Share and securities gains, including short-term gains from transactions through a portfolio management service, are taxable as capital gains rather than business income when the overall circumstances show investment holdings. Classification depends on the investor's conduct, the nature of holdings, transaction frequency and volume, and whether securities were held as investments or stock-in-trade. Portfolio-manager execution does not itself establish a share-trading business because the investor retains direct ownership; transaction numbers alone are not determinative.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, permits FIR quashing where allegations taken at face value disclose no prima facie cognizable offence or continued prosecution abuses process. A delay in filing the revised audit report, supported by an explanation, did not establish criminal breach of trust, cheating, extortion, or another alleged offence. The FIR and criminal proceeding therefore warranted quashing.

Search-based assessment of a person other than the searched person must proceed under Section 153C where reassessment rests exclusively on material seized during a Section 132 search. A satisfaction note regarding that material is a jurisdictional precondition. Sections 147 and 148 may be invoked only where independent material, apart from the search material, supports a belief that income escaped assessment. Reassessment initiated solely on search material without a satisfaction note or independent supporting material is therefore impermissible and without jurisdiction.

Section 154 permits rectification only for a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to resolve a debatable issue. Divergent judicial views on whether surcharge and education cess form part of minimum alternate tax credit under section 115JAA prevent their inclusion from being treated as an apparent error. Consequently, rectification to reduce MAT credit by excluding those components exceeds section 154's scope, particularly where the credit was allowed in a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3); the originally allowed MAT credit remains available.

Prior approval under Section 153D must be granted separately for each assessment year in search assessments, following an independent application of mind to the relevant material. A composite approval for several years improperly disregards year-specific facts and fails the statutory procedure, which requires a power to be exercised only in the prescribed manner. Approval cannot be ritualistic or mechanical. Consequently, consolidated approvals are invalid and assessments based on them cannot be sustained.

Provision for contributions to an approved gratuity fund falls within the specific deduction rule under Section 40A(7)(b). Although Section 43B(b) generally requires actual payment for gratuity-related deductions, it does not override the specific treatment of approved gratuity fund contributions. The provisions are reconciled by applying the specific rule over the general actual-payment requirement. Accordingly, the contribution provision is deductible, and revision under Section 263 based solely on Section 43B(b) is unsustainable because the contrary view involves a debatable issue.

Section 260A(2A) permits admission of an income-tax appeal filed after the prescribed period where sufficient cause is established. A justice-oriented and pragmatic approach applies to a short delay, with applicant conduct and the objective of substantial justice remaining relevant. A 20-day delay arising from a governmental approval process, followed by prompt filing after approval and without lethargy or dilatory conduct, constituted sufficient cause and was condoned.

An impermissible avoidance arrangement requires an arrangement whose main purpose is obtaining a tax benefit and which also satisfies a prescribed GAAR condition. Open-market purchases of pre-bonus listed shares and sales after bonus allotment, conducted at arm's length through a recognised stock exchange at market prices, do not establish an arrangement without concerted design or control over the outcome. Commercial deployment of surplus funds, diversification, potential market returns, and retention of substantial holdings support genuine investment activity. A genuinely incurred short-term capital loss may therefore be set off against long-term capital gains from a slump sale. Statutory bonus-share cost computation and first-in-first-out application do not alone demonstrate misuse or abuse.

Section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended, treats interest-free or concessional loans provided by employers as taxable perquisites. The valuation mechanism under Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, determines the taxable benefit arising from such loans. Prior binding decisions treated both the statutory provision and delegated valuation method as valid and non-arbitrary. The constitutional challenge to the amendment is therefore addressed on the basis that the amended perquisite-tax regime is constitutionally valid.

Section 147 permits reassessment of escaped income, including other escaped income noticed during reassessment. Where reassessment is confined to specified grounds, the original assessment remains operative for matters outside that scope. Consequently, revision under Section 263 concerning unrelated matters must satisfy the limitation period reckoned from the original assessment order rather than the reassessment order. Revision initiated after that original-order limitation expires is time-barred despite the subsequent reassessment.

Constitutional validity of retrospectively inserted section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the sustainability of reassessment notices issued without faceless automated allocation are under examination. Notice has been issued to the opposite parties. No separate interim order was made because a Supreme Court stay already restrains further assessment and reassessment proceedings; the matter remains pending hearing.

Dissolution of a company before issuance of a reassessment notice ends its existence as a juristic person, preventing initiation or completion of reassessment against it. A valid reassessment notice is the jurisdictional foundation for reassessment proceedings; notice issued to a non-existent entity cannot confer that jurisdiction. Assessment, demand and penalty actions consequential to such notice are void. Issuing proceedings against a dissolved company constitutes a substantive jurisdictional defect, not a procedural irregularity capable of validation under the statutory saving provision.

Faceless assessment under section 144B must provide a requested personal hearing through video conferencing, reflecting principles of natural justice. Where technical glitches prevented the assessee from availing the requested facility, without any default by the assessee, passing the draft assessment order without that hearing breached those principles. The draft assessment order and consequential final assessment order were therefore invalid, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

The issue concerned disallowance under section 43B and the treatment of a subsidy received from the Government of Haryana. Insufficient cause for delay led to rejection of the condonation application and dismissal of the special leave petition as time-barred. No substantive determination of the section 43B disallowance or subsidy treatment is recorded.

GST appellate appeal registration requires copies of the show cause notice and order-in-original, together with proof of pre-deposit. Where these mandatory accompanying documents are not filed and notified defects remain uncured despite repeated opportunities, the Registrar may decline to register the appeal under the prescribed procedure. Failure to upload pre-deposit proof or have it reflected on the portal prevents compliance with registration requirements and can result in rejection of the appeal form.

Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act requires a substantive show cause notice specifying the grounds for determining unpaid or short-paid tax, erroneous refunds, or wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit. Rule 142 additionally requires that notice to be accompanied by a prescribed summary. Service of a summary notice alone does not satisfy these mandatory requirements. The summary notice and consequential assessment order were quashed, while the competent authority retained liberty to issue a fresh substantive notice with its summary in compliance with Section 73 and Rule 142.

Input tax credit reversal on stock transfers requires verification where reconciliations, monthly returns, Form WW and chartered accountant certification support inter-State purchases and corresponding credit. A reversal based solely on an asserted absence of supporting evidence is unsustainable when relevant material is already on record, particularly if the allegation concerning manufacture outside the State was not raised in the show-cause notice. The credit claim requires fresh determination after verification and an opportunity to provide additional particulars.

Input tax credit cannot be denied solely for delayed return filing where the returns were filed within the statutorily extended period recognised under Section 16(5), despite the filing restriction in Section 16(4). Disputes over ineligible input tax credit, return mismatches and interest require fresh determination where assessment was completed without a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Reconsideration of those liabilities must follow hearing safeguards and remain subject to the stipulated remittances or discharge of interest.

Full discharge of tax liability before issuance of Form DRC-01A, coupled with denial of a hearing, required fresh adjudication of the tax demand under Section 74. The tax-demand order was set aside subject to payment of the interest component and a penalty equal to 10% of the tax. Reconsideration must permit a reply to the show-cause notice and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing before a fresh order is made.

Service of a GST adjudication order solely through the common portal may not amount to effective communication or constructive notice where the taxpayer has long ceased production or manufacturing. Although section 169(1) permits alternative modes of service, the selected mode must be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Authorities should use an additional mode, such as email or registered post, where portal access cannot reasonably be assumed. Limitation for appeal runs from the taxpayer's actual knowledge of the order in such circumstances, supporting treatment of the appeal as timely and condonation of the resulting delay.