Cross-examination must be afforded where an assessing authority treats third-party statements as credible and relies on them directly to deny an input tax credit claim. Although cross-examination is not an absolute right in every assessment, natural justice and fair-hearing requirements require an effective opportunity to rebut materially relied-upon statements. Denial of that opportunity vitiates the assessment and requires fresh adjudication after the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the relevant individuals.

Inverted-duty GST refund eligibility for cotton-yarn manufacturing requires fresh factual verification of the inputs purchased, manufacturing activity, output-tax payment and accumulated input tax credit. Rejection based on Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST is unsustainable where that circular has already been quashed in relation to the same refund issue. The Department should also maintain consistency where comparable refund claims have been sanctioned. Refund must be granted once the factual requirements for eligibility under the inverted duty structure are established.

Refund eligibility under an alleged inverted duty structure required verification of whether outward supplies comprised cotton yarn manufactured using cotton fibre, packing material and consumables, or cotton yarn traded without manufacturing. Supporting records had to establish the actual nature of the claimant's activities before refund entitlement could be determined. The impugned orders were quashed, and the refund claims were remitted for fresh determination on that factual verification.

Amended Section 16(4) of the GST enactments, effective from 27 September 2024, regularises belated availment of input tax credit. Credit eligibility remains subject to compliance with all other applicable statutory and rule-based conditions. Demands concerning delayed input tax credit availment require fresh adjudication under the amended provision. Fresh adjudication of demands unrelated to Section 16(4) is conditional on payment of 50% of the disputed tax in cash and submission of a reply supported by relevant material.

Cancelled GST registration may be restored where the registered person satisfies the applicable restoration requirements. A penalty proceeding for failure to furnish required information, where no reply to the show-cause notice was filed and hearing opportunities were not used, may undergo fresh adjudication after a 10% cash deposit of the disputed tax and submission of a reply supported by documents. The existing penalty order is to operate as an addendum to the show-cause notice, requiring a merits determination after the prescribed compliance.

CGST assessment orders that are appealable under the statutory appellate mechanism should be challenged through that remedy. Taxpayers may raise all objections to an assessment order in the statutory appeal, where the contentions are to be considered and decided in accordance with law within a reasonable period. The material addresses a challenge to an assessment order and identifies the statutory appeal route as the available legal remedy, with pending applications to be disposed of accordingly.

Prima facie breach of NDPS search-and-seizure safeguards arose because the appraisal letter inaccurately communicated the option of a search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Identification of alleged contraband without required testing, followed by mixing material from four separate pouches before weighing, further indicated a vitiated seizure process. These observations were limited to the bail stage and did not determine the prosecution's merits; regular bail was granted.

Section 50 personal-search safeguards require clear communication of the statutory choice to be taken before the nearest Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Presenting only a qualified option to be searched before a Magistrate may amount to prima facie non-compliance. Sampling safeguards also require the prescribed sample quantity and certification in Form No. 5. Samples below the prescribed quantity and a non-prescribed certificate may weaken the prosecution seizure case at the bail stage, supporting regular bail without determining guilt on the merits.

Pre-sampling mixing of contraband recovered from separately seized packets conflicts with prescribed seizure and sampling safeguards. Separate packages or containers must be individually weighed and serially numbered, and samples must be drawn from each packet or container. Where contents are identical, representative quantities may be combined only through the prescribed inventory and sampling process in a Magistrate's presence. Immediate mixing at the seizure stage is prima facie impermissible and constitutes a substantive breach rather than a minor procedural irregularity. Non-compliance with mandatory seizure and sampling requirements may undermine the prosecution case and support entitlement to regular bail.

Separate memoranda of appeal are required where a common judgment both dismisses a suit and allows a counterclaim. Failure to file separate memoranda is curable if the composite appeal was timely and otherwise free of serious defects. Procedural rules allow dispensation with a duplicate judgment copy in specified circumstances. Courts should permit rectification before technical rejection, preserving determination on merits.

Cash gifts from the assessee's mother and brother were not unexplained cash credits where donor identities, PANs, income-tax returns, regular income sources, and evidence of advances under agricultural-land sale agreements established the nature and source of the gifts. For assessment year 2018-19, Section 68 did not require the assessee to establish the source of the donors' funds, because that requirement applied only from assessment year 2022-23. The gifts were therefore satisfactorily explained and could not be assessed under Section 68.

