Parallel GST proceedings on identical issues for the same assessment period cannot be sustained where Central GST authorities have already issued an order and the related appeal is pending before the appellate authority. The State GST assessment and rectification orders addressed the same issues already adjudicated under Central GST. Consequently, the subsequent State GST proceedings were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

Section 73(9) does not permit the Proper Officer to determine tax liability before the statutory due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year has expired. An assessment made before that deadline is premature and beyond the Proper Officer's authority. The premature assessment order was set aside, with fresh assessment proceedings to be undertaken in accordance with law after proper notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Inadvertent payment of GST under the IGST head, where CGST and SGST were actually payable and no IGST liability existed, is treated as a clerical error rather than a payment made under a misconception that the supply was inter-State. Section 77(2) therefore does not apply. Where the full GST liability has effectively been discharged, interest and penalty are not payable. The amount remitted as IGST may be appropriated against the CGST and SGST liability; where procedurally required, refund and transfer of the amount may be sought.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 264 extends to relief omitted from a return where a charitable trust later identifies an error causing over-assessment. Voluntary disclosure of income as taxable does not bar reconsideration if the trust disclosed the capital gains and relevant particulars without suppressing material; the revisional authority must examine entitlement under law. For charitable-trust capital gains, reinvestment of net sale consideration in a bank fixed deposit for six months or more is treated as acquisition of another capital asset under Instruction No. 883. Conditions under public-trust law cannot be imported to deny this standalone exemption.

Reassessment founded on additions and disallowances in later assessment years lacks a subsisting basis where appellate orders for those years delete or decide in the assessee's favour every issue relied upon for reopening. Although later assessment orders may initially constitute material for reopening, the reasons to believe that income escaped assessment cease once their foundation is removed. The reassessment notice and rejection of objections were quashed, while other challenges remained open and proceedings could revive if the Revenue succeeds in pending appeals on a foundational issue.

Reassessment requires recorded material to have a rational connection and live nexus with the belief that income escaped assessment; suspicion based on statements or survey material unrelated to the taxpayer or investment transaction is insufficient. Allegations concerning an investor's representative, without transaction-specific material, could not support reopening for purportedly non-genuine share capital and share premium. For employees' provident fund and insurance contributions, the law prevailing when notice was issued allowed deduction where payment was made by the return-filing due date. A later contrary Supreme Court ruling could not retrospectively validate the recorded reason. The reassessment notice was quashed because neither ground established a sustainable reason to believe.

Demand and penalty-initiation notices cannot rest on an order expressly issued as a draft assessment order. Where proposed disallowances remain proposals, no demand or penalty notice is issued, and the taxpayer retains the right to accept variations or object before final assessment, the payable sum has not been finally determined. Such a defect is not a mere uploading error curable through Section 292B, especially without a subsequent corrective or clarificatory order. Draft assessment procedure is also unavailable where the Transfer Pricing Officer makes no variation to returned income from international transactions; the taxpayer is then not an eligible assessee under Section 144C. The draft order and consequential notices were set aside.

Signed approval by the prescribed authority is a jurisdictional precondition to issuing a reassessment notice and safeguards against arbitrary reopening. The approving authority must record satisfaction, after considering the recorded reasons and supporting material, through a manual or digital signature. A DIN, electronic transmission, or printed officer name and designation may establish authenticity but cannot replace the required signature. A curative provision introduced after the relevant approval cannot validate the defect. An unsigned approval therefore cannot confer reassessment jurisdiction, rendering consequential reassessment action unsustainable.

Transfer-pricing adjustment for intra-group management, sales and support services was deleted after the Tribunal applied a co-ordinate Bench decision to the material facts. The adjustment had determined the arm's length price of those services at nil. The appeal was allowed on this issue, while the remaining grounds were left open.

COVID-19 adjustments in transfer-pricing benchmarking require proof of exceptional pandemic expenditure, its non-operating character, and a materially different impact on comparables; pandemic timing alone is insufficient. TNMM also requires consistent treatment of operating and non-operating items for the tested party and comparables, including foreign-exchange effects from revenue transactions and depreciation on business assets. Internal CUP for software support services requires transaction-level comparability of contractual scope, functions, assets, risks, personnel, volume, duration and market conditions, with reliable adjustments for material differences. Transfer-pricing adjustments were remanded for fresh verification and benchmarking. A final assessment following timely draft assessment and DRP directions remains within the separate DRP-related limitation period.

Retrospective insertion of section 144C(13A) places the final assessment order within the prescribed limitation period, rejecting the time-bar challenge. Cost-to-cost recovery of withholding tax paid for associated enterprises' restricted stock units is non-operating because it is unrelated to the assessee's ITeS services, and must be excluded from its operating margin. Voice-based call-centre, general IT/BPO, technical-helpdesk and intellectual-property consultancy providers are functionally incomparable with diversified technical ITeS services, while knowledge-processing services may remain comparable. Delayed associated-enterprise receivables, though international transactions, require combined benchmarking with the underlying ITeS transaction; once a working-capital adjustment is granted under TNMM, separate notional interest is unwarranted.

