Portal-only service of a GST show-cause notice after cancellation of registration does not constitute effective service where it does not reasonably communicate the notice to the taxable person. Section 169 of the CGST Act permits multiple service modes and does not make portal communication exclusive in those circumstances. Section 75(4) requires a personal hearing before an adverse decision, giving effect to audi alteram partem. An adjudication order issued without valid service and an effective hearing is unsustainable; the taxable person may submit a reply and receive fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

The appellate pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) is determined by the provision in force when adjudicatory proceedings commence through issuance of the show-cause notice. For proceedings initiated in 2020, appeals remain governed by Section 107(6) as it then stood. The substituted proviso effective from 01.10.2025 does not apply to those proposed appeals, notwithstanding that they may be filed after the substitution took effect.

Pre-arrest bail protection is ancillary to the substantive application and cannot continue or be granted after that application is dismissed as not maintainable; mere summons under the CGST Act does not make a person an accused. The protective direction against arrest was therefore invalid. An arrest authorisation under Section 69 of the CGST Act, based on the Commissioner's reasons to believe, must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested before arrest. Communication enables anticipatory bail and judicial review of the authorisation and reasons, and may be made electronically without obstructing investigation.

Interest on refund of sums deposited during investigation and remaining unutilised in a personal ledger account is disputed between treating the sums as revenue deposits or as statutory refund claims. One view treats the deposit and unutilised balance as an advance towards duty, excluding the refund and interest framework under Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and supporting interest from the deposit date. The opposing view applies Section 11B to the refund and Section 11BB to interest, precluding interest from the deposit date outside that framework. The unresolved questions were referred to a third Member.

CENVAT credit on goods transport agency services was admissible only where the services were established as used for transporting raw materials. Credit attributable to such transportation services was eligible, while the remaining disputed credit relating to construction services was not. The impugned order was set aside only to the extent of the admissible goods transport agency service credit.

Resolution-plan distributions among secured financial creditors, including dissenting creditors, must be made pro rata according to admitted claims rather than the value of each creditor's security interest. Section 53(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires equal treatment of secured creditors that relinquish their security interests, with distribution proportionate to admitted claims. Existing Supreme Court precedent continues to govern unless displaced by a later ruling, despite a pending reference concerning that precedent. The pro rata distribution therefore conforms to the statutory distribution framework.

Consistency in materially identical factual matters requires following earlier determinations where no changed circumstances are shown. Accordingly, recurring additions concerning capital, cash credits, interest, depreciation, telephone expenses, business income and valuation-based construction investments were deleted or confined to the extent previously determined in the assessee's favour. Unsigned seized receipts retained by the assessee, coupled with the alleged payer's denial and lack of corroboration, did not establish undisclosed receipts from the proprietary concern; related additions remained deleted. Conversely, seized notations identifying servant advances by recipient, amount and date supported an addition where the assessee failed to link the payments to available cash or withdrawals or establish their source under Section 69C. The servant-advance addition, including the separate enhanced advance, remained taxable.

Interest and dividend earned by a co-operative credit society from investments or deposits with co-operative banks qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The consistent coordinate-bench approach treats such receipts as eligible investment income of a co-operative society. Where facts remain identical to earlier assessment years and no material distinction or basis for departure is shown, the deduction applies to the interest and dividend derived from co-operative bank investments.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot reopen a reasoned merits determination merely because a deduction under section 10A is alleged to have been wrongly denied or an inapplicable precedent was not followed. The request to recall or modify the merits finding on the deduction was therefore rejected. However, failure to adjudicate raised alternative grounds concerning foreign-exchange gain in total turnover and net hedging gain constituted an apparent omission. The order was consequently recalled only to the limited extent necessary to decide those omitted grounds, while the merits determination remained undisturbed.

Interest or dividend income received by a co-operative society from another co-operative society or co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). Co-operative banks are treated as co-operative societies for this deduction, and the stated Tribunal approach, supported by High Court decisions, recognises eligibility where no contrary facts or legal position apply. The deduction therefore extends to interest income earned from co-operative banks.

