GST refund applications remain subject to a mandatory two-year limitation period, but writ jurisdiction may be available to condone delay. An asserted double reversal of TRAN-I credit, discovered only on examining records, can constitute just cause for such condonation. The time-bar rejection was set aside, and the refund claim was restored for fresh examination by the statutory authority upon production of supporting documents.

Government recipients of works-contract services must bear and reimburse the differential GST liability caused by the VAT-to-GST transition during contract execution. Reimbursement is limited to the incremental tax attributable to GST, rather than the full tax burden, and depends on verification of the contractor's records and calculations. A writ of mandamus required consideration of the contractor's representation, determination of the verified differential amount, and reimbursement within the stipulated period.

GST advance ruling jurisdiction is confined to questions concerning supplies undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Questions concerning consultancy services allegedly supplied by a consultancy in-charge or faculty member to the applicant, including that person's GST registration and tax-invoice obligations, fall outside that scope. The advance ruling application was therefore not admitted because it did not concern any supply made or proposed to be made by the applicant.

Under GST, a comprehensive transfer of an entire proprietorship business to an LLP without consideration, including assets, liabilities, employees and business rights, constitutes a supply even if not made in the ordinary course of business. Transfer of a business as a going concern is classified as a supply of services because it is excluded from treatment as a supply of goods. The going-concern exemption applies only where the business is established as a going concern under applicable standards. If that status is not established, transferred stock and other business assets are treated as taxable supplies of goods at the applicable rates.

Electrically operated E-Rickshaws, E-Carts, Ecovat Hydraulic vehicles and E-Scooters retain that classification when supplied without batteries if their traction derives solely from electrical energy and the fitted motor, inverter, control module and drivetrain enable passenger or goods transport. The three-wheeled vehicles fall under heading 8703 and E-Scooters under heading 8711; each attracts GST at 5 per cent whether supplied with or without batteries. Refund claims for accumulated input tax credit arising from an inverted duty structure fall outside the specified scope of advance-ruling questions and remain undecided on merits.

Imported IT support services from a related foreign entity constitute imports of services liable to integrated tax under reverse charge. For such supplies, the recipient's self-invoice qualifies as the invoice contemplated by the second proviso to Rule 28(1) and the reverse-charge self-invoicing requirement. Where the recipient is eligible for full input tax credit, the value declared in that self-invoice is deemed to be the open market value. This treatment applies only subject to full input tax credit eligibility on the reverse-charge tax payable.

Water-pipeline construction involving transfer of goods incorporated into immovable property is a works contract. New main-pipeline installation falls under SAC 995422 as construction of water mains and lines, while distribution-network revamping falls under SAC 995429 as repair and maintenance of civil engineering works. The water-supply exemption is confined to direct water-supply services and does not cover related construction, repair, or ancillary infrastructure works. Supplies to a statutory governmental authority also fail the relevant exemption conditions where they are neither pure services nor qualifying composite supplies. Both services are taxable as works contracts at 9 per cent CGST and 9 per cent SGST.

Final settlement orders under section 245D(4) cover statutory deductions disclosed in the settlement application, including a section 80IB(10) housing-project deduction. Chapter XIX-A permits departure from that finality only when the Settlement Commission declares its order void for fraud or misrepresentation. It does not preserve a parallel power for the Assessing Officer to reopen, under sections 147 and 148, deduction issues already covered by the final settlement. Where the prescribed recourse to challenge the settlement order has been rejected and attained finality, reassessment of that deduction is unsustainable.

Section 91 CrPC permits compulsory production of search records only when they are necessary or desirable at the relevant stage, rather than merely because they exist or are available. Where the warrant and search procedures have already received judicial scrutiny on foundational material, no continuing necessity arises to compel the satisfaction note, authorisation warrant or panchnama solely to revisit the search's legality. Section 311 CrPC permits recall for further cross-examination only where further evidence is essential to a just decision. Recall is unwarranted when the material sought is not on record and the witness has already been substantially cross-examined on the relevant search-related allegations.

TDS refunds arising from Section 201 assessments or appellate give-effect orders are crystallised entitlements and cannot be denied or deferred through post-assessment requirements for financial-year-wise particulars or Form 26B. The adjustment framework under Section 200A, Rule 31A and Form 26B operates separately from refunds determined on assessment or under appellate give-effect orders. Refunds also cannot be withheld without a legally passed adjustment order under Section 245. Refundable amounts under the give-effect orders must be processed expeditiously, with applicable statutory interest payable until payment.

Explanation to amended section 147 permits an ongoing reassessment to be enlarged for any escaped-income issue subsequently noticed, without separate compliance with the section 148A procedure. Removal of "and also" from the substantive provision distinguishes prior interpretations of the unamended law. Its wording and context show legislative intent to expand rather than merely clarify reassessment scope. "Any issue" covers material obtained after commencement from sources outside the original proceedings, including search material. Authorities may use such material to enlarge a pending reassessment for the same assessment year, despite a separate search-assessment mechanism.

