Section 35(6) requires unaccounted tobacco stock found during a business-premises survey to be treated as supplied and subjected to tax determination under the prescribed statutory procedure. Direct confiscation proceedings cannot be used to impose tax, penalty and fine solely because excess or unaccounted stock is found; proceedings must instead be initiated under section 73 or 74. On that basis, the first appellate orders setting aside confiscation-based tax, penalty and fine were upheld, and the revenue appeals were dismissed.

Parallel proceedings under the CGST/UPGST Acts for the same goods and cause of action are impermissible where transit-release proceedings have already resulted in recovery of tax and penalty; the first appellate reduction of duplicated liability was therefore sustained. Goods in transit must carry a tax invoice and a valid e-way bill generated before movement begins. Manual invoices furnished more than three months after interception, without upload on the GST portal, lacked evidentiary credibility and could not retrospectively validate the movement or cure missing mandatory documentation. The taxpayer's appeal failed, while the partial liability reduction for duplicated proceedings remained intact.

Road-restoration charges paid by a business to the PWD after permitted commercial road cutting constitute consideration for an identifiable restoration service, rather than compensation for damage, and attract GST under reverse charge where Government services are supplied to a business entity. Request-driven restoration facilitating a commercial pipeline layout is not treated as routine governmental road maintenance and does not qualify as non-supply or for the claimed exemption. Prior tax payment under forward charge requires support and does not displace reverse-charge liability. Electronically issued refund proceedings authenticated through the GST portal remain valid without a physical DIN where the notice discloses the basis of action and the recipient suffers no prejudice or denial of natural justice.

Statutory appellate authorities cannot condone delay beyond the GST Act's prescribed outer limit; High Court equitable jurisdiction cannot enlarge that statutory jurisdiction. Consequently, orders entertaining delayed appeals against GST registration cancellation were legally unsustainable. However, where the Department had already restored registrations pursuant to those orders, annulment without addressing the consequences of restoration offered no effective or workable relief, rendering departmental challenges academic and infructuous. Expiry of the period for applying to revoke cancellation did not extinguish the independent appellate remedy where the portal no longer accepted revocation applications. The objection based on non-use of the revocation procedure was therefore rejected.

Voluntary payments by a partnership firm towards an outstanding tax demand of one partner were not treated as forced recovery merely because the firm's bank account had been attached. The firm did not establish that the Department had been notified of its change from proprietorship to partnership before payment. Claims arising from payment of a partner's liability constituted inter se disputes among partners and did not demonstrate illegality, error, or arbitrariness in the Department's action. The refund claim was denied and the writ petition dismissed.

Disclosure of Bitcoin trading sales, purchases, opening and closing stock, and net income under business profits was sufficient for reassessment purposes. Where the income-tax return contains no distinct head for cryptocurrency income, failure to report transactions under a separate head does not establish a failure to make full and true disclosure. The alleged non-disclosure was contradicted by the return, reply, and reconciliation statement; consequently, the reassessment notice and order were quashed and the writ petition succeeded.

Wrongful linkage of an individual's PAN to company bank accounts removed the factual basis for scrutiny where the account transactions were neither related nor attributable to that individual. Tax liability and consequential penalty could not be imposed on transactions belonging to the company. The assessment, penalty and demand orders, together with the revisional order, were set aside, without affecting other aspects of the matter.

Condonation of extraordinary delay in re-presenting departmental tax appeals requires a reasonable, plausible and bona fide explanation supported by a coherent account of the period of inaction. General assertions of administrative workload, simultaneous appeal filings, voluminous records and procedural requirements do not establish sufficient cause. Delay in re-presentation is assessed less rigorously than delay under the Limitation Act, but government departments receive no preferential treatment and must show diligence and bona fide effort. The condonation applications were dismissed, and the departmental appeals were rejected.

Locus standi to challenge search and seizure authorisation depends on whether the challenger is the affected person. Where a search is directed against a company, an Additional Director acting only in that capacity cannot maintain a personal challenge to the search or to the manner in which its authorisation was issued. The company is the affected entity for this purpose. The Additional Director may nevertheless appear in response to a summons; failure to do so leaves the authorities free to take measures permitted by law.

Refund adjustment against tax demands treated as non-collectible or non-enforceable under an unconditional stay is improper; the adjusted amount must be returned with statutory interest while the demands remain stayed pending appeal. Adjustment of a refund before disposal of a stay application constitutes coercive recovery and cannot proceed at that stage. For the disputed demand, retention was confined to 20% in light of applicable Board instructions, with the balance refund returned with statutory interest and the remaining demand stayed pending appeal.