Rule 10B(3) permits reasonably accurate comparability adjustments under TNMM to neutralise material differences affecting profitability; it does not require mathematical precision or publicly available identical capacity-utilisation data for comparables. Extraordinary COVID-19-related underutilisation of a captive service provider's manpower and infrastructure can create abnormal idle costs because fixed employee and infrastructure costs are spread over reduced activity. Where the taxpayer substantiates those costs and their computation, and they are not shown to be non-genuine, non-business-related or incorrect, the costs should be neutralised in determining the arm's length margin. The resulting adjusted margin may establish that the international transaction is at arm's length.

Transfer-pricing comparability for sourcing support services requires consistent application of the related-party transaction filter and exclusion of entities that fail it. Government-owned undertakings may not be suitable comparables where their ownership and control distinguish them from the tested party. A commission-based enterprise is not comparable with a cost-plus service provider because commission income depends on orders materialising, while cost-plus remuneration provides a mark-up on costs irrespective of sales. Project-management, infrastructure, engineering, architectural, and sector-specific consultancy services may also be functionally dissimilar to sourcing support services, requiring reassessment of the comparable set.

Assessment jurisdiction depends on a valid statutory transfer where scrutiny proceedings move between Assessing Officers. An administrative proforma, without a transfer order under section 127, does not confer jurisdiction on the successor officer, even where that officer has pecuniary jurisdiction. Scrutiny notice validity also depends on service within six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished under section 143(2). A notice issued after that period cannot be treated as valid merely because proceedings were administratively transferred. These requirements determine whether assessment proceedings can be sustained.

Market fee and cess payable under a State enactment are statutory levies, not consideration for contractual work, and therefore do not attract tax deduction at source under the provision governing contractual payments. Government-prescribed procurement payments to societies, supported by sanctioned rates, reimbursement arrangements, control accounts and separately identifiable remuneration, constitute pass-through disbursements rather than contractor or subcontractor expenditure. The related disallowances for non-deduction of tax were deleted. Remission or cessation of a trading liability requires proof of a benefit obtained through an actual waiver, write-back, remission or extinguishment during the relevant year. Outstanding balances, wit.....

Dispute Resolution Panel directions bind the Assessing Officer when passing the final assessment order. Retaining a transfer-pricing adjustment despite directed relief is not a clerical error capable of rectification where the Transfer Pricing Officer and Assessing Officer consciously adopted the adjustment contrary to those directions; the final assessment order is consequently bad in law. Under the Other Method, arm's length pricing of intra-group technical and shared services requires comparable uncontrolled transactions or a stated basis for the valuation. The Transfer Pricing Officer cannot test commercial benefit and cannot determine a nil arm's length price on an ad hoc basis where evidence of service receipt and cost allocation remains undiscredited. The consequential transfer-pricing addition is deleted.

Electronic uploading of Dispute Resolution Panel directions on the ITBA portal constitutes valid and sufficient service for calculating the deadline for a final assessment under section 144C(13). Where directions were uploaded in October 2025, the final assessment had to be completed by the end of November 2025. Completion in December 2025 exceeded the prescribed limitation period, rendering the final assessment beyond jurisdiction and time-barred. Other grounds challenging the assessment remain open because limitation disposed of the matter.

Under TNMM, a Basmati rice trader that only procures and exports rice to its associated enterprise should be benchmarked against entities with comparable trading functions, assets and risks. Diversified commodity trading and rice milling, processing or manufacturing companies were treated as functionally dissimilar and excluded; milling and processing, rather than non-Basmati dealings or profitability alone, determined exclusion. Segmental trading results of a diversified company required reconsideration where trading represented its predominant revenue. Cash discounts reducing rice purchase cost and export incentives from licence sales were treated as operating income, since their exclusion would distort the operating-profit comparison. The transfer-pricing adjustment required recomputation on these bases.

Captive contract software-development services are benchmarked against companies performing comparable software-development functions, assets and risks; product-development businesses, complex digital-product providers and companies lacking relevant segmental information are unsuitable. Companies earning software-development service revenue may remain comparable where no material functional difference is established, while entities exceeding the applicable related-party transaction filter must be excluded. Where delayed trade receivables arise solely from the service transaction benchmarked under TNMM, they require combined benchmarking. Working-capital adjustment for material differences subsumes the receivables effect, so separate notiona.....

Transfer-pricing benchmarking requires exclusion of comparables with financially illogical gross-profit-to-sales ratios of 100 per cent or more, applying the principle that super-profit-making companies should not be retained for comparability analysis. The inclusion of four such entities was set aside and remitted to the TPO for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee. A comparable could not be rejected for non-availability of its annual report where that report had been furnished to the TPO; its inclusion in the benchmarking exercise was directed. The TPO's positive gross-profit-margin computation for another comparable was also found erroneous because the record showed a negative margin, requiring fresh determination.