GST demand proceedings initiated in the name of a deceased sole proprietor lacked jurisdiction where the authority had been informed of the death during cancellation proceedings and knew that the legal heir had pursued an earlier appeal. Fresh action against the deceased was therefore invalid, notwithstanding allegations of wrongful input tax credit availment. The intimation, show-cause notice and demand order were quashed. The authority retained liberty to initiate proceedings against the legal heir where permissible in law, while the merits of the input tax credit allegations and all contentions concerning such proceedings remained open.

Prospective omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules removed the restriction relied on to reject an IGST refund claim for exports made using Advance Authorisation imports. In the absence of a saving or sunset clause, the omitted restriction could not continue to defeat the claim. The refund rejection was quashed, and the claim was required to be processed within 12 weeks.

GST adjudication concerning a mismatch between input tax credit claimed in Form GSTR-3B and reflected in Form GSTR-2A was reopened after the taxpayer's non-participation following a board change. The adjudication and demand orders were quashed conditionally, requiring timely submission of a reconciliation and supporting transaction documents, together with deposit of 10% of the disputed tax, pending fresh adjudication.

Penalty under section 129 for alleged e-way bill reuse requires cogent, positive evidence of prior transportation or delivery of the same goods; extended document validity and the driver's statement on loading date, without independent corroboration, are insufficient. Matching quantities and descriptions in tax invoices and valid e-way bills supported the recorded movement, while omission of the dispatching premises' GSTIN did not establish unaccounted goods or a fictitious transaction. In the absence of proof of earlier delivery, unloading, return, second loading, or an intent to evade tax, the penalty could not be sustained. The order setting aside the penalty remained in force and the departmental appeal failed.

Transfer of input tax credit in a merger requires examination of the interaction between section 16(2), section 18(3) and rule 41, particularly whether a transferee may directly avail credit reflected against the transferor's GSTIN without using the prescribed transfer mechanism. The issue concerns whether that mechanism is mandatory and whether non-compliance is procedural or substantive. Statutory interpretation of eligibility and transfer requirements constitutes a question of law for purposes of Division Bench jurisdiction under section 109(8), rather than merely a factual dispute. The appeal is to be heard by a Division Bench on merits.

Reassessment jurisdiction for alleged sham mutual-fund transactions requires a reason to believe supported by a rational, live nexus with material specific to the investor. Allegations that a mutual fund manipulated accounting or inflated distributable surplus do not, without prima facie material linking the investor to knowing participation or a fictitious loss claim, establish income escaping assessment. The reassessment order and notice were quashed because the information concerning the fund lacked an assessee-specific correlation.

Reassessment limitation for assessment years commencing on or before 1 April 2021 remains governed by the first proviso to Section 149(1), which preserves the pre-amendment limitation. A post-amendment search cannot by itself invoke the substituted ten-year period. The six-year period under Section 153A covers years immediately preceding the search assessment year, while the ten-year period under Explanation 1 runs from the end of, and includes, the search assessment year. On that computation, A.Y. 2012-13 lay outside both periods, rendering the reassessment notice and consequential proceedings time-barred and quashed.

Reassessment founded solely on material seized during a search of group entities is impermissible where proceedings should have been initiated against another person under the special search-assessment scheme. The Assessing Officer of the searched person must record and transmit a satisfaction note before seized incriminating material may be used against another assessee. Reassessment under sections 147 and 148 requires independently obtained material and cannot rest exclusively on search material. In the absence of a satisfaction note and any independent material, the reassessment notice and order under section 148A(d) were quashed.

Export incentives arising solely from growing, processing and exporting gherkins to an associated enterprise qualify as operating income for determining the arm's length price, notwithstanding their origin in government policy. Their direct nexus with the export business supports inclusion in operating results. For transfer-pricing comparability, enterprises engaged in growing, processing and exporting gherkins are functionally distinct from entities undertaking general food processing. Fresh consideration of comparables is therefore required where the selected companies do not share the tested party's functions, and the remand for that purpose was sustained.

Functional comparability under Rule 10B requires a factual, data-driven assessment of a proposed comparable's business segments, service profile and operating domains. A company engaged in diverse activities, including services, industrial operations and telecom product engineering, may not be comparable to a provider of software development services where those functions are materially dissimilar. The analysis addresses exclusion of such a diversified company from the comparable set for determining a transfer-pricing adjustment.

