Section 40A(7)(b) specifically permits a provision for contribution to an approved gratuity fund, or for gratuity payable during the previous year, despite the general prohibition on gratuity provisions in section 40A(7)(a). This specific exception takes precedence over section 43B(b)'s general actual-payment requirement because that provision does not specifically govern approved gratuity funds. Accordingly, non-payment before the return-filing due date does not disallow such a provision. Where the deduction position is legally sustainable and debatable, it cannot alone support revision under section 263.

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.

GST transitional refund treatment distinguishes voluntary pre-GST service-tax payments from amounts recoverable through assessment or adjudication. Section 142(8)(a) applies only where recovery arises from those proceedings; an information request followed by closure of an investigation does not itself constitute assessment or adjudication. Service tax, interest and penalty paid in that setting are voluntary rather than recovered amounts and are not barred from refund under Section 142(8)(a). Section 142(3), read with the saving provision in Section 174(2)(c), preserves refund processing where credit could otherwise have been availed under the earlier excise and service-tax regime.

GST portal upload is a valid mode of service, but repeated non-response to portal notices requires the officer to consider other prescribed service methods, preferably registered post, to ensure effective notice. Proceeding solely through portal uploads in those circumstances reduces service to an empty formality. Failure to afford a personal hearing further undermines compliance with procedural fairness. Ex parte GST assessment and consequential rectification orders are therefore unsustainable where effective service and hearing opportunity are absent.

Retrospective Section 16(5) permits registered persons to avail input tax credit for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 through returns filed up to 30 November 2021, notwithstanding the time limit in Section 16(4). Input tax credit claims falling within that extended period cannot be denied solely as time-barred under Section 16(4). The retrospective provision therefore displaces limitation-based denial for eligible claims made within the prescribed extended filing window.

GST portal upload is a legally sufficient mode of serving notices. Where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices and repeated reminders, however, the officer should use other prescribed modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to ensure effective service. Confirming a proposed demand without providing a personal hearing in those circumstances reduces the process to a procedural formality and denies a meaningful opportunity to respond. An assessment order issued without effective notice and an opportunity of personal hearing is unsustainable.

Effective communication of an adjudication order is required before limitation for a statutory GST appeal begins. Uploading an order under a portal tab not designated for notices and orders does not establish sufficient knowledge to pursue an effective remedy, and routine portal use for return filing does not substitute for communication. Where the appellate authority does not address the delay explanation, limitation-based rejection is unsustainable. Alleged ineffective communication and breach of natural justice may also justify writ jurisdiction despite an alternative appellate remedy. The appeal should be restored for merits adjudication after a personal hearing.