Execution of a joint development agreement was examined to determine whether it constituted a taxable transfer capable of triggering capital gains in the relevant assessment year. The central issues were the legal effect of the agreement, the character of possession delivered to the developer, and the application of statutory provisions on deemed transfer and part performance. Execution of the agreement did not result in taxable capital gains on the basis adopted in the assessment for that year.

Transfer-pricing comparability in arm's-length price determination can use an upper turnover filter to select comparable companies. Under the Income-tax Act's arm's-length pricing framework and transfer-pricing rules, turnover is relevant to the comparability analysis. Applying an upper turnover ceiling of Rs 200 crore may exclude companies exceeding that limit from the comparable set, supporting turnover-based screening where company size affects comparability.

Interest expenditure directly attributable to taxable interest income under a back-to-back borrowing-and-lending arrangement falls outside the interest disallowance mechanism for expenditure relating to exempt income. Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) applies only where interest expenditure is not directly attributable to particular income or receipts. Where borrowed funds generate corresponding taxable interest receipts exceeding the interest payment, the direct nexus with taxable income prevents disallowance. The absence of separate accounts or the use of mixed funds does not negate that established nexus. Accordingly, the interest disallowance was unsustainable and its deletion was upheld.

Reassessment jurisdiction requires the Assessing Officer to furnish recorded reasons, allow objections to reopening, and dispose of those objections through a separate speaking order before completing reassessment. Addressing objections for the first time in the reassessment order does not meet this mandatory requirement. Failure to issue a prior separate order is a jurisdictional defect and cannot be cured by remanding the matter for fresh disposal after reassessment. The reassessment proceedings, and consequential assessment, appellate and Tribunal orders, were therefore set aside.

Transfer-pricing of delayed foreign-currency receivables requires an imputed interest rate that reflects prevailing foreign-currency lending conditions. Where receivables are denominated in foreign currency, a corresponding foreign-currency benchmark is appropriate rather than a domestic borrowing rate. LIBOR, as an international banking benchmark at the relevant time, supports use of the six-month LIBOR rate plus 200 basis points where no material demonstrates that this margin is perverse or inconsistent with prevailing rates. The rate determination is essentially factual and does not ordinarily raise a substantial question of law.

Sections 153A and 153C bar a notice for assessment year 2012-13 where the satisfaction note was recorded in assessment year 2025-26. Even the extended ten-year limitation available when escaped income exceeds the prescribed threshold reaches only to assessment year 2016-17 on the stated calculation. The notice for assessment year 2012-13 therefore falls outside the permissible assessment period and is time-barred and invalid.

Prosecution for failure to furnish a return requires tax liability to be stated in the complaint or otherwise established where the tax payable determines punishment and the statutory exemption threshold. Although a regular assessment is not invariably necessary, prosecution is unsustainable where no tax payable is alleged or determined and the taxpayer claims a refund. The presumption of culpable mental state may be rebutted by evidence negating an intention to evade tax. Joint acquisition of property, funding by a spouse through borrowings, and receipt of sale consideration by that spouse can establish absence of wilful non-filing. Criminal liability requires both tax-liability and wilfulness elements.

Administrative transfer of income-tax appeals to a Tribunal Bench cannot be judicially nullified or disregarded by that Bench. Although the assessees' business location, Assessing Officer, and the ordinary Rule 4 connection pointed to another Bench, the appeals were validly transferred and the first appellate orders were made under a jurisdictional allocation order. Principles determining High Court jurisdiction after statutory transfer do not control the Tribunal's place of hearing following administrative transfer. Rejection for want of territorial jurisdiction was therefore erroneous; the transferred appeals must be restored and decided on merits by the receiving Bench.

Duplicate Permanent Account Number cancellation applications have no prescribed disposal timeframe, creating difficulties in accessing PAN-linked services. The absence of a prior representation seeking a prescribed timeframe required the issue to be first considered administratively. The petitioner may submit a representation within two weeks; CBDT must decide it within eight weeks of receipt and communicate its decision.

Goodwill arising on amalgamation falls within the category of depreciable intangible assets under Section 32(1), including Explanation 3(b), allowing depreciation on such goodwill. The fifth proviso restriction to Section 32(1) cannot be introduced for the first time at the High Court stage where it was neither raised nor adjudicated before the appellate authorities. An unraised restriction does not independently give rise to a substantial question of law from the Tribunal's order, leaving the entitlement to depreciation on goodwill undisturbed.

Condonation of delay in filing special leave petitions requires a justification establishing sufficient cause. Delays of 449 days and 427 days were treated as inordinate, and the explanations offered did not meet that standard. The special leave petitions were consequently dismissed solely on the ground of delay, with pending applications disposed of.

