Restricted end-user software licences that confer no copyright rights, commercial exploitation rights or authority to modify, sublicense or reproduce software do not constitute royalty under Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA. The related software payment therefore carries no withholding-tax obligation or consequential default liability. Under the India-Germany DTAA, consideration for video-conferencing equipment and allied non-service components cannot be treated wholly as fees for technical services. Withholding may be confined to the separately identified installation, setup and training consideration at the applicable treaty rate, with consequential default liability recomputed.

Section 68 requires credible lender-specific evidence of identity, financial capacity and transaction genuineness. Confirmations, tax particulars, audited financial statements, ledger accounts, banking records, repayments and interest supported the unsecured loans; general investigation information without adverse lender-specific material or effective confrontation could not displace that evidence, so the cash-credit addition was deleted. Business expenditure could not be disallowed on an ad hoc basis merely because receipts were absent, and the consequential interest disallowance also failed. The recomputed current-year business loss was eligible for adjustment against capital gains under the inter-head set-off provisions.

Additional evidence comprising party-wise commission details, identity particulars and tax-deduction information requires admission where it is relevant to a business-expenditure claim and was not examined earlier; the commission disallowance therefore requires fresh verification. Estimated interest on non-performing asset loans is revenue neutral where the corresponding interest income qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), so the addition is not sustainable. Uniform interest estimation across housing, mortgage, personal, deposit-backed and overdraft loans is also unsustainable because those facilities carry different rates and any enhanced eligible business income remains deductible.

Reassessment initiated more than three years after the relevant assessment year requires approval from the higher specified authority under section 151(ii). Approval from the authority under section 151(i) after the limited TOLA extension period is not a curable defect under section 292B; the resulting section 148A(d) order, section 148 notice and reassessment lack jurisdiction. Audit-default penalty requires proof that the assessee carried on a business and that legally relevant sales, turnover or gross receipts exceeded the prescribed threshold. Purchases and unverified transaction aggregates do not establish turnover. Consistent investment and capital-gains treatment may also constitute reasonable cause, preventing penalty under section 271B.

Additional evidence on the accounting and tax treatment of a GST refund may require admission and factual verification where it is material to a business-loss adjustment and was not examined earlier. The GST-refund mismatch consequently requires fresh determination after verification of the supporting material. Trade payables arising from purchases cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits where reconciliations and supporting records establish creditor identity and the genuineness of the liabilities. Non-response to verification notices alone is insufficient without evidence that the underlying purchases are fictitious or non-genuine.

Tax-audit penalty under section 271B is not sustainable where the audit is completed within the prescribed period and the audit report is made available during assessment proceedings. Section 44AB requires the assessee to obtain the report by the specified date, while section 271B permits rather than mandates a penalty. Section 273B further protects an assessee who establishes reasonable cause. Mere failure to furnish the report with the return does not by itself establish non-compliance with section 44AB when the report was available to the lower authorities before assessment was completed.

Reassessment initiated solely on a revenue audit objection and verification of material already examined in the original scrutiny assessment lacks fresh tangible material to support a belief that income escaped assessment. Reopening such concluded matters constitutes an impermissible change of opinion under Section 147. The reassessment was therefore invalid, and the addition made through it was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) requires identification of the person who received the alleged benefit from property acquired below stamp-duty value. Under section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, equal interests of joint purchasers are presumed only where their respective contributions are not evidenced. Where one joint purchaser paid the entire consideration and the other, although named in the purchase deed, made no contribution, the non-contributing purchaser is not chargeable for the valuation difference. The addition was therefore deleted from the non-contributing co-purchaser's assessment.

Proceedings under section 153C for the relevant assessment years were treated as time-barred under the limitation prescribed by the third proviso to section 153B(1), resulting in quashing of the notices and proceedings. The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with that determination while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed the special leave petition. The limitation finding therefore remained operative for the challenged section 153C proceedings.

Section 16(5) overrides the time limit in Section 16(4) for input tax credit relating to financial years 2017-18 through 2020-21. It permits credit to be claimed through a return filed by 30 November 2021. Input tax credit for financial year 2018-19, claimed through a return filed on 23 October 2019, falls within this preserved period and cannot be denied on the limitation ground.