Section 148A reassessment proceedings require disclosure of the computation, relevant allegations and supporting material before an order is made under Section 148A(3). Treating all bank credits as undisclosed turnover without furnishing the computation, and relying on allegations concerning fund parking, expenses and unsecured loans that were absent from the notice, converts the process into a roving inquiry rather than one based on definite aspects. The Section 148A(3) order, prior approval and Section 148 notice were quashed and remitted for fresh consideration after disclosure of the relied-upon material and a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Reassessment proceedings under sections 148A(3) and 148 require the assessing officer to examine the taxpayer's explanation and supporting records before concluding that reassessment is warranted. Bank credits asserted to be disclosed capital transactions or other non-turnover receipts must be considered, including balance-sheet disclosures. Where those materials are not examined, and no clarification is sought regarding the absence of increased capital or unsecured loans, the conclusion lacks cogent reasons. The reassessment order and consequential notice were quashed, with reconsideration directed after examining the explanation and obtaining any necessary clarification.

Income-tax proceedings do not automatically authorise withholding an assessee's bank accounts. A bank acting solely on an intimation from the Income-tax Department must demonstrate that due process was followed and that a statutory provision or rule authorised the restraint. Where no such proceedings or legal authority were shown, the communication withholding the accounts was set aside and the accounts were directed to be restored as operational. The merits of the underlying income-tax proceedings remained open.

For AY 2020-21, the Multilateral Instrument could not be used, including through its purpose or spirit, to determine a permanent establishment under the India-UK DTAA; Article 5 applicable for that year controlled. Dependent-agent, fixed-place and service PE status required fact-specific examination of contracts and conduct, including order solicitation, negotiation, pricing, credit risk, contractual obligations and performance; an Indian associated enterprise alone was insufficient, and Revenue bore the burden of proof. If a PE is established, profit attribution requires a functions, assets and risks analysis; arm's-length remuneration does not itself resolve PE status, and ad hoc attribution based on prior years is impermissible. PE and a.....

Under-reporting penalty requires assessed income to exceed the income determined on processing the return. Where reassessment accepts the income declared in the original return without any addition or disallowance, no income variation exists to constitute under-reported income and the statutory conditions for penalty are not met. The penalty is therefore unsustainable, the appellate order sustaining it is set aside, and deletion of the penalty follows.

Ad hoc disallowance of business expenditure is unjustified where audited books are not rejected and the Assessing Officer identifies no bogus or unsupported expenditure, particularly when apparent discrepancies arise from incorrect expense nomenclature and revised records remain unchallenged. The business-expenditure disallowance was deleted. Cash-payment disallowance requires verification of whether payments exceeded the prescribed limit to a single recipient and whether business exigency or statutory exceptions apply, including exceptions concerning animal-husbandry produce. The cash-payment issue was remitted for verification and fresh computation without a merits determination.

For computing the ceiling on partners' remuneration under section 40(b), book profit comprises the commercial profits shown in the partnership firm's profit and loss account, rather than only income assessed under the head of business or profession. Interest on FDRs and KVPs included in that account forms part of book profit even where treated as income from other sources. Excluding such interest from book profit is contrary to law, and the resulting disallowance of partners' remuneration is deleted.

Renewal of registration for an educational society turns on whether its objects are charitable and its activities genuinely pursue those objects, not solely on fees charged or incidental surplus. Where educational objects and corresponding activities are undisputed and no surplus is diverted to non-charitable purposes, fee-based operations and surplus do not justify refusal of registration. Delay in filing a renewal application may be condoned where a separate explanation establishes sufficient cause. The delay was condoned and registration was directed to be granted in accordance with the renewal application.

Section 80GGC deduction for a political donation requires the contribution to be genuine; banking-channel payments and donation receipts alone do not establish genuineness. Where investigation material, bank trails, and a known layering arrangement show that a registered unrecognised political party was used to provide accommodation entries, tax authorities may look beyond documents and apply the test of human probabilities to determine the transaction's real nature. A purported donation found to be an accommodation entry is not eligible for deduction, and the claimed deduction is disallowed.

Where sales, turnover and income declared under section 44AD are accepted, maintenance of books of account is not mandatory. Absence of transportation or GST particulars in purchase bills does not, by itself, establish unexplained cash expenditure where the accepted presumptive income has not been disturbed. Cash payments in the trading activity cannot consequently be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C solely on those deficiencies, and the addition is not sustainable.