Advertisement, publicity and sales-promotion outlays incurred recurrently to sustain business in a competitive market were treated as revenue expenditure because they neither acquired a capital asset nor produced an enduring benefit. Consistent acceptance of comparable expenditure as revenue in preceding and succeeding years, including scrutiny assessments, supported application of consistency where no material factual change existed. ITAT therefore allowed the expenditure in full and deleted its capitalisation-based disallowance.

Penalty proceedings under Section 270A require a notice under Section 274 to identify the precise statutory limb or sub-clause forming the proposed charge. A standard-form notice that omits this material specification indicates lack of application of mind and cannot validly support a consequential penalty. Consistency, judicial discipline and uniformity also require materially identical donation claims involving the same political entity and assessment period to receive equivalent treatment, unless a rational distinction exists. Denial of an exclusion allowed in parallel proceedings on identical facts makes the penalty unsustainable. The penalty proceedings and consequential penalty were therefore quashed and deleted.

Taxability of a stamp-value differential on purchase of immovable property under Section 56(2)(x) depended on an increase in valuation between payment of registration charges and execution of the registered sale deed. Additional registration charges were paid following that increase. Before the revised valuation, the difference between the purchase consideration and stamp-duty value fell within the 10% tolerance limit. The addition, made without a valuation-officer reference, was treated as unsustainable and directed to be deleted.

Advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure paid to third parties does not constitute an international transaction merely because it may benefit an associated enterprise. A transfer-pricing adjustment under Chapter X requires the Revenue to establish an agreement, arrangement, or understanding between associated enterprises concerning the AMP expenditure. The bright line test cannot replace proof of an underlying international transaction. In the absence of such evidence, AMP expenditure is outside transfer-pricing adjustment and no arm's-length-price determination is permissible.

Section 40A(3) applies only where an assessee incurs expenditure and makes payment outside the prescribed modes. Loan funds received from finance companies and passed to identified borrowers by a vehicle-finance facilitator do not constitute its business expenditure where only commission or brokerage is recognised as income. Finance records, payment advices, agreements and confirmations may establish the facilitator's intermediary role. Routing loan funds through its bank account does not, by itself, convert onward disbursements into expenditure incurred by the facilitator; consequently, disallowance under section 40A(3) does not apply.

Section 153B(1) required search-related assessments to be completed within twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the final search authorisation was executed. Where the final authorisation was executed in financial year 2020-21, the statutory deadline was 31 March 2022. The COVID-19 limitation extension applied only to judicial and quasi-judicial matters, including appeals, suits and petitions, and did not extend deadlines for original assessment proceedings. Assessments completed on 11 April 2022 were consequently beyond limitation and invalid.

Completed, unabated assessments may be subjected to additions under Section 153A only where the search yields incriminating material relating to the assessee; absent such material, the additions are unsustainable. Reassessment requires recorded reasons founded on correct material facts and genuine application of mind; an erroneous factual premise prevents valid formation of the requisite belief and renders reopening void from inception. A concealment penalty cannot continue where its sole underlying quantum addition has been deleted, because no independent basis remains.

Transfer-pricing comparability requires alignment with Rule 10B, including consideration of turnover, brand value, economies of scale, bargaining power and ownership of intangibles where those factors materially affect profitability. An upper turnover filter may therefore support exclusion of high-turnover software-development comparables that are materially larger and functionally dissimilar. A question concerning comparables that was not raised before the Tribunal does not arise for consideration at the subsequent stage. The exclusion of identified high-turnover comparables remains sustainable on comparability grounds.

Interest under Section 244A(1)(b) applies to refunds arising after an order treating a deductor as an assessee in default is quashed, where the refund falls outside Section 244A(1)(a). Interest runs from the date of payment until the refund date. Section 244A(1B), inserted with effect from 1 April 2017, does not deny interest on a refund processed before its commencement. Retention of money without authority warrants compensatory interest for the period of its use and retention.

Recall application was allowed, restoring the writ petition. The petition was then closed with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings on the same cause of action, including a challenge to Section 147A. Existing protection was continued for 90 days, preserving interim safeguards while permitting a renewed statutory challenge on the same factual basis.