Section 75(7) prohibits an adjudicating authority from confirming a tax demand exceeding the amount proposed in the show cause notice. Confirmation of a substantially higher demand breaches this mandatory statutory restriction, exceeds adjudicatory jurisdiction, and renders the resulting adjudication order unsustainable. The demand must remain within the scope of the notice, ensuring that the person charged receives notice of the proposed liability before it is confirmed.

Bail pending investigation into alleged fraudulent input tax credit claims was granted because material investigation was substantially complete, continued custodial detention was unnecessary, and co-accused had received bail. Release required furnishing the prescribed bond and surety, with monthly appearance before the investigating officer until submission of the charge sheet. The determination balanced investigative requirements against the nature and gravity of the allegations, the accused's period in custody, and parity with co-accused granted bail.

Revocation of a cancelled GST registration was made available subject to filing pending returns and satisfying statutory requirements. The registered person was required to submit a revocation application within one week. Tax authorities were required to communicate any additional compliance promptly and consider revocation once the required compliance was completed.

GST budgetary support claims should not be concluded solely on a declaration where the record reveals a discrepancy with a Chartered Accountant certificate submitted at the respondents' direction. The absence of an express mechanism for revising a filed declaration does not remove the duty to act fairly when the claimant identifies an apparent error and offers supporting material. A claimant must receive a reasonable opportunity to explain and substantiate the discrepancy before the eligible input tax credit and consequential budgetary support claim are finally determined.

Alternative statutory remedy is central where disputed questions of fact concern service of a show-cause notice, hearing notice and adjudication order. The dispute concerns the exercise of writ jurisdiction against an adjudication order when service of those notices and the order itself is contested. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court order and dismissed the special leave petition, leaving the impugned order undisturbed.

Fair hearing in budgetary support claims requires the claimant to receive an opportunity to explain discrepancies between an input tax credit declaration and a Chartered Accountant certificate submitted at the respondents' direction. Where the declaration contains an asserted error, the officer must call for an explanation and consider supporting material before concluding the claim on merits. A claim cannot be finally determined merely by relying on the discrepant declaration without this opportunity. The challenged order was set aside to that extent, with directions to permit supporting documents and reconsider the claim after a reasonable hearing.

Bail was granted to an accused alleged to have operated a firm used for fraudulent availment of input tax credit, although the firm was registered in his spouse's name. The High Court treated the investigation concerning the accused as almost complete and considered that certain co-accused had already received bail. Balancing the detention period against the nature and gravity of the allegations, it found that further custodial detention was unnecessary for the investigation. Release was subject to a bond and surety, monthly appearance before the Investigating Officer, and compliance until submission of the charge-sheet.

Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act overrides section 16(4) and preserves input tax credit entitlement for specified financial years where the return under section 39 was filed by 30 November 2021. For Financial Year 2018-19, a return filed on 23 October 2019 fell within the preserved period. Denial of the related input tax credit was therefore impermissible, and the Order-in-Original denying the claim was set aside and quashed.

Additional documentary evidence on the GST refund mismatch was admitted as vital to verifying its accounting and tax treatment. Because the evidence required verification by the Assessing Officer and the Revenue did not oppose admission, the adjustment reducing the returned business loss was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication after a hearing. Outstanding trade payables arising from purchases could not be treated as unexplained cash credit where creditor-balance differences had been reconciled and supported by documentary evidence. In the absence of contrary material or precedent from the Revenue, deletion of that addition was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Competent sanction under section 151 is a substantive jurisdictional safeguard for reassessment. TOLA extended the authority under section 151(i) only until 30 June 2021; for notices issued in July 2022, approval from the higher authority under section 151(ii) was required. Approval by the Principal Commissioner was neither substantial compliance nor curable under section 292B, so the reassessment and consequential addition were annulled. Penalty for failure to obtain a tax audit requires proof of business activity and legally relevant turnover exceeding the prescribed threshold. Purchases, delivery-based sales and unproved derivative transactions could not establish turnover; consistent investment treatment and capital-gains disclosure also demonstrated reasonable cause. The audit penalty was deleted.