Section 69 applies only to unexplained investments made during the relevant year; deposits evidenced as pre-existing opening balances fall outside its scope. Financial extracts drawn from accounting records seized during search are not fresh additional evidence under Rule 46A where the underlying records were already available and the figures remain undisputed. Section 69C requires proof that expenditure was actually incurred, not merely that liabilities were recorded as payable. Interest on unrecoverable loan principal is hypothetical rather than real income, and income must be assessed in the hands of the person or entity to whom it belongs.

Additional evidence comprising shipping and banking records may be admitted where necessary for proper determination of unexplained Customs-duty expenditure and capital-credit additions; those additions require fresh factual adjudication after hearing. Interest on fixed deposits pledged as margin money for business credit facilities has a direct business nexus and is assessable as business income rather than income from other sources. Export sale proceeds and export incentives cannot be treated as bogus or unexplained solely on investigative show-cause material where export and banking evidence supports the transactions. Overseas customer advances received through banking channels are not unexplained credits once party particulars and receipt evidence discharge the taxpayer's burden, absent Revenue rebuttal or available verification.

Cash deposits made during demonetisation are not unexplained cash credits where recorded cash sales are supported by the cash book, sales ledger, stock register, VAT returns and audited accounts, and sufficient cash balances existed on the demonetisation date. Where sales and book results remain unrejected and revenue identifies no discrepancy between sales and VAT returns, assumptions about cash retention or business practices cannot displace documentary evidence. Cash sales of a newly commenced unit cannot be benchmarked against a prior year in which it was not operating.

Unexplained cash-credit addition under section 68 depended solely on directors' statements admitting accommodation entries. Statements unaccompanied by relevant corroborative evidence were insufficient to sustain the addition. The earlier larger addition had been deleted in principle during remand proceedings. The remaining disputed addition was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee, removing the residual section 68 liability.

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act requires proof of a creditor's identity, transaction genuineness and creditworthiness. PAN details, confirmation, bank records and financial particulars may discharge the assessee's initial burden; the evidentiary burden then shifts to the Revenue to produce contrary material before an unsecured loan can be treated as unexplained cash credit. Agricultural receipts supported by labour-payment records, input bills and sale bills require factual verification where those materials were not examined by lower authorities. Such evidence may be admitted under Rule 29, with de novo examination needed to reconcile claimed receipts and computed income consistently with natural justice.

Rule 11UA(2) permits valuation of unquoted equity shares through either the prescribed formula-based method or the Discounted Cash Flow method. Where the Discounted Cash Flow method is validly selected, valuation scrutiny, including independent revaluation, must remain within that methodology; the Net Asset Value method cannot replace it. Projections, discount rates and terminal values must be assessed using material available on the valuation date rather than subsequent actual results, and the assessee must substantiate valuation inputs. Earlier non-addition or subsequent return processing without scrutiny does not establish consistency protection against examination of share-premium valuation.

Registration of a charitable trust under section 12A(1)(ac) cannot be refused solely on an alleged claim of exemption under section 11 where the relevant returns demonstrate that no such claim was made. Exemption claimed under section 10(23C)(iiiad), coupled with the furnishing of required records, operation of educational institutions and other charitable activities, supported eligibility for registration. The activities fell within charitable purpose, and their genuineness was not doubted; registration was consequently to be granted.

Section 270A requires the competent authority to direct, during proceedings under the Income-tax Act, that a person is liable to penalty for under-reporting income. Neither the assessment order nor the consequential order giving effect to the appellate order recorded initiation of penalty proceedings. An appellate observation that proceedings had been initiated was factually incorrect. In these circumstances, the penalty order was void ab initio and the penalty was liable to be deleted.

Reassessment notices for assessment years up to 2021-22 remain governed by the earlier limitation period under the first proviso to section 149(1)(b); accordingly, a notice for AY 2015-16 issued after expiry of its six-year period is time-barred, rendering the consequential section 147 assessment unsustainable. Where a notice for AY 2016-17 is issued more than three years after the end of that year, section 151(ii) requires prior approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or another specified authority. Approval from a Principal Commissioner is insufficient, invalidating the reassessment and consequential assessment.