Unrecovered amounts arising from a chit foreman's obligation to make good subscriber defaults qualify for deduction as bad debts or, alternatively, business losses. Consistent allowance of interest on security deposits and commission and gifts paid to associated entities should continue where facts, legal position and operating arrangements remain unchanged. Royalty for a non-exclusive, non-transferable logo licence, without ownership or acquisition of an enduring asset, is revenue expenditure. Overdraft-interest disallowance is unwarranted where surplus funds are sufficient to make interest-free advances.

Limitation for completing an assessment after a special-audit direction is set aside runs until receipt of the judicial order, without requiring a certified copy where a digitally signed copy has been emailed or faxed to departmental authorities. Departmental receipt of the digitally signed order triggers the limitation period, and later production of a certified copy cannot postpone it. Where the assessment limitation expires before a second special-audit direction, that direction and its consequential audit report lack jurisdiction. Failure to complete the permissible fresh assessment results in deemed acceptance of the returned income, and no valid assessment order may thereafter be passed.

Faceless assessment cannot add the gross sale consideration as capital gains without examining material supporting the cost of acquisition, transfer expenses and reinvestment benefits. Documents and explanations filed online must be considered where their filing is not specifically denied or disputed. An addition made without addressing that material, conducting enquiries or cross-verification, or producing contrary evidence is defective at the root of the assessment. The assessment, consequential demand and penalty actions were quashed, with fresh assessment directed after a personal hearing and a speaking order.

Section 68 places the initial burden on an assessee to establish, through cogent evidence, each loan creditor's identity, financial capacity and the genuineness of the transaction. Unsecured loans may be treated as unexplained cash credits where creditors deny making advances or cannot explain the source of the funds advanced, demonstrating that their creditworthiness has not been established. Failure to discharge this burden supports an addition for unexplained cash credits.

Tax deduction at source from compensation payable on compulsory land acquisition is treated as impermissible where it reduces compensation due to land losers. The legal point follows an earlier ruling barring income-tax/TDS withholding from such compensation. Any amount withheld as income tax/TDS is to be released to the affected land losers within three months.

Transfer-pricing rules apply to dealings between an Indian permanent establishment and its Head Office or overseas branches. An Additional Commissioner may act as Transfer Pricing Officer where included within the definition of Joint Commissioner and no lack of authorisation is shown. Closely linked money-market placements may be aggregated, while the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot determine the year in which income accrues. Separate remuneration for correspondent banking or incidental supervisory functions requires proof of a distinct service, resources, benefit and cost base. Profit Split Method attribution requires combined-profit analysis and allocation based on functions, assets and risks. Separately, broken-period interest on stock-in-trade securities is deductible, and unrealised profit on executory forward contracts is not taxable without real accrual.

Concessional-rate interest remains taxable rather than exempt income, so expenditure relating to it is not subject to exempt-income disallowance. Interest between an Indian permanent establishment and its head office or overseas branches is a mutual receipt rather than income; related administrative expenditure is likewise outside that disallowance. Consistent year-end revaluation of outstanding foreign-exchange forward contracts under the mercantile system produces an allowable loss where an existing obligation and reliable estimation exist. Interest disallowance is unwarranted where interest-free own funds exceed exempt-income investments absent a borrowing nexus. Broken-period interest on banking securities and voluntary-retirement expen.....

Under the block-of-assets method, a commercially used flat included in a continuing commercial depreciation block loses its separate identity for income-tax computation. Section 50 permits short-term capital gain only where sale consideration exceeds the aggregate written down value of the relevant block, or where every asset in that block is transferred and the block ceases to exist. Recreating a separate residential block and a notional written down value for the flat on sale is inconsistent with its accepted commercial classification. Where other commercial-block assets remain and opening written down value exceeds sale consideration, no short-term capital gain arises and the related addition is unsustainable.

Benami transaction requirements are satisfied where property is held in a benamidar's name, consideration is provided by the beneficial owner, and the property is held for that owner's immediate or future benefit. Concealment of ownership, benefit to a third party, and use of illegitimate funds are not required; legitimate funds routed through bank accounts may qualify if those elements exist. Routing demonetised cash through benamidars and returning acceptable currency for beneficial owners' benefit falls within this concept. Review jurisdiction requires an error apparent on the face of the record; disagreement based on a mistaken view of these elements does not justify review, resulting in dismissal of the review applications.

Imported agricultural rejected nut pieces declared as cattle feed must be released on sufficient indemnity pending adjudication where test reports establish that they are unfit for human consumption. A speculative possibility of diversion to human consumption does not justify detention or seizure, and prohibition based on declared value cannot stand without production of the relied-on notification. Release remains without prejudice to lawful adjudication. The unresolved issue whether the extension period for seizure is calculated from detention or seizure was referred for Larger Bench consideration.