Section 270AA permits determination of an immunity application only after expiry of the statutory appeal period, as grant of immunity is conditional on that expiry and other prescribed requirements. Rejection remains impermissible without a meaningful opportunity of hearing under the proviso to Section 270AA(4). A one-day notice to appear, followed immediately by rejection, does not provide adequate time to produce records and substantiate the immunity claim and breaches principles of natural justice. Immunity applications must therefore be reconsidered after an effective hearing and consideration of submissions and supporting material.

Assessment proceedings under section 153A were challenged because the section 153D approval was allegedly vitiated by total non-application of mind. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its Article 136 jurisdiction to interfere with the High Court order, dismissing the special leave petition and disposing of related interlocutory applications, where applicable.

Composite works-contract services supplied to the Government or a local authority for specified water supply, water treatment, sewerage treatment or disposal infrastructure attracted GST at 12%, comprising 6% CGST and 6% SGST, on 1 June 2022. The concessional rate entry remained operative until its omission took effect on 18 July 2022. Contractual recovery or reimbursement of an increased tax burden from the other contracting party falls outside the matters eligible for an advance ruling under the CGST Act. Consequently, the advance-ruling mechanism cannot determine entitlement to recover additional tax arising from a later rate change.

State Government grants of mineral-extraction rights under Short-Term Permits constitute taxable licensing services for the right to use minerals, classified under SAC 997337. Royalty is contractual consideration for that grant rather than a tax; consequently, GST is payable by the business recipient under the reverse charge mechanism at the applicable rate. Short-Term Permits receive the same GST treatment as quarry and mining leases because the grantor, mineral right and royalty basis are identical. Differences in the permit's area or duration affect tenure only and do not alter the nature of the supply or reverse-charge liability.

The first proviso to Section 98(2) barred consideration of an advance-ruling application because the applicant's supply characterisation-providing transportation vehicles to goods transport agencies-was already pending in enforcement proceedings and had been decided in an earlier comparable-supply order. As the same question of exemption or taxability under the GST enactments underpinned proposed input-tax-credit reversal, classification, exemption and taxability could not be examined on the merits.

Ex-works transfer of title in aircraft supplied for consideration in the course of business constitutes a taxable supply of movable goods under GST. Aircraft manufactured and procured in Gujarat, then supplied ex-works to a government purchaser from Gujarat, remain taxable in India because no applicable exemption covers the supply. Registration is required in Gujarat where taxable outward supplies originate from that State and the supplier's aggregate turnover exceeds the prescribed threshold. The domestic procurement and onward supply therefore form a taxable supply chain with a registration nexus in Gujarat.

Exemption for storage and warehousing of agricultural produce applies only to the outward warehousing service, not to the distinct inward supply of renting non-residential godowns. Godown rent therefore remains taxable as a real estate service even where the premises are used exclusively for exempt agricultural-produce warehousing. Rent charged by registered suppliers is subject to forward charge. From 10 October 2024, renting of non-residential property supplied by an unregistered person is subject to reverse charge for a registered recipient. The applicable rate for such renting is 18%, comprising CGST and SGST in equal shares.

Rule 24(4) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 permits discretionary rejection of an appeal where notified procedural defects remain uncured despite sufficient opportunity. Six hearing opportunities, including before the bench and Registrar, were provided to rectify the defects. The appellant neither appeared nor sought adjournment and uploaded no additional documents to address the defect notice. Continued non-compliance after repeated opportunities may establish lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal and support exercise of the discretionary power.

Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits a person aggrieved by an order under section 107 to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Section 112(2) separately authorises the Tribunal to decline admission where the tax, input tax credit, fine, fee or penalty determined by the impugned order does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. Applying that discretion, the appeal concerning a penalty at the threshold was refused admission.

Net ITC for refunds of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies is confined to credit availed during the relevant refund period. A reversal of compensation-cess credit attributable to earlier tax periods, including residual credit remaining after an earlier refund, does not form part of relevant-period Net ITC and should not reduce it. Administrative guidance on reporting reversals cannot require deduction of every reversal recorded during the refund period irrespective of the period to which the underlying credit relates, as it cannot expand or override the statutory refund formula. The accumulated compensation-cess credit refund is consequently computed without deducting such earlier-period reversals.