Where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax is not established in proceedings initiated under section 74, tax must be redetermined as though the notice were issued under section 73(1). Pending GST-system remand functionality, the appellate remand must be issued manually in APL-04. The assessing officer must issue a fresh section 73 order through standalone DRC-07 and close or nullify the earlier section 74 order through DRC-08 for zero amount, with appropriate remarks.

CBDT's revised monetary threshold for pursuing High Court tax appeals resulted in dismissal of the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect fell below the prescribed limit. The underlying dispute concerned deletion of a disallowance for payments potentially taxable in India, but the substantive question on the nature and taxability of those payments remained open. The Revenue may seek restoration if the tax effect is subsequently shown to exceed the applicable threshold.

Finality of proceedings prevents a writ challenge to demand notices that merely implement an underlying order where the challenge to that order was unconditionally withdrawn before the Supreme Court without liberty to pursue further remedies. Because withdrawal caused the underlying order to attain finality, consequential notices supplied no independent ground to reopen the concluded dispute. The writ challenge to those notices was therefore unavailable.

Rule 46A permits an appellate authority to admit additional evidence only in specified circumstances and requires recorded written reasons for admission and a reasonable opportunity for the Assessing Officer to examine, cross-examine, or rebut that evidence. These safeguards give effect to natural justice. The Assessing Officer's presence at an appellate hearing neither proves consent to admission of additional evidence nor cures non-compliance with Rule 46A. Appellate deletions based on such evidence may therefore be set aside and remitted for fresh decision after Rule 46A compliance.

Departmental appeal permits a broad review of an adjudication order on legality and propriety after examination of the relevant records. The Commissioner may direct a subordinate officer to approach the Appellate Authority on specified issues within the prescribed period. Revision is narrower and applies only where an order is erroneous, prejudicial to revenue, and affected by illegality, impropriety, overlooked material facts, or an audit observation. Before revision, the authority must examine records, ensure no appeal is pending, comply with limitation requirements, and provide an opportunity of hearing.

Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 restrict judicial review of arbitral awards to statutory grounds for annulment and do not permit appellate reassessment of merits. Errors of fact, an alleged misinterpretation of contractual terms, or the availability of another view do not justify interference where the tribunal has adopted a plausible interpretation within its jurisdiction. The public-policy ground requires illegality affecting the root of the matter or fundamental unfairness. Section 37 review is narrower and does not allow reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the court's contractual interpretation. A plausible contractual interpretation by the tribunal remains binding absent a statutory ground for interference.

GST exemption for catering services provided to educational institutions covers serving of food, including mid-day meals, to pre-schools and schools. Anganwadis providing pre-school non-formal education are included as educational institutions. Food-serving and catering services supplied to Anganwadis are exempt from GST irrespective of whether they are financed through government grants or corporate donations.

Annual return filing exemption applies from financial year 2024-25 onwards to registered persons whose aggregate turnover in a financial year does not exceed two crore rupees. Eligibility depends on aggregate turnover for the relevant financial year, and qualifying registered persons are not required to furnish an annual return for that year.

Pre-conviction detention is non-punitive and serves to secure the accused's attendance at trial. In an alleged fraudulent input tax credit prosecution involving passing credit without inward supply, investigation had concluded and the complaint was filed, while charges remained unframed and trial completion was unlikely within a reasonable period. In the absence of criminal antecedents or material indicating absconding, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or subversion of justice, continued custody was not warranted. Conditional bail was granted, requiring trial attendance and non-interference with evidence or witnesses.

Section 128A amnesty relief remains available where the full tax amount is credited to the Electronic Cash Ledger within the prescribed period, even if FORM GST DRC-03A for appropriation to the Electronic Liability Register is filed later. Rule 164(2) requires appropriation through the Electronic Liability Register, but subsequent compliance with that requirement can cure the delay where timely deposit establishes bona fides. The proviso to Rule 88B(1), although not directly applicable, recognises the relevance of the Electronic Cash Ledger credit date. A minor procedural delay should not defeat settlement benefits where payment was timely deposited and later appropriated, including waiver of interest and penalty and issuance of GST SPL-05 where the amount is sufficient.

