Transitional reassessment limitation preserves only the unexpired period under the applicable jurisdictional time limit after information is supplied and the taxpayer's response period ends. For assessment year 2014-15, eight days remained, requiring a fresh notice by 16 June 2022; a notice issued on 27 July 2022 falls outside that period. For assessment year 2015-16, the statutory outer limit expired on 31 March 2022, and transitional directions cannot enlarge it. A notice issued within limitation is essential to reassessment jurisdiction; taxpayer participation or acquiescence cannot cure a time-barred notice. Consequential reassessments based on invalid notices lack jurisdiction, while the merits of additions remain unaddressed.

Registered development agreements conferring substantial, enforceable and commercially exploitable property rights constitute transfers, with capital gains taxable to the society holding title and executing the agreement rather than its members. Mutuality does not shelter income involving an independent developer. Section 50D does not apply where consideration is determinable, while section 45(5A)'s deferral is confined to individuals and HUFs. Consideration must be determined as of the transfer date; later GST invoices, built-up area, GST and amenity charges, member-paid tax, and liquid-fund dividend eligibility require fact-based examination to prevent duplication and allow lawful deductions or credit. TOLA may extend assessment limitation, and delayed jurisdictional objections can be barred.

Revision under section 263 is impermissible where the Assessing Officer has made relevant enquiries, verified foreign donations and their charitable application, and adopted a legally possible view. Revision requires both an erroneous assessment order and prejudice to revenue; a Commissioner's different view does not suffice. Section 13(1)(c)(ii) applies only when trust income or property benefits a person specified under section 13(3), including a concern in which that person has substantial interest. Payments applied to charitable COVID-19 relief do not attract the restriction without proof of direct or indirect benefit to a specified person or qualifying concern.

CBDT recovery instructions did not require restoration of the earlier refund adjustment because no stay application had been filed before recovery exceeding 80% of the disputed demand, although the adjustment without a hearing was arbitrary. Restitution was also declined because more than three years had elapsed. The later refund adjustment, made while writ and stay proceedings were pending after substantial recovery, was unlawful. Tax authorities remain bound by applicable recovery instructions despite default status and must give the requisite Section 245 intimation before a further adjustment. The later adjusted amount was refundable with applicable interest, and the pending statutory appeal required expeditious disposal.

Initial registration under Section 12A requires examination of the institution's stated objects, project report and purpose. Non-commencement of operations and recovery of subsidised or concessional accommodation or service charges do not, by themselves, establish commercial activity; an undertaking not to sell units also addresses concerns of an outright-sale model. Initial charitable registration should therefore not be refused solely on anticipated commercial conduct. Approval under Section 80G, which enables donor tax deductions, remains distinct from Section 12A registration and requires independent satisfaction of statutory conditions. It cannot follow automatically from registration and requires fresh determination where the necessary inquiry has not occurred.

Tax deduction at source on external development charges paid to a development authority was not required under Section 194I because an earlier binding determination had conclusively resolved the issue in the assessee's favour. Orders treating the payer as an assessee in default under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A), and the consequential rejection of rectification, were therefore illegal and quashed. Resort to the appellate remedy was redundant and inefficacious where the impugned orders contradicted the binding determination.

Limitation for an appeal against an ITAT order commences when the aggrieved party receives the Tribunal's communicated signed order, rather than when it merely learns that the order was pronounced. Section 254(3) of the Income-tax Act and Rule 35 require communication of the order to the assessee and Commissioner; no certified-copy application is required before appeal. Knowledge of the result alone does not disclose the findings and reasons needed to frame an effective appeal. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a bona fide, stage-wise explanation of delay, without deliberateness, mala fides, or irreparable prejudice to the other side, may establish sufficient cause for condonation.

Unpaid excise duty on closing stock retained in a bonded warehouse cannot be added to taxable income under the actual-payment and stock-valuation provisions where the goods were not removed, duty had not become payable, and no deduction was claimed. The exclusive accounting method did not route the amount through the profit and loss account, and its non-inclusion did not reduce taxable income. Disallowance or addition is therefore impermissible unless the amount was claimed as an allowable statutory expense or otherwise affected taxable income.

Section 107 of the CGST Act confines condonation of delay to its fixed additional period; the First Appellate Authority has no inherent power to extend that outer limit. Fact-specific writ directions do not enlarge statutory appellate jurisdiction, and equity cannot override an express limitation provision. Accordingly, an appeal filed beyond the statutory maximum cannot be admitted. Where the Department has implemented an order restoring GST registration and the taxpayer has continued business and filed returns on that basis, estoppel prevents the Department from challenging the restoration because no effective appellate relief remains available. The implemented restoration cannot therefore be undone through that challenge.