Section 44 provides a specific and overriding regime for computing profits of an insurance business. Accordingly, section 14A read with rule 8D does not apply to a life insurance company whose profits are computed under section 44. Earlier decisions on the same position were followed, with no material identified to justify a different approach. The resulting effect is that expenditure disallowance under section 14A and rule 8D is excluded for the life insurance business, and the disallowance is deleted.

TDS credit denied because of a Form 26AS mismatch cannot result in a duplicate addition where the corresponding gross interest income has already been offered to tax, subject to verification that tax was deducted at source and the taxpayer's evidence substantiates the claim. The adjustment should then be deleted, notwithstanding the deductors' failure to deposit the TDS. Interest on refunds under Section 244A is payable up to the date the refund is actually issued or received, rather than an earlier computation date, and must be recalculated accordingly.

Uncontroverted medical treatment and bereavement may constitute sufficient cause for condoning a delayed appeal where no deliberate or mala fide delay is shown, allowing substantial justice to prevail over technical considerations. Short-term capital gains from jointly owned developed property require verification of the taxpayer's ownership share, capital contribution, share of sale consideration, and substantiated construction expenditure. An assumed withdrawal under a dispute-resolution scheme does not resolve those factual claims. Taxable gains therefore require fresh determination after examination of supporting evidence and an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Delayed property registration does not by itself trigger taxation of the difference between agreed consideration and stamp-duty value where the purchase agreement, payment and transfer evidence predate a subsequent amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b). A later-introduced provision cannot govern an earlier completed transaction merely because registration occurs later. An addition for unexplained stamp-duty and registration expenditure is unsustainable where bank records show fixed-deposit closure and transfer of funds for the payment, and no contrary evidence rebuts that disclosed source. The stated principles support deletion of additions based on later stamp-duty valuation and allegedly unexplained expenditure.

Profit on redemption of debentures, already offered as short-term capital gains, may not also be assessed as income from other sources unless an express statutory provision permits double taxation. Processing under section 143(1) treated the amount as income from other sources after reducing it from business receipts. Verification of the return computation and supporting evidence was required to determine whether the same income had been taxed twice. The double-taxation claim was restored to the Assessing Officer for limited verification and adjudication on merits.

Deduction under section 80P could not be disallowed through an adjustment under section 143(1)(a) where processing occurred before 1 April 2021. The power under section 143(1)(a)(v) to disallow Chapter VI-A deductions became effective only from that date; consequently, the Centralized Processing Centre lacked authority to make the adjustment during processing in 2019. The section 80P disallowance was therefore invalid, and the claimed deduction was required to be allowed.

Cash deposits explained through business cash sales and opening cash balance, but unsupported by sufficient material, may be subjected to a reasonable estimated addition rather than being wholly treated as unexplained money. Under the stated approach, taxability was confined to 30% of the deposits and the remaining addition was deleted. The enhanced tax rate under section 115BBE was inapplicable for assessment year 2017-18, based on consistent Tribunal decisions. Consequently, only the estimated portion of the deposits remained taxable without the enhanced rate.

Penalty for under-reporting of income cannot survive where the additions forming its basis have been deleted in the corresponding quantum proceedings. Additions relating to differences in the capital account and sundry creditors were deleted for the same assessment year, eliminating the factual foundation for the penalty. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and liable to be cancelled.

Search-related penalty under section 271AAB displaces section 271(1)(c) only for undisclosed income of a statutorily defined specified previous year. Where a search occurred on 04.02.2016, only assessment year 2016-17 qualified; penalty under section 271(1)(c) for that year was void, while section 271(1)(c) remained potentially applicable to earlier years. For assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16, additions of deemed annual letting value based on disallowed vacancy allowance could not support penalty where property details and actual rent were fully disclosed. Rejection of a claim, without false, incorrect, or incomplete particulars, does not establish concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalties for all years were therefore unsustainable.

Loss arising from market-value fluctuation of securities classified as Available for Sale and held in the course of banking business is allowable as a revenue loss. Securities acquired under banking norms require valuation at market price, and the difference between book value and market value arises in the ordinary course of that business. Accordingly, the valuation loss is deductible as a revenue loss and the disallowance is deleted.