GST on rental income from hotel accommodation hired by the Department of Home requires the affected hotel operators to obtain GST registration and deposit the applicable tax. GST must be paid by the Department of Home in addition to the agreed rental amount, rather than being treated as part of the rent payable for the accommodation. This treatment follows the approach applied to comparable hotel-accommodation rental arrangements involving the Department of Home.

Provisional reversal of input tax credit in Table 4(B)(2) of GSTR-3B, unlike reporting output-tax liability in Table 3.1, does not by itself constitute self-assessed GST liability. The entry's statutory character depends on its nature, applicable provisions and contemporaneous material. Where the reversal was described as provisional and no liability had been determined or admitted, a pending stock-shortage investigation could not establish liability or justify retention of GST. A later demand under separate appeal could not retrospectively validate refund rejection. Refund eligibility remained subject to verification of applicable statutory conditions, and rejection could not rest solely on voluntary reversal or a pending investigation.

Reassessment after the applicable three-year period requires sanction from the authority specified by the law governing the elapsed period. Time-exclusion and adjustment provisos to the reassessment limitation provision did not alter the relevant period under clause (a), and the later proviso to section 151 changed a substantive jurisdictional safeguard prospectively rather than validating prior defective approval. Sanction by the Principal Commissioner where approval by the higher specified authority was required rendered the reassessment notice and order jurisdictionally invalid. Third-party survey material, including loose papers and statements, could not support reassessment without a prima facie live link to the taxpayer or alleged escaped income; the notice and order were quashed.

Section 250(6A) reflects a legislative expectation that income-tax first appeals should ordinarily be heard and decided within one year from the end of the relevant financial year. The qualification "where it is possible" does not permit prolonged pendency that defeats this objective. An appeal remaining undecided beyond that period constitutes genuine hardship within the CBDT guidelines. Expeditious disposal of the pending first appeal was directed within three months.

Sales receipts duly recorded in the books, supported by sales details and profit disclosures, and accepted as income cannot also be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal's undisputed factual finding on those matters supported deletion of the cash-credit addition. As the alleged commission expenditure addition was consequential to that unsustainable cash-credit addition, it lacked an independent basis. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

Revision of an assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue cannot rest solely on the assessment order's failure to record reasons for accepting explanations. Where the Assessing Officer considered written submissions on unutilised CENVAT credit, excise-duty refund and additional depreciation on windmills, acceptance of those explanations does not make the assessment erroneous or prejudicial. The revisional order was annulled and the Revenue's appeal dismissed.

Rectification jurisdiction under section 254(2) is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit reconsideration of merits or review of an earlier order. The Tribunal rejected the rectification application on distributor confirmations and cash-receipt patterns that were neither raised in the application nor relied upon in the original remand order. That rejection exceeded the statutory scope of rectification. The rejection order was quashed, and the matters were remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.

Charitable registration under section 12AB depends on the trust's objects viewed as a whole. Objects concerning members' interests and welfare did not, when read with the principal objects, establish that a real estate development society existed merely to protect members' business interests. The objects were directed to the benefit of the public at large rather than religious activity. Registration could not be denied solely on those grounds; de novo consideration was sustained and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Searches conducted before 1 April 2021 require assessment or reassessment through the search-assessment framework under sections 153A/153C. Incriminating material found in such a search cannot subsequently support reassessment jurisdiction under sections 147/148 or proceedings under section 148A. Those reassessment provisions remain available only where information is independently obtained after the search and statutory conditions are met. Reassessment notices and orders founded solely on pre-1 April 2021 search material are therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Condonation of delay in filing a first income-tax appeal requires a bona fide, reasonable explanation supported by material; inaction, negligence and lack of diligence defeat sufficient cause. Counsel's asserted illness, particularly after resuming work, remained unsubstantiated, while the assessee's non-cooperation during assessment supported the finding that counsel was not solely responsible for the delay. Concurrent factual findings refusing condonation were not perverse and could not be reappreciated where no substantial question of law arose. The delayed appeal was therefore not entertained and was dismissed.