Section 129(3) transit penalties require evidence of a contravention supporting tax evasion, not merely technical or administrative variations. Where physical verification confirms that goods match valid tax invoices and e-way bills, the declared dispatch premises is registered, and no diversion, unaccounted stock, or unrecorded supply is evidenced, the statutory basis for penalty is not established. An allegation that goods were loaded from an undeclared premises also requires objective corroboration. An uncorroborated driver statement, particularly without cross-examination and contrary to registration and weighbridge evidence, is insufficient to establish the alleged contravention.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit accumulated under an inverted duty structure before 18 July 2022 remains available where the claim is filed within the prescribed limitation period. The notification effective from that date operates prospectively and does not curtail credit that had already accrued on eligible inward supplies. Withdrawal of an earlier refund application and filing of a fresh application after 18 July 2022 cannot, by itself, defeat a claim relating wholly to the earlier period. The application-date restriction in the relevant circular is inapplicable insofar as it denies such pre-notification credit without statutory authority.

Technical mismatch in the recorded place of dispatch does not by itself warrant a penalty under Section 129 where consignments carry valid e-invoices and e-way bills, are reported in statutory returns, and tax has been paid. Where goods move by rail from the supplier's location to an intermediate point and then by road, a road transport receipt may identify that intermediate point as the dispatch location. In the absence of discrepancies in the goods or evidence of intent to evade tax, that difference is treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive contravention attracting detention or penalty.

Input tax credit requires the claimant to prove actual receipt and genuine supply of goods. Invoices, e-way bills, stock records and banking payments are insufficient where reliable material, including bogus suppliers or deficient vehicle verification, establishes no physical movement on a preponderance of probabilities. Compliance with the payment condition cannot replace actual receipt. Tax and interest may consequently be recovered for inadmissible credit. Where a penalty is imposed under the tax-recovery provision, a further penalty for the same act or omission is barred; imposing it requires reasoned findings and compliance with natural justice. The penalty therefore requires fresh determination.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit for zero-rated supplies made without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking may include invoice values issued within the relevant refund period even where the related goods are exported later. Zero-rated turnover is determined by invoices issued during that period under the rules on time of supply and invoicing. Actual export remains necessary to obtain the refund, but the shipping-bill date does not exclude subsequently exported goods from that period's turnover.

Section 74(1) requires facts establishing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax; merely reciting those terms does not justify extended limitation or penalty. Non-disclosure of rental receipts in GST returns, though identified in Form 26-AS, constitutes suppression, sustaining tax, equal penalty and interest. Freight and disputed input-tax-credit components evident from returns or audit material cannot proceed under Section 74 and must be addressed under Section 75(2) as a Section 73(1) demand. A consolidated notice covering multiple tax years is valid, and the supplier's registered location retains jurisdiction over rent from property in another State. Input tax credit cannot be refused solely for absence from GSTR-2A; substantive eligibility, including blocked credit, requires fresh determination. Late fee and interest remain independently payable.

Concessional GST treatment under Notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) requires strict compliance with the direct-movement condition; movement to third-party premises before export falls outside the prescribed routes, so the concession is unavailable. Section 74 recovery and equivalent penalty require fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. For supplies whose proposed third-party dispatch was disclosed, those elements are not established merely by an incorrect exemption claim; tax must instead be determined under Section 73. An undisclosed supply remains subject to Section 74 demand. Interest follows unpaid tax, statutory penalty applies to Section 73 tax, and cum-tax valuation must be allowed on recalculation.

Section 140(2) permits transition of the entire unavailed CENVAT credit on pre-GST capital goods where the credit is admissible under both the earlier regime and GST, even if no part of that credit was previously availed. The provision does not impose a fifty per cent restriction merely because capital-goods credit was ordinarily availed in instalments. Clerical recording of only one invoice number in TRAN-1, where the entry relates to multiple underlying invoices, requires verification of those invoices rather than automatic denial; credit remains allowable if otherwise in order.

Retrospective cancellation of a supplier's GST registration does not, by itself, establish fictitious supplies, non-receipt of goods, or recipient wrongdoing sufficient to deny input tax credit. Eligibility must be tested independently against statutory conditions, with invoices, transport and stock records, and payment evidence examined; the claimant initially bears the evidentiary burden. Cross-examination is not automatically required where documentary evidence can resolve supply genuineness. A fraud-based tax notice requires foundational material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or intentional suppression; supplier non-existence alone is insufficient. If those elements fail but the notice is timely, it is treated under the statutory non-fraud procedure, requiring fresh determination after hearing.

Section 26 requires a two-stage arrest process: the competent officer must record reasons to believe on material and evidence, and an authorised officer may then execute the arrest. The recorded reasons must be communicated to the proposed arrestee before arrest to permit an effective challenge and pursuit of anticipatory bail. This requirement applies to earlier arrests unless constitutional adjudication is expressly prospective. Producing the reasons before a Magistrate during remand does not replace prior communication. Non-communication makes the arrest unlawful and violates the constitutional protections of personal liberty and information on arrest grounds.

Delayed GST return filing attracts late fee as the specified consequence. A general penalty under Section 125 of the relevant GST enactments applies only where no other penalty is prescribed for the default. Where late fee has been levied for delayed return filing, imposing an additional general penalty for the same default is unsustainable. The general penalty was therefore set aside, while the liability to pay late fee remained.