Merchant-export concessional GST rate requires direct movement of goods from the supplier to the export port or registered warehouse; movement through third-party distilleries does not satisfy the condition, notwithstanding actual export. For supplies disclosed through departmental intimations, incorrect availment of the concession alone did not establish fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax, requiring redetermination as a non-fraud demand under Section 73(1). The fraud-based demand remained applicable to a supply for which no intimation was filed. Interest is compensatory and applies to tax ultimately determined as payable. Tax liability must be recomputed with cum-tax benefit under the CGST valuation rules.

GST jurisdiction over renting services follows the supplier's registered business location; the property location determines place of supply and inter-State character but does not displace jurisdiction, sustaining the rental-tax demand. Consolidated notices and adjudication for multiple financial years remain valid. Section 74 demands require pleaded foundational facts establishing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression intended to evade tax; absent such facts for return-disclosed freight and credits, those demands and penalties were set aside for determination under Section 75(2) read with Section 73(1). Undeclared rental income constituted suppression, so its tax, interest and equal penalty were upheld. Section 74 does not govern late fee or interest. GSTR-2A non-reflection alone does not bar otherwise eligible ITC; invoice-supported credit claims required merits reconsideration.

Rule 89(4) determines zero-rated turnover for a relevant refund period by reference to invoices issued for goods cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking. Goods covered by those invoices may be physically exported after that period, provided actual export is established. The value of invoices issued during the relevant period should not be excluded from accumulated input tax credit refund computation merely because the corresponding shipping bills bear later dates. Refund eligibility therefore depends on issuance of qualifying export invoices during the period and subsequent proof of export, rather than the date of the shipping bill alone.

Input tax credit requires the claimant to establish actual receipt of goods. Invoices, e-way bills, transport documents, stock records and banking-channel payments do not prove receipt where suppliers are found bogus or non-existent and vehicle-related material indicates no physical movement of goods. Payment of tax cannot replace the statutory requirement of actual receipt, supporting denial of credit. Separate penalties for the same wrongful availment require recorded justification and must comply with the bar on multiple penalties for the same act or omission. Penalty enhancement also requires adherence to principles of natural justice; penalty determination must therefore be reconsidered under that statutory restriction.

Technical discrepancies between e-way bill dispatch locations and transporter goods receipts do not justify GST penalty where consignments carry valid e-invoices and e-way bills, transactions are recorded in statutory returns, and applicable tax has been paid. In the absence of substantive irregularity or intent to evade tax, the procedural mismatch was insufficient for penalty under section 129. The penalty orders were quashed, with consequential refund in accordance with law.

Notification-based restrictions on refunds of unutilized input tax credit for edible oils under an inverted duty structure operate prospectively from 18 July 2022. They do not deny refunds for credit accumulated before that date merely because a fresh application was filed later. A circular cannot retrospectively curtail an accrued input tax credit entitlement without statutory basis. Where a claim concerns the pre-notification period and is filed within the limitation period, rejection based solely on the later filing date is unsustainable. Refund claims require fresh consideration under applicable law and judicial precedents, while interest remains for examination in the refund proceedings.

Section 107(4) confines the First Appellate Authority's power to condone delay in GST registration-cancellation appeals to its prescribed outer limit; writ-jurisdiction orders based on particular facts, hardship, equity, or substantial justice cannot expand that statutory jurisdiction. Condonation beyond that limit is therefore without jurisdiction. Where the Department has implemented an appellate restoration of GST registration and the taxpayer has continued business on that basis, estoppel and orderly administration prevent the Department from later challenging the implemented order. As no effective relief remains and intervening genuine transactions would be unsettled, the departmental challenge is infructuous and not maintainable.

Communication of an Appellate Tribunal order requires supply of a copy to both parties under the statutory scheme and Tribunal Rules, without requiring an application for a certified copy. Limitation for an appeal therefore begins when the aggrieved party receives the complete reasoned order, not when it gains knowledge of pronouncement. Sufficient cause for condonation must explain the full period of delay; a stage-wise explanation, absence of deliberate or mala fide conduct, and lack of irreversible prejudice support a liberal, justice-oriented approach. Prejudice is more relevant for inordinate delay than for delay of only a few days. The delay was condoned and the appeal was to proceed to admission after removal of office objections.

Refund adjustment against disputed tax demand is governed by binding recovery instructions and requires prior intimation. Where no stay was sought from the competent authority at the time of the initial adjustment, the recovery instructions did not support a refund claim, and refund of that amount was declined despite the lack of pre-adjustment opportunity. Conversely, adjustment made while stay applications and a representation to suspend recovery remained pending, after substantial recovery, constituted a colourable exercise of power. Failure to provide the required refund-adjustment intimation reinforced the defect; the later amount was refundable with applicable interest, while the statutory appeal required expedited disposal.

