GST adjudication orders served solely through the common portal may not amount to constructive notice where the Department knows that the registered person has ceased manufacturing. Although prescribed service modes offer a choice, that choice must be exercised fairly and reasonably; email, speed post or registered post should also be used in those circumstances. Limitation for a statutory appeal begins when the person obtains knowledge of the order, rather than on portal upload alone. The delay was condoned, the appellate refusal was set aside, and the appeal was restored for merits adjudication, with directions for non-portal communication of the resulting order.

Input tax credit reversal on stock transfers requires verification of reconciliations, Form WW and Chartered Accountant certification supporting inter-State purchase claims. Annexures supplied in replies, appeal materials and fuller reconciliation may constitute supporting records. A reversal cannot rest on an objection, such as lack of proof of manufacture outside the State, that was absent from the show-cause notices. The input tax credit reversal issue was remanded for fresh verification after hearing the assessee, who may provide additional particulars; merits remained undecided.

Service of a statutory show cause notice under section 73 is mandatory; the notice must state the reasons for initiating proceedings. Rule 142 requires the statutory notice to be accompanied by a prescribed summary, but the summary cannot substitute for service of the notice itself. Where only the summary was served, the mandatory notice procedure was not complied with. The summary notice and assessment founded solely on it were quashed, while the competent authority retained liberty to issue a fresh statutory notice with its summary and proceed in accordance with law.

GST appellate appeal registration requires copies of the show cause notice and order-in-original, together with proof of the prescribed pre-deposit. Where these mandatory documents are absent, pre-deposit proof is neither uploaded nor reflected on the portal, and notified defects remain uncured despite repeated opportunities, the Registrar may decline registration under the prescribed procedure. The appeal form was rejected for failure to furnish the required documents and pre-deposit proof or respond to the defect notices.

GST extended recovery proceedings for short payment of tax on outward supplies require foundational facts showing that the short payment resulted from fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression. A show cause notice must disclose those facts and demonstrate application of mind; merely reproducing statutory expressions is insufficient. Where the notice neither states foundational facts nor alleges fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression, invocation of the extended recovery provision is invalid. Consequential proceedings and orders founded on such a defective notice are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

GAAR requires the Revenue to establish an arrangement, a main purpose of obtaining a tax benefit, and at least one further statutory condition before treating a transaction as an impermissible avoidance arrangement. Arm's-length purchases and sales of listed shares through a recognised stock exchange at market prices, without taxpayer control over counterparties or market outcomes, lack the concerted or pre-ordained steps required for that characterisation. A commercially sustained short-term capital loss is not a tax benefit merely because it may be set off against long-term capital gains; the set-off forms part of annual-income computation. The GAAR directions were set aside and the loss set-off was allowed.

Provision for contributions to an approved gratuity fund is deductible under the specific exception in section 40A(7)(b), notwithstanding the general actual-payment requirement in section 43B. The provisions are reconciled because section 43B does not specifically address approved gratuity funds. On that basis, the gratuity-deduction claim was allowable. The Tribunal's conclusion that revision under section 263 could not be invoked for the deduction was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed with the substantial questions answered for the assessee.

Rectification under section 154 is unavailable for issues requiring debate or interpretation, because such matters are not mistakes apparent from the record. Inclusion of surcharge and education cess in minimum alternate tax credit was treated as debatable. Consequently, reducing credit previously allowed through rectification exceeded the permissible scope of section 154, and restoration of the credit was sustained.

FIR allegations against a chartered accountant for filing an audit report in an incorrect form and submitting a revised report after delay did not, even if accepted, disclose criminal breach of trust, cheating, extortion, or any other cognizable offence. The initial Form 10BB was filed pursuant to the institution's memorandum, and reasons were provided for the delayed electronic filing of revised Form 10B. Criminal proceedings lacking allegations that constitute a cognizable offence amount to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed. The FIR and consequential criminal proceedings were quashed, and the chartered accountant was discharged.

Gains from share and securities investments made through a Portfolio Management Service retain capital-gains treatment where the underlying transactions remain investments rather than active trading. A Portfolio Management Service is a professionally managed investment facility, and the portfolio manager's execution of purchase and sale transactions does not, by itself, convert the investor's holdings into trading stock or the resulting gains into business income. The High Court concluded that short-term gains arising through such managed portfolios, along with other share and securities gains, were taxable as capital gains, answering the legal questions in favour of the taxpayers.

Verification of software-customisation expenditure is required to establish its nature and source, accounting treatment, genuineness and eligibility for capitalisation as an intangible asset. Differences between book entries and assessment-stage documents alone do not resolve these questions; supporting books, invoices, agreements, ledgers, payment records and salary details require examination. Depreciation on any qualifying intangible asset follows consequentially. Assessment of income also requires comparison of the original and revised returns, return-processing intimation, computation, tax audit report and assessment order to determine whether expenses were already disallowed and whether duplication occurred. The disputed matters were restored for fresh examination after reasonable opportunity.

