Transfer pricing assessments: outer statutory limitation governs final orders; DRP deadlines do not enlarge the overall limitation.
The tribunal permitted admission of additional legal grounds based on facts on record and held that the outer statutory limitation governs final assessments in eligible-assessee transfer pricing cases. The dispute-resolution procedural deadline requires prompt action after directions but does not enlarge the overall limitation; statutory extension available for transfer pricing references is to be applied to the outer limit, and external judicial limitation extensions do not extend the time for completing original assessments.

Digital material recovered in a third party search cannot alone justify invoking Section 153C without a direct nexus to the non searched person.
Section 153C jurisdiction requires seized or requisitioned books of account or documents from a search that relate to or pertain to a non searched person; digital images recovered in a third party search that did not name or connect the petitioners could not sustain Section 153C. The Assessing Officer's reliance on post search forms, voluntary supply of documents, public domain inquiries, and an inferential consideration mismatch rendered the recorded satisfaction de hors the statutory trigger, allowing writ relief for jurisdictional defect.

GST refund and recovery proceedings founded solely on omitted rules lapse absent express saving clause.
Omission of Rule 89(4B) and Rule 96(10) without an express saving clause causes pending proceedings and non-final orders founded solely on those rules to lapse, except for transactions past and closed. The General Clauses Act's preservation principle does not apply to omissions effected by subordinate rules/notification, and transitional or laying provisions of the parent statute do not operate as omnibus saving clauses. Consequently, undisposed show cause notices and orders dependent only on the omitted rules were quashed and affected refund applications were remitted for reconsideration after hearing within a stipulated period.

GST electronic service by portal or email may not trigger appeal limitation absent verifiable communication or retrieval evidence.
Whether portal upload or e-mail intimation automatically triggers the limitation period under Section 107 depends on whether such electronic modes fall within the statutory deeming fictions of Section 169(2) or Section 169(3). Although Section 169(1)(c)-(d) and Rule 142 permit electronic service, the express deeming consequences are confined to specified modes; absent acknowledgement or verifiable retrieval logs, IT Act presumptions of dispatch/receipt do not alone establish communication for appeal limitation.

Electronic evidence admissibility in customs proceedings: contemporaneous extraction records and Section 108 statements can satisfy the certificate requirement.
The Court held that contemporaneous extraction/printing records, device particulars, and un-retracted Section 108 statements acknowledging computer printouts can constitute substantive due compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962; a certificate not in prescribed format will not automatically invalidate admissibility where authenticity is not disputed, while other statutory evidentiary issues (including Section 138B) remain open for adjudication.

Aluminium shelving classed by import condition: use allowed only if statutorily permitted; supports aren't parts at import.
Classification requires sequentially applying GRI 1 with relevant Section and Chapter Notes; aligned HSN Explanatory Notes guide interpretation. Use is relevant only where permitted and must reflect intended use objectively evident at importation per the as imported principle. A "part" must have an essential functional nexus to machine operation; mere supporting platforms or shelves that do not contribute mechanically to operation are not parts and may instead fall under material-based structure headings.

Composite GST show cause notices spanning multiple financial years misalign tax-period limitation and may be quashed.
Issuance of a single consolidated show cause notice covering distinct financial years was held impermissible because GST liability is tethered to tax-period returns and limitation timelines; consolidation misaligns period-specific adjudication clocks, constitutes a jurisdictional defect, and warrants quashing with liberty to re-issue notices in strict conformity with the period-wise statutory scheme.

Composite GST show cause notices aggregating multiple financial years lack scope; demands must be period-specific and limitation-linked.
The GST demand-and-recovery framework is period-based: tax liability and limitation are tied to returns for each tax period or financial year, and limitation is computed from the annual return due date or an erroneous return for that year. Consolidating multiple financial years into one consolidated show cause notice is outside the statutory design and constitutes a jurisdictional defect; administrative advisories cannot override the period-specific statutory scheme. Authorities may, if no other impediment exists, initiate proceedings framed strictly period-wise under the applicable demand provisions.

Gold/jewellery cases require mandatory section 138B admissibility for investigation statements before proving ownership or smuggling links.
Section 138B creates a mandatory admissibility regime for section 108 investigation statements: unless clause (a) applies, the maker must be examined before the adjudicating authority and an admissibility opinion recorded before using those statements to prove truth. Ownership cannot be fixed on an appellant where such statements are excluded, and confiscation/penalty theories for jewellery must follow the correct statutory route-section 111 for imported goods and section 120 when alleging goods are made from smuggled inputs. Documentary explanations require verification before rejection.

Unsecured loans through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained credits absent transaction specific incriminating material.
Unsecured bank routed loans cannot be treated as unexplained credits where the assessee produced confirmations, lender bank statements, audited accounts and tax filings, and the Assessing Officer relied chiefly on uncorroborated third party search statements or administrative press releases without transaction specific incriminating material. For years prior to the Finance Act, 2022 amendment, a generalized source of source obligation for loan credits is not mandated; repayments in the lender's account are distinct from fresh upstream borrowings. Appellate authorities may independently verify facts under their powers if the AO is given opportunity to respond.