Under a registered joint development agreement, extensive enforceable development, financing, marketing and sale rights, coupled with restrictions on the society's control, constituted a transfer under section 2(47). Capital gains were therefore assessable in the association of persons that held and transferred the property, rather than in its members. Mutuality did not exempt income arising from dealings with an independent developer, and the deferred capital-gains mechanism was unavailable to an association of persons. However, full consideration could not rest solely on a later GST invoice without establishing its nexus to the transfer-date consideration; valuation, GST, amenity charges, forgone area and tax-credit claims required fresh verification. The TOLA extension and faceless assessment procedure remained valid.

Non-maintenance or non-production of shop-wise stock, inventory, trading and expense records can render accounts substantially incomplete, supporting rejection of books and the declared net-profit rate. Net-profit estimation after rejection must rest on disclosed material, industry standards, operational conditions or market circumstances; unsupported ad hoc rates cannot sustain an addition. Fresh computation may use the average of declared net-profit rates for the preceding five assessment years, with no addition where the recomputed rate is lower than the declared rate. Changes in audited opening sundry-creditor balances require an effective opportunity to establish their nature and source through supporting evidence before unexplained cash-credit treatment.

Characterisation of flat-sale receipts depends on the totality of circumstances; a single transaction may constitute an adventure in the nature of trade despite long-term land ownership and no regular property dealings. Developing a multi-flat project, funding construction substantially through purchaser advances, and selling most flats to unrelated persons indicate commercial exploitation comparable to a real-estate developer, absent evidence of personal or community-living purposes. The resulting receipts are assessable as business income rather than capital gains, making the section 54 deduction unavailable. Proportionate land and construction costs attributable to flats sold remain deductible in computing that business income.

Inter-bank transfers between an assessee's own accounts cannot be treated as unexplained money where the receiving-account credits are traceable to salary credited in the other account and tax was deducted at source. The unexplained-money addition was therefore deleted. Rental income remains eligible for the statutory standard deduction despite non-filing of a return, as no provision withdraws that deduction on this basis. The rental-income addition was sustained only to the extent remaining after allowing the standard deduction, and the appeal was partly allowed.

GST-return mismatch alone does not establish undisclosed business turnover where no evidence identifies off-book sales, unaccounted purchases, receipts or bank transactions. Reconciliation through sales ledgers, monthly GST returns and annual GSTR-9 may demonstrate that differences arose from duplicate reporting, including turnover repeated in a later GSTR-1. Verifiable statutory records produced after an ex parte assessment remain relevant and cannot be rejected merely because they were not earlier furnished. Without proof of actual undisclosed turnover, an estimated gross-profit addition on differential turnover cannot be sustained.

Reasonable cause under section 273B excused initial non-compliance with notices issued under section 142(1) during reassessment proceedings. The assessee's explanation that counsel's assistant was unavailable was considered plausible because the assessee subsequently participated, furnished the required replies, and enabled completion of reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 rather than by best judgment assessment. The ITAT therefore treated the subsequent conduct as supporting reasonable cause and deleted the penalties imposed for failure to comply with the notices for both assessment years.

Section 144C(13) imposes a mandatory one-month limit, running from the end of the month in which Dispute Resolution Panel directions are received, for completion of the final assessment. This special timeline overrides general assessment limitation provisions. Electronic upload of directions on the ITBA portal constitutes valid communication under the electronic assessment regime. Accordingly, directions uploaded and received in August 2024 required completion of the final assessment by 30 September 2024; an assessment completed later is time-barred, leaving merits issues academic.

Compensatory allotment of immovable property in substitution for previously acquired land requires factual verification before treating the difference between property value and declared consideration as deemed income under section 56(2)(x). If the allotment relates to an earlier acquisition rather than a fresh purchase, section 56(2)(x) may not apply. The assessment was remitted for verification and fresh determination of taxability. Penalty for under-reporting based on the unverified deemed addition was deleted as premature, while permitting fresh penalty proceedings if under-reporting is established on reassessment.

Managing director's performance-linked commission qualified for deduction under section 36(1)(ii) where it was board-approved remuneration for services, included in salary income and subject to tax deduction. The commission was not a dividend distribution because dividends had separately been declared. Its increase corresponded with turnover and profitability, and comparable commission had been accepted in earlier years. Applying consistency, uniformity and certainty in the absence of distinguishing facts, the disallowance was deleted and the appeal allowed.

Income from house property is chargeable to the owner, while a tenant that merely sub-lets leased premises is not treated as a deemed owner. Where leased commercial premises are systematically exploited through sub-letting coupled with maintenance, security, cleaning and related facilities, the receipts arise from commercial exploitation of leasehold rights rather than property ownership. Their character depends on the nature of that activity, not on the taxpayer's separate salary income. Such receipts are assessable as profits and gains of business or profession and should be computed under that head.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on an alleged bogus-purchase addition that survives only as an ad hoc or estimated disallowance. The disallowance was restricted in appeal to an estimated percentage of the purchases. Following the coordinate-bench approach on estimated additions, the penalty was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed. An estimated disallowance for alleged bogus purchases, by itself, did not sustain the imposed penalty.