Best-judgment assessment may be used where books of account are not maintained and required information is not furnished, but business-profit estimation must remain fair, unbiased and rational. Profit rates cannot be adopted capriciously or without supporting facts; they should be based on the taxpayer's past history or comparable businesses in the same line of trade. Where the adopted rates lack such a disclosed basis, the profit estimation requires reconsideration. Net profit must be freshly determined with reference to relevant comparables or past results after affording the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.

Contractual recruitment and training services provided to an insurer are business support activities, rather than insurance agency, commission, brokerage, or insurance-product canvassing. Training that uses knowledge or skill does not become a professional service unless it falls within a profession specified under section 44AA or constitutes technical consultancy. Receipts from such activities are therefore business receipts, not professional receipts, and may be computed under section 44AD if its statutory conditions are met; applying section 44ADA is inapposite and the related addition was deleted.

Management fees earned through a Cairo hotel permanent establishment were treated as business profits taxable in UAR and therefore exempt in India under the India-UAR DTAA, with inclusion permitted only for rate purposes. Consistent acceptance of the exemption in earlier and later years supported deletion of the related addition. Indirect common expenditure attributable to exempt dividends remained disallowable only to the extent computed under the consistently accepted income-distribution methodology. For MAT purposes, provision for wealth tax was not an adjustment to book profit because the applicable adjustment covers only income-tax. Reversal of provision for diminution in investment value also did not warrant a book-profit adjustment where the provision had already been added back when created.

Provisional attachment of immovable property was sustained where the property was acquired during the disclosed offence period and found to be directly derived from narcotics-related proceeds of crime. The absence of documentary proof of lawful income, unexplained banking transactions, and admissions concerning use of narcotics-sale proceeds supported the required nexus with the scheduled offence. Statements made under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were treated as constitutionally valid and reliable where recorded under summons, written by the individuals concerned, and corroborated by investigative material. The allegation of duress was rejected, and the appeal challenging the attachment was dismissed.

Pre-arrest bail was considered unavailable for alleged misappropriation of funds entrusted for GST payments and alleged use of fabricated GST payment documents. Substantial sums received for GST payment were allegedly not deposited through the GST portal, while forged forms were allegedly produced to create a false appearance of payment. The seriousness of the alleged conduct, involving entrusted funds and fabricated GST records, was treated as sufficient to deny anticipatory protection.

Statutory GST appeals, including delayed appeals accompanied by condonation applications, require quasi-judicial consideration by the Appellate Authority. Mechanical rejection by an office or through a system-generated acknowledgement, without a hearing and a reasoned speaking order, is unsustainable. Reasons demonstrate application of mind, permit the aggrieved party to challenge the decision, and enable judicial review. Rejected appeals were restored for fresh consideration with any condonation applications after hearing, while the challenge to the circular remained open.

Section 107 confines the First Appellate Authority's power to condone delay in GST registration-cancellation appeals to the prescribed outer limit; condonation beyond that limit, and the resulting allowance of taxpayers' appeals, is without jurisdiction. Fact-specific relief granted by a High Court under Article 226 cannot enlarge the statutory appellate authority's jurisdiction. However, after the Department implemented the appellate orders by restoring GST registrations, it altered the taxpayers' legal and commercial position. As no effective or workable relief could then follow from annulling those orders, the departmental appeals were infructuous and not maintainable.

Assignment of user rights in intangible assets, without a lump-sum price, fixed term, fixed periodic payment, or reversion provision, was characterised as a licence rather than an ownership transfer; variable profit-linked payments were licence fees, and later consideration was capital sale proceeds. Sale proceeds of self-generated trade marks and brands were not taxable as long-term capital gains where the acquisition cost was unascertainable and no retrospective nil-cost deeming rule applied. An arbitral award remained binding between its parties absent an evidential basis to impugn it. Deletion of the underlying addition eliminated the basis for concealment penalty.

Foreign contribution registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 does not create a vested or absolute right to receive foreign contributions. Registration depends on the competent authority's discretionary assessment, reviewable for perversity, disregard of relevant material, or non-application of mind. Applicants must truthfully disclose their organisational character: an organisation professing Zen Buddhist philosophy is religious and cannot describe itself as non-religious. Religious organisations may apply, but must make full and accurate disclosures; organisations involved in conversion from one faith to another must be denied registration. Appeals from refusal of registration, being incapable of monetary valuation and treated as appeals from original decrees, fall for consideration by a Division Bench.

Section 127 transfers for centralised assessment require recorded and communicated reasons, and transfers between officers subordinate to different Commissioners require the prescribed inter-Commissioner agreement; an opportunity of hearing depends on feasibility. Taxpayers who requested centralisation, filed returns, responded to notices and participated before the transferee officer were treated as having acquiesced in the transferred jurisdiction, preventing a later technical challenge to the transfer. Challenges to consequential assessment orders were not entertained in writ jurisdiction where an effective statutory appellate remedy was available. The writ petitions challenging the transfers and assessments were dismissed.

