international transaction referred by the Assessing Officer. It does not authorise determination of a permanent establishment under the India-Singapore DTAA, taxability of profits, or attribution of business profits. A transfer-pricing reference must identify the relevant international transaction and cannot replace the Assessing Officer's independent examination required by remand directions. An assessment based solely on Transfer Pricing Officer findings on permanent establishment and profit taxability lacks a valid jurisdictional basis.

Functional comparability under TNMM for licence fees paid by a limited-risk distributor of licensed film and television content turns on functions, assets, risks, contractual terms and reliable financial data, rather than product similarity alone. Software and hardware distributors may therefore be valid comparables despite distributing different products. A revenue split under the Other Method requires comparable uncontrolled transactions, reliable market evidence or another objective economic basis to quantify contributions; allocated functional weightages alone cannot establish an arm's length price.

Interest included in a foreign arbitral award, once the award is enforced as a court decree, assumes the character of a judgment debt rather than "interest" under the Income-tax Act. The interest component, although labelled as interest in the award, was treated as part of the decretal damages and therefore outside the scope of taxable interest income in India. The related tax addition was deleted and the appeal succeeded.

Penalty proceedings under section 271D that are not initiated during an assessment or other proceeding fall outside the first alternative limitation period in section 275(1)(c). In that situation, the show-cause notice constitutes the latest point at which action to impose the penalty is regarded as initiated. The penalty order must therefore be made within six months from the end of the month in which that notice is issued. An order made after that deadline is time-barred and cannot sustain the penalty.

Intra-group technical and IT services are priced using a 10% cost mark-up, after crediting recoveries, because Safe Harbour margins did not apply for the relevant year. Actuarially measured pension and other employee-benefit liabilities arising from past service are accrued liabilities, while privilege-leave encashment remains deductible only on actual payment. Exempt-income expenditure requires limited recomputation excluding interest, considering only income-yielding investments, and capped at exempt income. Banking securities may be valued under a consistently followed recognised method reflecting real income; interest on non-performing advances or investments is not taxed where recovery is uncertain under prudential norms. Bad-debt prov.....

Section 167B's maximum marginal rate is inapplicable to income of a public charitable association assessed as an Association of Persons. Income from charitable activity for the public at large is to be computed at the normal tax rate applicable to an Association of Persons, rather than at the maximum marginal rate. Comparable treatment applies to registered trusts undertaking public charitable activity.

Rental income from let-out business premises cannot be increased by relying on rent from a commercial property at a different location without credible evidence that comparable local premises command higher rent; the estimated addition was deleted. Salary paid to a family member remains allowable where business services were rendered, payments were consistent, and the recipient offered the income to tax; the disallowance was deleted. Interest on unsecured business borrowings may exceed secured bank-loan rates where flexibility, short-term repayment terms, ancillary borrowing costs and commercial expediency establish that the rate is reasonable; the interest disallowance was deleted.

Article 5(2)(l) of the India-USA DTAA requires cumulative satisfaction of services being furnished or performed in India through employees or other personnel for the prescribed period before a service permanent establishment arises. Cost-to-cost reimbursements of expenditure initially incurred and later cross-charged without mark-up do not establish such a presence where the activity is performed remotely and the non-resident's employees or personnel have no physical presence in India. In those circumstances, no service permanent establishment or taxable income in India arises from the reimbursements.

Section 263 revision was sustained for fresh examination of interest capitalisation because the actual use of external commercial borrowings for working capital was not demonstrated and the Assessing Officer had made no enquiry; a board resolution stating the borrowing purpose was insufficient. Revision could not, however, reopen matters already examined or direct unfocused verification. Directions concerning tax deduction on interest paid to Government authorities were deleted as they amounted to a fishing or roving enquiry without an identified assessment error. Re-examination of miscellaneous expenditure and service-provider charges was also deleted because the Assessing Officer had examined the evidence and adopted a plausible view, including on the treaty's make available clause.

The Tonnage Tax Scheme confines relevant shipping income to profits from specified core and prescribed incidental shipping activities. Receipts from tender-document sales, contractor-delay damages, leased quarters, training fees, other operating income, and salary recoveries from resigned employees fell outside that scope, whereas scrap and empties sales, exchange differences, waste-oil sales, insurance claims, and provision reversals were treated as connected with dredging operations or not separately taxable. Service charges received differing treatment across assessment years in line with earlier determinations. Sponsorship for a maritime investment event qualified as business promotion expenditure because it had a direct business nexus .....

Time-barred DRP objections leave no valid objections for consideration. The AO must complete the assessment under section 144C(4)(b) on the basis of the draft order within the prescribed period and cannot await the DRP's disposal of belated objections. Statutory limitation binds both the assessee and the Revenue. A final assessment issued after that period because of such delay is barred by limitation, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed; merits need not be considered.

Penalty for alleged cash receipt cannot be imposed without demonstrative evidence establishing the actual cash transaction required for the cash-receipt restriction. Material showed a cash receipt only to a limited extent, while the balance was inferred conjecturally. Because the Revenue did not establish the factual basis for invoking section 269SS, deletion of the section 271D penalty was confirmed and its appeal dismissed.