Cash contributions by a partner towards a firm's capital cannot be aggregated under the cash-receipt restriction merely because they were made by the same person for the same purpose. Aggregation is permitted only where receipts fall within a specified category, including receipt in respect of a single transaction or one event or occasion. Contributions received on separate dates, each below the prescribed threshold, were not shown to relate to a single transaction, event or occasion. The penalty for the alleged contravention was therefore cancelled.

Charitable-trust exemption cannot be denied solely because an original Form No. 10B reported remuneration to a founder trustee when a revised report claims a clerical error. Neither report is conclusive merely because of its contents or the timing of revision after scrutiny. The inquiry must establish whether remuneration was actually paid or credited to a specified person and, if so, whether it was reasonable for services rendered, using books, financial statements, ledgers, bank and payment records, payroll and TDS particulars, and the auditor's explanation. Founder or trustee status alone does not establish a violation. The disputed addition and exemption claim were restored for fresh evidence-based determination.

Article 12(5)(c) of the India-USA DTAA, operating through a non-obstante clause, excludes consideration for teaching in or by educational institutions from Fees for Included Services, even if the service could otherwise fall within Article 12(4). Technical or professionally oriented courses, including customised instruction for corporate employees, retain their educational character where knowledge is imparted to participants. Non-credit status, delivery outside a campus, and an audience of working professionals do not by themselves alter that character. Equalisation Levy treatment under a separate fiscal regime does not change the treaty character of educational-course receipts.

Bank-account continuity after dissolution did not by itself establish that a dissolved partnership continued or that subsequent transactions belonged to it. The dissolution deed, the former partner's assumption of assets and liabilities, bank records, inclusion in the former partner's individual return, and remand verification showed that the transactions belonged to the former partner; additions against the firm were deleted. Because the firm was dissolved and had no assessable income, no return was required and the penalty for non-filing was deleted.

Under the India-Switzerland DTAA, consideration for an outright assignment of Indian trademark rights is distinguished from consideration for use or the right to use intellectual property. Transfer of all right, title, interest, goodwill, registration and enforcement rights, coupled with extinguishment of the transferor's Indian rights, characterises alienation of ownership; territorial, product and brand-protection covenants do not alone retain proprietorship. Lump-sum consideration not linked to future profits, productivity or use supports capital-gains treatment. Where the rights are not business property of an Indian permanent establishment, gains fall under Article 13(6) and are taxable only in Switzerland rather than as royalty under Article 12. The royalty addition was deleted.

Capital-gains computation on the sale of unquoted shares requires reliable evidence establishing the cost of acquisition attributable to the specific shares transferred. A claim that sale consideration merely recovers acquisition cost must be supported by primary acquisition and transfer records, together with a substantiated scrip-wise or company-wise reconciliation linking the shares sold to their cost. Ledger extracts and unsupported reconciliation entries do not establish that cost. Purchaser identity or creditworthiness is irrelevant where the addition concerns capital gains rather than unexplained credits. Failure to substantiate acquisition cost permits the Assessing Officer's long-term capital-gain computation to stand.

Standard cybersecurity software licence or subscription receipts, including related support, are not royalty or fees for technical services where they do not differ materially from offerings treated under the principles governing software transactions. Under the India-Ireland DTAA, treaty language takes its ordinary contextual meaning, and domestic definitions or indirect-transfer deeming rules apply only where a genuine treaty ambiguity exists. Transfer of ownership in a United States entity that indirectly holds an Indian company is not an alienation of shares in an Indian resident company. The resulting capital gains fall under the treaty's residuary provision and are taxable only in Ireland; a see-through approach or MLI invocation requires evidence of treaty abuse.

Equity-oriented mutual-fund units are legally distinct from shares; their sale or redemption therefore does not constitute alienation of shares under Article 13(3A) of the India-Mauritius DTAA. Capital gains from redemption of those units fall outside that provision. A Tax Residence Certificate is an eligibility condition for treaty relief but is not conclusive where the anti-abuse framework applies. Revenue may examine commercial substance, management, decision-making and potential treaty abuse, while bearing the burden of proving abuse. As the taxpayer lacked an effective opportunity to address the material and proposed inquiry, treaty entitlement and applicability of Article 27A require fresh adjudication consistent with natural justice.

Available for Sale bank securities valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower, under applicable RBI guidelines and ICDS VIII B permit recognition of mark-to-market loss. The sector-specific accounting rules for banks prevail over a general clarification on mark-to-market losses, making the claimed loss deductible. Deduction for a provision for bad and doubtful debts is not confined to advances already classified as bad or doubtful; the statutory computation does not distinguish between standard assets and impaired assets. Both disallowances were deleted and the claims were allowed.