Pre-conviction detention in GST prosecutions for alleged fraudulent input tax credit is not punitive and should secure attendance at trial rather than operate as punishment. The notes state that bail was granted where the maximum sentence was five years, the matter was triable by a Magistrate, investigation and complaint filing were complete, charges remained unframed, and trial completion was unlikely within a reasonable time. In the absence of criminal antecedents, exceptional circumstances, or material suggesting absconding, witness intimidation, or evidence tampering, continued custody was unjustified. Bail remained subject to conditions protecting the trial and preventing interference with evidence or witnesses.

Anticipatory bail was considered in an investigation into alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of input tax credit through invoices issued by non-existent entities. The note states that a co-director had been arrested, the investigation remained ongoing, and the alleged tax evasion required the investigating agency to ascertain the applicant's role and that of other persons involved in the transactions. On that basis, custodial interrogation could not be ruled out, and anticipatory bail was rejected without addressing the merits of the allegations.

GST proceedings initiated against a deceased taxable person are invalid where the proprietor died before initiation. The notice and demand order issued in the deceased proprietor's name were quashed because they could not be sustained against a dead person. The legal position does not prevent lawful recovery action: proper proceedings may be initiated against the legal heir for any outstanding demand in accordance with law.

Suppression of material facts in writ proceedings arose from the petitioner's failure to disclose an anticipatory bail application and its withdrawal while alleging that GST dues and penalty were paid under coercion. The withdrawal record stated that a reasonable amount had been deposited under protest and that, after appearing before authorities and giving a statement, the petitioner did not apprehend arrest. The HC found prima facie that the non-disclosure was material and that the payment was voluntary. It directed the petitioner to deposit costs and file an affidavit explaining the suppression, while keeping further orders open.

Uploading GST notices and the adjudication order under the portal's 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab was treated as insufficient statutory communication. Fixing a personal hearing before expiry of the period allowed for a reply deprived the taxpayer of an effective opportunity to respond and constituted a breach of natural justice in ex parte adjudication. The ex parte order was set aside, with permission to file a reply and a direction for fresh reasoned adjudication after hearing. A time-barred appeal against a separate DRC-OIA intimation did not affect the maintainability of a writ petition challenging the adjudication order.

Loading railway-owned ballast into wagons using a JCB loader is treated as an independent cargo-handling service, not as part of the ballast supply. The ballast supply and subsequent loading were separately contracted, priced and invoiced, and title had passed to the Railways before loading; therefore, the activities were not naturally bundled as a composite supply. The service also does not constitute a works contract because it does not relate to immovable property. As the activity involved handling and loading only, without transportation or operation of railway rolling stock, it is classifiable as other cargo and baggage handling service under SAC 996719 and taxable at 18%.

Section 69C concerns whether the source of expenditure remains unexplained, not merely whether underlying purchases are alleged to be bogus. Documentary support for transactions and bank disbursements upon encashment of letters of credit may explain the funding source. Allegations that goods did not move or documents were forged require independent inquiry, verification, examination of beneficiary entities, or other cogent material. Where sales are accepted, an addition made under section 69C cannot be sustained by recasting it under a different provision. The discussion also addresses consequential taxation under section 115BBE.

Liability for the Special Auditor's fee was addressed where the appointment preceded the amendment effective 1 June 2007, but the audit was conducted under the Assessing Officer's order. The HC considered the spirit of the amendment and the assessee's non-appearance despite service, and directed the Union of India to bear the audit cost. The writ petition was disposed of because the special audit had already been completed.

Appeals to the High Court under the Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 are classified as Tax Appeals rather than income-tax appeals. Rule 1(3A) applies to High Court appeals under any other enactment providing for the levy of tax, and section 19 of the Act provides for an appeal against a Tribunal order. An income-tax appeal may therefore be converted and registered as a Tax Appeal, subject to other objections.

Additions for alleged unaccounted admission fees based on seized loose sheets, visitors' slips and diary entries require adequate corroboration. Material relating to specific years cannot support extrapolated additions for other years, and estimated suppression of fees for remaining seats cannot rest on unsupported assumptions. For cancellation seats, an assumption of management-quota fee collection was unsupported where admissions were governed by an agreement restricting fees and admission records were produced. The HC upheld deletion of the additions, finding that the Revenue had not shown perversity in the Tribunal's factual findings. Under section 260A, the HC cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute factual conclusions absent findings based on no evidence or perversity. Exemption issues were left open.

Reassessment based on a suspicious transaction report cannot stand on mere suspicion without material indicating income escapement. The HC noted that the assessee's accounts and detailed reply showed the questioned receipts were capital contributions or withdrawals between a partner and its partnership firm; a partner's withdrawal of its capital balance does not itself establish taxable income. Revenue identified no evidence or third-party information that the bank entries were bogus or accommodation entries, and no related interest claim was disputed. The show-cause notice, reassessment notice and reassessment order were quashed.