Section 245H's first proviso denies Settlement Commission immunity where prosecution was instituted before receipt of the settlement application. Accordingly, a settlement order cannot extend immunity to an already filed complaint concerning false statements in an income-tax search, including undisclosed bank lockers. Inherent jurisdiction may nevertheless be invoked independently to examine whether continuing a long-pending prosecution after final settlement would abuse process. Where settlement remains unchallenged, payment directions have been complied with, and continued proceedings serve no practical purpose, the criminal complaint and consequential orders may be quashed.

Section 43B disallowance of interest liability converted into preference shares under a corporate debt restructuring arrangement was deleted. A High Court judgment affirming the relevant Tribunal approach retained its precedential value despite the Revenue's pending Special Leave Petition. Mere pendency of a challenge before the Supreme Court does not displace that judgment unless it is stayed, reversed, or modified. The Tribunal therefore sustained deletion of the disallowance and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Enhanced penalty for misreporting under section 270A requires proof from the assessee's own conduct that it misrepresented or suppressed facts or furnished false particulars. Mere disallowance of a deduction for political contributions under section 80GGC does not establish misreporting where the claim and banking-channel payment were disclosed and not disproved. General investigation findings concerning the recipient political party cannot replace an independent penalty inquiry. The penalty for alleged misreporting was deleted.

Disallowance of a cost of improvement claimed in calculating short-term capital gains, merely because contractor-level documentation is incomplete, does not by itself establish misrepresentation or suppression. Where the improvement work is undisputed and the expenditure has been disclosed in the return and supporting particulars, the income cannot be treated as underreported as a consequence of misreporting. Contractor-level evidence may be unjustified for incidental capital expenditure outside the taxpayer's regular business. The penalty for underreported income under section 270A was quashed.

Software-development comparability turned on material differences in turnover, scalability, brand value, assets employed and functional, asset and risk profile. Mindtree Ltd., LTI Mindtree Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services, having substantially greater scale and brand value than a captive service provider, were excluded from the comparable set. Interest on delayed receivables arising from foreign-currency invoices required benchmarking using LIBOR plus an appropriate mark-up, or another appropriate rate, rather than SBI rates. The resulting treatment required fresh benchmarking of interest on those receivables.

Section 50C applies to transfers of tenancy rights in land or buildings because a capital asset may be held through any legally recognised mode, not only ownership. Differences between leasehold and tenancy interests may affect the nature or value of the transferred interest but do not, by themselves, remove the transfer from the stamp-valuation framework. Where the stamp-value adopted exceeds the claimed fair market value, section 50C(2) provides for examination of the statutory conditions for a valuation reference. The Assessing Officer must consider the taxpayer's claim and, where conditions are met, obtain a Departmental Valuation Officer's valuation before determining the full value of consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Surviving limitation following treatment of an original reassessment notice as a preliminary-enquiry notice is confined to the unexpired time remaining on the original notice's terminal date. After applicable statutory exclusions, the preliminary order and fresh reassessment notice must be issued within that balance, subject to the minimum seven-day period where applicable. Supplying material again does not restart limitation where it was already provided and answered. A fresh notice issued after expiry is time-barred and cannot create reassessment jurisdiction; consequential proceedings fail.

Under the mercantile system, an accrued but unpaid obligation to share overflow profit with investors remains deductible where its nature and accrual are undisputed. Lack of funds at the close of the previous year does not by itself make the liability contingent. The obligation arose under the investor arrangement, had neither ceased nor failed to accrue, and was outside payment-based liabilities governed by section 43B. Its subsequent discharge further supported the conclusion that it was not contingent. Accordingly, disallowance of the accrued outstanding liability was unsustainable.

Unaccounted mobile-accessories turnover may be assessed only for its profit element where purchases and business expenditure are inherent but exact computation is unavailable; the profit addition was limited to 5%, subject to removing overlap. Separate additions for cash salaries and supplier payments were treated as duplicative once trading profit was estimated. Property-booking cash additions required purchaser-specific proof of actual payment; uncorroborated booking sheets, cancellations and lack of recipient confirmation did not establish investment. Cash at company premises was not attributable individually where accounted company cash and business realisations explained it. Physical stock was limited to 5% of the valuation difference after excluding book stock and duplicated sales profit.

Amended section 115UB deems non-business losses accumulated by an investment fund up to 31 March 2019 to be losses of unit holders holding units on that date. Unit holders may therefore carry forward their proportionate attributed share under the amended regime, rather than the fund retaining those losses. The disallowance of such carry-forward was set aside, subject to verification of the unit holder's factual entitlement and the losses attributed by the investment fund.