Taxability of non-resident receipts depends on a real and substantive nexus between India and the income-producing right or activity, or on a specific statutory deeming provision; an Indian payer's residence, accounting treatment, expenditure claim or remittance alone is insufficient. Overseas contractual rights, settlement and market exploitation do not create Indian accrual merely through foreign anti-trust allegations unsupported by a judicial finding or admission. Advance-ruling jurisdiction is confined to the applicant and transaction, and prima facie tax avoidance requires an identified Indian tax incidence. Extended reassessment limitation requires a qualifying asset belonging to the assessee and prior meaningful opportunity on that .....

Social forestry expenditure requires activity-based classification: costs of growing saplings through primary land operations are agricultural, while supervision of farmers' trees and coppice shoots without primary land operations are business or non-agricultural expenditure. Disallowance is therefore confined to the loss from agricultural sapling cultivation. For book-profit computation, only that restricted disallowed agricultural loss may be adjusted, rather than all amortised social forestry expenditure. Where normal-computation additions do not affect tax because liability is based on book profit, no tax is sought to be avoided and concealment penalty is not warranted. Penalty may nevertheless arise if concealed income increases book profit and the resulting minimum alternative tax.

MFN-based treaty benefits under the India-Netherlands DTAA require a notification under section 90(1) for domestic enforcement. Notification No. S.O. 693(E) reduced the Article 11(2) interest tax rate to 10 per cent for beneficial owners but did not incorporate the nil-rate exemptions available under the India-USA or India-Italy DTAAs. Interest on income-tax refunds under section 244A therefore remained taxable at the notified treaty rate, and the nil-rate claim was rejected. Eligible tax deducted at source credit remained available against the refund-interest income.

Contractual and decree-based rights to obtain conveyance of immovable property constitute capital assets, and their assignment is a transfer taxable under Capital Gains rather than Income from Other Sources. Indexed cost of improvement requires verification of supporting documents and was remanded for fresh examination. The residential-house exemption claim was also remanded for consideration of evidence on fund utilisation, land acquisition and Capital Gains Account Scheme transactions. In alleged penny-stock transactions, surrounding circumstances and preponderance of probabilities may outweigh contract notes, banking records and demat statements; the share-sale proceeds were sustained as unexplained cash credit and the capital-gains exemption was denied.

Government-approved Engineer's valuation report on a transferred property's improvement cost required acceptance where the tax authorities accepted the construction year but identified neither defects nor adverse material and did not obtain an alternative valuation under the Act. The claimed cost of improvement was therefore accepted. Interior expenditure on the new residential property remained ineligible for deduction under section 54F because no bills, vouchers, or other evidence substantiated the claim; the disallowance was sustained. The appeal was partly allowed.

Stock exchange charges for delivery, reporting, margin and other operational or procedural lapses were treated by the ITAT as non-statutory compensatory payments incurred to secure compliance under exchange bye-laws and regulations. Their description as penalties or fines in the tax audit report did not make them expenditure for an offence or a purpose prohibited by law under Explanation 1 to section 37(1); the disallowance was deleted. A deduction claim for health and education cess, made in good faith under prevailing jurisdictional High Court law, did not become under-reporting or misreporting merely because a later retrospective amendment disallowed it. The related penalty was therefore deleted.

Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars does not arise merely because a transfer-pricing comparable is rejected or an interest rate on an associated-enterprise loan is recomputed, where prescribed documentation and benchmarking demonstrate good faith and due diligence in determining the arm's length price. A leave-encashment provision claimed after payment of tax pursuant to an Apex Court stay order did not warrant penalty. Penalty on legal fees claimed in computing capital gains also lacked basis where supporting transfer documents and expenditure details were furnished and the underlying quantum addition was deleted. Penalty deletions were sustained for the transfer-pricing adjustments and disallowances.

For AY 2019-20, the option for deemed application of charitable trust income had to be exercised before expiry of the time allowed for filing the return. Form No. 9A filed before the extended return-filing due date met that requirement. The later requirement to furnish Form No. 9A at least two months before the return-filing due date applies prospectively from AY 2023-24. Statutory accumulation or setting apart of income within the permissible fifteen per cent limit is separate from deemed application and does not depend on Form No. 9A, unless the accumulation exceeds that limit.

Revised tax audit reports and corresponding revised returns filed before processing under section 143(1) require consideration despite filing after the prescribed due date where they correct disallowances based on Form 26A. Form 26A activates statutory relief from disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source, and the same expenditure cannot be disallowed again under section 40(a)(ia) after disallowance under section 43B(da). Rule 46A(3) does not require remand when materials were electronically furnished before processing and no fresh appellate evidence is admitted. After deletion of adjustments, set-off of brought-forward losses is academic where no positive income remains.