Amortised write-offs of the net realisable value of advances and goodwill arising under a High Court-approved amalgamation scheme were treated as allowable miscellaneous expenses. Identical claims for the immediately succeeding assessment year had been accepted by the Tribunal and affirmed by the jurisdictional High Court. The claims were disclosed in the accounts and represented a legally permissible treatment under the approved amalgamation scheme. The binding earlier determination governed the identical issue, supporting allowability in favour of the assessee.

Valuation-based additions for unexplained construction investment require rejection of the books before a Departmental Valuation Officer's report can support an addition. Additional evidence may be admitted where delayed production is reasonably explained and the material is examined in remand without authenticity concerns. Capital and cash-credit additions fail where banking records, PAN details, returns and confirmations establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness without rebuttal. Adequate interest-free funds support the presumption that interest-free advances came from those funds. Depreciation on vehicles within a block of assets remains allowable despite personal-use disallowance of vehicle expenses. Books cannot be rejected solely for absence of a stock register, and uncorroborated, unconfronted third-party material cannot sustain unexplained-investment additions.

Refund allowed in an assessee's appeal may be released despite a pending departmental appeal before the Tribunal where no hearing has been fixed. Withholding was considered unwarranted given the petitioner's status as a manufacturing company and its undertaking to deposit any liability ultimately arising if the departmental appeal succeeds. Release was made conditional on furnishing that undertaking and a certified copy of the order, with the Revenue directed to issue the refund within six weeks. The departmental appeal remained subject to adjudication by the Tribunal.

Electronic service of GST show-cause notices and adjudication orders requires more than uploading them to the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST Common Portal. Portal-only uploading does not constitute proper service under the CGST Act unless the recipient acknowledges receipt or responds. A retrospective amendment permitting functions under the GST Rules to be performed through the portal does not expand the portal's specified functions or replace formal statutory service. The writ petition was disposed of consistently with the established position on deficient portal-only service.

Section 171(1) requires suppliers to pass any additional input tax credit arising from GST implementation to recipients through a commensurate price reduction. Project-specific CA-certified data was accepted because statutory records consolidated figures across projects and could not provide a project-wise split. The post-GST ratio of credit availed to purchase value had declined, showing that no additional input tax credit accrued. Transitional VAT credit passed to eligible purchasers did not concern the applicant, whose agreement was executed after GST implementation and for whom no corresponding VAT credit arose. The DGAP report was accepted and profiteering was not established.

Appeals under the advance ruling mechanism lie before the Appellate Authority only against an advance ruling pronounced under section 98(4) of the CGST Act. An order rejecting an advance ruling application under the first proviso to section 98(2) does not constitute such a ruling. Consequently, an appeal against rejection of the application is not maintainable under section 100(1), and was held inadmissible.

Entry No. 128 exempts uncoated paper and paperboard under Heading 4802 only when actually used to manufacture exercise books, graph books, laboratory notebooks or notebooks. Tariff classification alone does not establish eligibility: the use-based condition requires a factual end-use relationship, and purchaser declarations, purchase orders or contractual terms evidencing intended use are not conclusive. Exemption notifications require strict construction and cannot be expanded through unstated certification or verification requirements. As no statutory framework prescribes end-use certificates, bonds, monitoring, diversion consequences or records, the Advance Ruling Authority cannot recognise purchaser documents as a legally sufficient compliance mechanism. The manner of availing the exemption falls outside advance-ruling jurisdiction.

Compostable polymer bags and packing materials made from PLA and PBAT blends are classifiable as plastic articles for the conveyance or packing of goods under heading 3923 2990, rather than as paper products under Chapter 48. Eligibility for the concessional GST rate applicable to biodegradable bags depends on compliance with the separate standards for biodegradable plastics, including IS 17899 T:2022 and the required CPCB certification. Certification as compostable under IS/ISO 17088 does not establish that the goods are biodegradable, particularly because the biodegradable-plastics standard excludes compostable plastics within that regime. Such compostable bags are therefore outside the concessional entry for paper sacks, bags and biodegradable bags.

Erroneous bank information concerning a term deposit could not support reassessment for assessment year 2015-16 when it was the sole basis for the notice and the normal three-year period had expired. Extended-period reassessment required satisfaction of the statutory conditions, which technical or system-generated erroneous data could not meet. The notice seeking an explanation, together with the consequential reassessment, assessment and penalty orders, was set aside. The writ petition succeeded, and costs were directed against the Bank for providing the incorrect information.

Dispute Resolution Panel directions bind the Assessing Officer when an eligible assessee files timely objections to a draft assessment order. A bona fide failure to separately intimate the Assessing Officer of those objections, where it causes no advantage or prejudice, does not justify ignoring the Panel's directions. Where the transfer-pricing order forming the sole basis of the final assessment has been revised pursuant to those directions, an assessment based on the superseded order is unsustainable. The final assessment, consequential demand and penalty-initiation notices were set aside, and the assessment was restored for fresh completion in conformity with the Panel's directions and revised transfer-pricing order.

