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.

Setting aside an original assessment in revision removes the foundation for any appeal against that assessment: the non-operative order cannot support further appellate adjudication. A fresh assessment made pursuant to revision creates a separate statutory cause of action, requiring additions and all factual and legal objections to be examined independently in an appeal against that assessment. The appeal concerning the original assessment was consequently treated as infructuous, the related appellate order was set aside, and the merits of the additions remained open in the pending appeal against the fresh assessment.

Loans, credit or advances provided between related parties constitute a supply even without consideration, but extending loans is exempt where consideration consists solely of interest or discount. Separate processing fees, administrative charges, service fees or loan-granting charges are taxable consideration for loan-processing, facilitation or administration services. Where related-party lending involves no charge other than interest or discount, no processing or administration service may be deemed merely due to the relationship, and open-market-value valuation does not apply. Additional charges over interest or discount remain taxable.

Amendments to the Odisha GST framework generally commence on 22 September 2025, with specified changes applying from 1 April and 1 October 2025. Risk-based provisional refunds require FORM GST RFD-04 within seven days of acknowledgement, subject to written reasons for proceeding under rule 92. Appeals use FORM GST APL-02A for provisional and final acknowledgements, and eligible matters without a question of law may be transferred to a Single Member Bench. FORM GSTR-9 revises input tax credit, tax-payment and next-year transaction reporting, while FORM GSTR-9C adds reconciliation fields for e-commerce operator tax liability and permits specified liability payment through cash or input tax credit.

Input tax credit mismatch clarification under Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST extends to assessments for financial year 2017-2018 where adjudication or appeal proceedings remain pending, including where the statutory period to file an appeal has not expired. The clarification governs mismatches between input tax credit claimed in GSTR-3B and reflected in GSTR-2A, notwithstanding its exclusion of completed proceedings. Availability of an appellate remedy does not preclude Article 226 jurisdiction where the applicable clarification was not considered in original adjudication; tax liability requires de novo determination under that clarification.

Mandatory interest under section 234B may be levied through rectification under section 154 when its earlier omission is an obvious error apparent from the record, including in a prior rectified order. A lower-deduction certificate under section 197 applies only to the projected income it covers and does not eliminate advance-tax liability on incremental or recharacterised assessed income. For such excess income, a non-resident payee must revise its estimate and pay advance tax, with section 234B interest on any shortfall. Interest must be recomputed in accordance with law after giving the taxpayer adequate opportunity. Finance Act, 2026 amendments to sections 153 and 144C govern the limitation objection to the final assessment.

Temporary de-panelment of Mr. Mekala Naga Chaitanya from the panel of Chartered Engineers for examination and valuation of second-hand machinery and goods takes immediate effect. The action follows a finding that duties were not performed diligently while certifying old and used machinery. The earlier retention arrangement is modified accordingly, and any subsequent report issued by the de-panelled Chartered Engineer is null and void until further notice.

Offshore sale consideration for identified goods cannot be recast as fees for technical services without material establishing that it represents payment for services. Under the India-USA DTAA, visa, immigration, relocation, payroll, finance, sales and other routine administrative support does not satisfy the "make available" requirement unless it enables Indian affiliates to independently apply transferred technical knowledge, skill, experience, know-how or processes. Income initially offered but later reversed through settlement agreements and credit notes may be excluded where it never materialised, subject to factual verification. Tax deducted at source and tax payments require verification before credit is granted, with consequential recomputation of interest.

Section 10(23C)(iiiad) exemption had to be examined on its merits where the relevant activities and receipts were already on record, despite an erroneous exemption claim under section 11 in the return. For the relevant assessment year, non-furnishing of Form 10BB did not bar exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad), as the audit-report requirement applied only to specified other institutions. Receipts from pre-primary, primary and secondary sections had to be aggregated because they formed one recognised school, notwithstanding separate accounts or premises. As aggregated receipts exceeded the prescribed threshold, exemption was denied. Taxable income nevertheless required normal computation after allowing admissible expenditure, depreciation and statutory allowances; verification was limited to that computation.

Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST applies to input tax credit matters for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 where adjudication or appellate proceedings remain pending. Where the statutory three-month period to challenge an adjudication order remains available, the proceeding falls within that coverage. The existence of an alternative appellate remedy does not absolutely bar Article 226 jurisdiction when requiring an appeal would delay application of a later clarification. Excess input tax credit liability must therefore be redetermined under the Circular after providing a hearing, without reliance on the earlier assessment.