Reassessment jurisdiction: both JAO and FAO held to have concurrent authority, pending apex resolution of the faceless regime.
The Delhi High Court holds that both JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment under Section 148, construing Section 151A as administrative/enabling rather than jurisdiction-extinguishing. It reasons that routine SLP dismissals do not automatically create binding Article 141 precedent to overturn a coordinate-bench High Court view, and declines to treat the Delhi precedent as per incuriam absent a contrary Supreme Court ratio; interim apex stays are case-specific and do not displace the Delhi position.

Cheque dishonour cases: statutory presumptions preserved; tax breaches don't negate enforceability; procedural reforms directed.
Once a cheque's execution is admitted, statutory presumptions of consideration and of a legally enforceable debt arise and, though rebuttable, the initial burden lies on the accused; unsupported claims of payer incapacity or a 'blank cheque' are insufficient without positive evidence. Breach of tax-related cash-transaction rules attracts fiscal penalties but does not render the underlying loan unenforceable for cheque-dishonour purposes. Revisional courts may not overturn concurrent factual findings absent perversity or jurisdictional error. Procedural reforms and calibrated compounding measures are directed to expedite and streamline Section 138 proceedings.

Electronic service of GST show cause notices must be in the prescribed portal location to ensure a real opportunity to be heard.
Uploading an SCN only under a secondary portal compartment, rather than the primary prescribed location, does not constitute due communication; where an adverse decision is contemplated the Proper Officer must afford an opportunity of hearing, and defective electronic service that prevents participation vitiates the ensuing adjudication, permitting writ intervention to set aside and remit for proper notice and hearing.

Electronic Credit Ledger blocking permitted only up to ITC actually available; negative balances and extra statutory recovery are impermissible.
Rule 86A may be invoked only where input tax credit is actually available in the Electronic Credit Ledger at the time of the blocking order; the power permits disallowing debit equivalent to such available credit as a temporary preventive measure and does not authorize creation of negative ledger balances or serve as a recovery provision. Excess blocking beyond the ECL balance is ultra vires and recovery must proceed under the Act's substantive provisions.

Search assessments under section 153A permit full reassessment for abated years but limit reopened completed years to incriminating search material.
Section 153A's assessment power is search-linked: for abated years the AO may reassess total income afresh, but for completed/unabated years additions under section 153A are permissible only where specific incriminating material relating to that year is found during the search; absent such material, disturbance of a completed assessment must proceed, if at all, under sections 147-148 subject to their conditions.

Customs appeals: High Court writs are generally restrained where a statutory High Court remedy exists and limitation lapsed.
Where a statute provides a remedy to the High Court itself, the High Court will ordinarily decline writ intervention under Article 226 to avoid bypassing the statutory machinery; a litigant who has by his own default allowed the statutory limitation for a reference or appeal to lapse cannot ordinarily rely on Article 226 to cure that lapse, and claims of tribunal non consideration demand clear, specific, verified pleadings.

Share buybacks and GST: expenses tied to buybacks are not eligible for ITC, and common ITC must be reversed.
The authority held that shares are "securities" excluded from "goods" and "services," but section 17(3) and the Chapter V rules treat "transactions in securities" as part of the "value of exempt supply" for ITC apportionment; therefore GST paid on expenses directly related to a share buyback is not eligible as ITC under section 16(1), and common ITC attributable to both taxable operations and the buyback must be reversed using the prescribed deeming values.

Mutual fund redemptions require proportionate ITC reversal under GST deeming provision; valuation set at 1% of sale value.
A statutory deeming provision includes transactions in securities within the value of exempt supply for ITC apportionment; the Explanation to the input tax credit rules fixes the value of a security at 1% of its sale value, and redemption of mutual fund units is treated as a sale for this limited valuation purpose, requiring proportionate ITC reversal where common inputs serve both taxable operations and such investment transactions.

GST extended-period proceedings require show cause notices to allege and disclose fraud or wilful misstatement.
Extended limitation under GST is available only where the tax shortfall is "by reason of" fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax; these are jurisdictional facts. Show cause notices must allege such conduct and disclose the material basis for that inference, and must specify proposed amounts without language of final determination. Invocation of extended limitation without these ingredients vitiates proceedings and precludes remand; authorities may pursue recovery under the normal limitation where applicable.

Benami property orders grounded on a recalled precedent must be re-adjudicated without treating that precedent as binding.
The Tribunal held that where an adjudicatory order under the PBPTA is substantially founded on a Supreme Court judgment that has been recalled on review, that order cannot stand; the correct remedial course is to set aside and remit for de novo adjudication so the Adjudicating Authority may re-examine evidence and apply the law without treating the recalled Ganpati Dealcom decision as binding on the question of the amendments' temporal applicability.