Reassessment notices must be initiated through the faceless assessment framework rather than by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer where algorithm-based random allocation governs reassessment proceedings. A final assessment order issued under the faceless regime does not cure the initial jurisdictional defect. Where the final order is already challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the jurisdictional objection should be raised and considered in that statutory appeal, applying the relevant High Court precedents. The assessment order need not be independently quashed in writ proceedings when the pending appeal can address the objection.

Penalty proceedings for underreporting are independent of assessment proceedings. Failure to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A while completing a reassessment does not, by itself, make the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for revisional purposes. Revisional jurisdiction was therefore held unjustified where it rested solely on that omission, and the revisional order was quashed. A contrary Tribunal decision relied upon by the Revenue was distinguished. The assessee's appeal succeeded.

Material seized from a company director who managed its day-to-day affairs and was searched simultaneously could be used for the company's assessment under section 153A; separate proceedings under section 153C were unnecessary. The Tribunal found the consolidated section 153D approval for four assessment years mechanical because it showed no year-wise application of mind, quashing the assessments. For unabated years, the consistently accepted Project Completion Method could not be replaced by the Percentage Completion Method without relevant seized material, rejection of accounts under section 145(3), or a cogent factual basis; the resulting additions were deleted. Additions for both receipts and payments reflected in the same seized papers were also deleted as double taxation of income already offered and accepted.

TNMM comparability for marketing-support commission should primarily rest on functional, asset and risk analysis where reliable segmental data exists. A low-risk indenting-services segment without inventory or credit risk may be comparable despite the entity's wider trading activity or different products. LIBOR is the appropriate benchmark for foreign-currency loans to wholly owned subsidiaries; additional risk mark-up requires demonstrated differential risk, and contractual LIBOR-plus rates may be arm's length. Delayed associated-enterprise receivables remain separately examinable international transactions, but notional interest should not be charged where working-capital adjustment already captures the receivables effect and the tested party's adjusted margin exceeds comparable margins, subject to verification.

Biometric-based Aadhaar authentication for Gujarat GST registration applicants is conducted through Facilitation Centres designated for specified jurisdictional offices. Applicants must attend the centre mapped to their relevant State Tax unit for biometric authentication, photograph capture and verification of original documents corresponding to documents uploaded with the registration application. Centres are allocated across Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Mehsana, Vadodara, Surat, Bhavnagar, Rajkot, Junagadh and Gandhidham. The location-specific verification framework takes effect from 7 November 2023.

Section 2(9)(D) treats a transaction as benami where the person providing consideration is untraceable or fictitious. For immovable property, claimed loans may fail to establish the source of consideration where alleged lenders' financial capacity and fund sources are unproved, supporting loan documentation is absent, and no repayment or interest payment is evidenced. Failure to explain the balance consideration and validation fee can further support the conclusion that the consideration provider was untraceable or fictitious. On these stated grounds, provisional attachment of the land as benami property was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

The third limb of a benami transaction, requiring property to be held for the beneficial owner's future benefit, carries no fixed time limit and need not be established when provisional attachment is made. Provisional attachment may occur immediately to prevent alienation or transfer. Funds supplied by the beneficial owner for relatives' property purchases, coupled with their failure to substantiate independent income or a documented loan arrangement, supported treatment of the transactions as benami. Love and affection did not establish a genuine loan explanation where no supporting evidence existed. The transactions were treated as benami, and the confirmation of provisional attachment was sustained.

Customs clearance facilitation restores acceptance of an undertaking in lieu of the bond otherwise required in specified clearance cases during lockdown-related constraints. The facility applies from 8 May 2021 until 30 June 2021. Importers or exporters availing it must replace the undertaking with a proper bond by 15 July 2021. Existing terms and conditions governing the undertaking-for-bond mechanism, including their amendment, remain unchanged.

Laser imagers that merely print diagnostic data received from other equipment lack independent diagnostic capability and are accessories rather than diagnostic instruments or apparatus. Chapter 90 Note 2(b) permits classification of an accessory with a machine only where it is solely or principally suitable for use with a particular kind of machine or machines under the same tariff heading. Because the imported laser imagers were compatible with equipment classifiable under both CTH 9018 and CTH 9022, they could not be classified with either group and fell under the residuary rule in Note 2(c). They were consequently classifiable under CTH 9033 00 00, not CTH 9018 90 19.

Provisional clearance of ongoing and future imports claiming specified customs exemption benefits was made conditional during the pendency of an appeal. Arguable issues were identified for final hearing, while Revenue's interest in securing potential duty liabilities required protection. High Court therefore adopted an equitable interim arrangement rather than granting an unconditional stay of the customs appellate order. Importers may clear consignments provisionally by furnishing a bond covering the full differential duty, including applicable duties, cess and surcharges, and a bank guarantee for half of that differential duty. The arrangement is without prejudice to the final appeal, and all rights and contentions remain open.