Patent-settlement expenditure incurred under an out-of-court United States patent-infringement settlement is described as a revenue business deduction where it was compensatory, commercially expedient, and did not create a capital asset or enduring capital advantage. The notes state that, for the relevant year, Explanation 1 to section 37(1) did not cover alleged foreign-law contraventions, while Explanation 3 applied prospectively; consequential financing interest was also allowable. They further address deletion of captive-power and associated-enterprise transfer-pricing adjustments, restriction of exempt-income disallowance to exempt dividend without a book-profit adjustment, and verification of foreign-tax deductions. Software expenditure remained capital in character, while business-promotion expenditure required verification rather than ad hoc disallowance.

Unauthorised supervisory approval in a section 143(3) assessment following survey proceedings is not supported by statute, as section 133A does not require prior approval from a superior authority. The notes state that an Assessing Officer who consults or seeks such approval abdicates independent quasi-judicial discretion, vitiating the assessment. Applying this principle, the assessment was quashed and the remaining grounds were treated as academic.

A power-generating undertaking may exercise the second proviso to rule 5(1A) option to claim depreciation under rule 5(1) and Appendix I through its return and disclosed computation, as no separate form or prescribed mode is required. A depreciation claim does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars where asset details, cost, use, rates and computation are fully disclosed and no primary fact, entry or asset is false or bogus. Voluntary revision before a specific depreciation query may support bona fides, even if made during assessment after the revised-return period. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) does not apply where the taxpayer's explanation is substantiated, bona fide and accompanied by full disclosure of material facts.

Transfer pricing adjustments for the manufacturing segment must be confined to associated-enterprise transactions and cannot be applied to total turnover. The reported decision also treats foreign exchange fluctuation on import purchases as operating cost, goodwill amortisation from an extraordinary acquisition as non-operating expenditure, and permits adjustment for materially higher non-cenvatable customs duty. For capacity utilisation, authorities must obtain unavailable comparable-company data directly and provide a hearing. Software comparables were selected or excluded based on functional similarity, product development, intangibles and segmental data. Royalty was treated as revenue expenditure, while a warranty provision based on historical experience was allowable.

Section 153C jurisdiction for assessment years beyond the six preceding years requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction that escaped income is represented by an asset. The six-year period is reckoned from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which seized material is received by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the other person; on that basis, AY 2015-16 fell within the extended period. However, a satisfaction note referring only to alleged cash transactions did not establish the mandatory asset-representation condition. The assessment was therefore treated as void for lack of valid jurisdiction, and the consequential addition could not survive; issues concerning digital evidence, consolidated satisfaction and merits remained open.

Transfer-pricing treatment of corporate guarantees to wholly owned associated enterprises is discussed as requiring an arm's length commission of 0.5%, rather than a bank-guarantee rate of 1.90%. For outstanding foreign-currency receivables from associated enterprises, the relevant benchmark is the market rate for the transaction currency, identified as LIBOR plus 200 basis points rather than domestic lending or deposit rates. A normal interest-free credit period of 60 days is to be allowed before computing interest. The resulting adjustments are confined to the guarantee commission and recomputation of receivables interest on those parameters.

Agricultural land retains its agricultural character at transfer where revenue records and receipts establish agricultural use, and the purchaser obtains non-agricultural-use permission only after sale; the resulting gain is not taxable as capital gains. Agricultural receipts recorded in books and supported by undisputed bills are not unexplained income merely because they were omitted from the return. Profit on sale of shares is assessable as capital gains rather than business income where the shareholder had no control over the company's management or business and the contrary treatment rests solely on an alleged controlling interest.

Interest claimed on unsecured loans admitted to be bogus accommodation entries is treated as non-deductible as a consequential matter. The tax deducted at source component of such interest must be excluded from the disallowance. Estimated commission additions for obtaining accommodation entries require corroborative evidence of payment or a reliable basis for estimation; a presumption alone is insufficient. Accordingly, the interest disallowance is retained after excluding tax deducted at source, while the commission additions are deleted.

For assessment years beginning on or before 1 April 2021, the first proviso to section 149(1) retains the limitation period under the erstwhile reassessment regime as a threshold bar. A reassessment notice for AY 2015-16, issued after the applicable six-year period had expired, was therefore time-barred. Compliance with section 148A and any exclusion or extension under the former third and fourth provisos to section 149(1) could not revive a notice prohibited by the first proviso. The ITAT quashed the reassessment notice and consequential reassessment order; other grounds became academic.