Outdoor playground equipment and eligible spare parts fall under sub-heading 95069990 and are treated as children's sports goods taxable at 5%. Outdoor gym equipment and eligible spare parts fall under sub-heading 95069190 as articles and equipment for general physical exercise, taxable at 18%. Parts solely or principally used with Chapter 95 equipment ordinarily follow the classification of that equipment. Bearings, however, are specifically described under heading 8482 and therefore take precedence over the general parts classification under the specific-description rule. Bearings are taxable at 18%, with the precise tariff item determined by their specifications.

Geomembrane made from woven HDPE strips below 5 mm in width, laminated on both sides with plastic and used for pond lining, falls within Heading 5911 as a textile product for technical use. Section XI treatment of the strips, Chapter 59 coverage of coated or laminated technical textiles, HSN notes and the functional-use test support classification rather than treatment as an article of plastics. This classification brings the product within the applicable GST entries for Heading 5911: GST applies at 12% until 21 September 2025 and at 5% from 22 September 2025.

Before 10 July 2024, credit of funds to the Electronic Cash Ledger did not constitute payment of self-assessed return tax; payment occurred only when the appropriate electronic ledger was debited. Interest on the cash component therefore continued until debit, despite receipt of funds through the Government banking channel. The Rule 88B(1) proviso excluding continuously retained cash-ledger balances applies prospectively because it contains no retrospective commencement provision. Notice validity requires demonstrated prejudice; detailed responses based on communicated interest calculations negate such prejudice. Although a requested personal hearing is required before an adverse decision, remand is unnecessary where facts and the sole statutory issue are undisputed and no further defence or evidence is identified. Reconciliation is required to prevent double recovery.

For periods before 10 July 2024, crediting funds to the Electronic Cash Ledger constituted a deposit rather than payment of a specific self-assessed return liability. Payment occurred only when the appropriate ledger was debited upon return filing; consequently, interest on the cash component continued until that debit. The 2024 Rule 88B(1) proviso excluding continuously available cash-ledger balances operated prospectively because it lacked express retrospective effect. Adequate disclosure and absence of prejudice preserved notice validity, while a requested personal hearing remained mandatory; where the record was complete and no further defence existed, remand was unnecessary. Demand-wise reconciliation remained necessary to prevent duplicate recovery of amounts paid, deposited, recovered, or adjusted.

The third proviso to Rule 138(3) of the CGST Rules permits Part B of an e-way bill to remain unfilled where goods move within the same State, up to 50 km, from the consignor's premises to the transporter's premises for further transportation. Explanation 2 preserves that exception, and the consignee's ultimate location does not change the character of the initial journey. Section 129 requires an actual contravention of the Act or Rules; a permitted omission cannot support penalty. Mens rea is not invariably necessary for this civil penalty, but absence of intent is immaterial where no underlying breach exists. Section 126 does not generally authorise reduction or waiver of the prescribed penalty.

Section 129 transit penalties require an established substantive contravention; mandatory invoice and e-way-bill requirements do not make every documentary discrepancy penal. Use of a consignee's former address may be a technical, bona fide error where invoices, e-way bills and transport records substantiate movement, physical verification confirms the goods, and no evidence shows a fictitious purchaser, diversion, duplicate documentation, value suppression, or intent to evade tax. Section 126(6) cannot reduce a valid percentage-based transit penalty, because liability under Section 129 must first arise. On these facts, the address mismatch did not attract the transit penalty.

Departmental GST appeals below the prescribed monetary threshold require compliance with litigation-control instructions issued under Section 120 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act. Authorisation to file an appeal under Section 112(3) does not independently satisfy the monetary-limit policy. Where disputed tax falls below the threshold for GSTAT appeals, the Revenue must identify and substantiate a specified exception. Under the residual exception, it must produce a case-specific recorded opinion of the Commissioner. Without evidence of a recognised exception or such recorded opinion, the appeal is not maintainable for admission and cannot proceed on merits.

Incorrect selection of a respondent on the GSTAT portal may be rectified where the original appeal memorandum and impugned order correctly identify the proper State tax authority. Rule 26 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 permits rectification of clerical and similar errors, while Rule 32(1) allows amendment of a defective appeal form upon sufficient cause. An erroneous portal entry is a curable, non-fatal procedural defect and does not prevent substitution of the correctly described respondent. Where the portal lacks a post-registration correction facility, corrected appeal documents must be re-uploaded and the Registry must correct the portal record and ensure service on the proper respondent.

GST registration cancellation for admitted non-filing of returns under the CGST Act was annulled despite expiry of the statutory period for seeking revocation. Relief remains conditional on furnishing all outstanding returns within 30 days, while liability for tax, penalty, interest and late fees continues. Limitation periods for tax determination under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) run from the judgment, subject to the specified treatment for financial year 2025-26 under Section 44.