Further disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D requires examination of the accounts and recorded dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo motu computation. A different computation alone does not meet that statutory condition, so the additional disallowance was deleted. Share premium valuation under Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA using the discounted cash flow method must be assessed from information and estimates available on the valuation date. Subsequent actual financial results cannot, without a material error in inputs or methodology, justify replacing that valuation with the net asset value method. The excess share-premium addition was therefore deleted.

Revision under Section 263 requires the competent income-tax authority to exercise the power in its authorised statutory capacity. Where an officer formally holding charge as Chief Commissioner acts and signs as Principal Commissioner without express authorisation to perform that authority's functions, the revisionary notice and consequential order lack jurisdiction. Revision also cannot rest on a preference for further inquiry when the Assessing Officer examined property ownership, use and annual letting value, accepted a plausible view, and no specific error causing prejudice to revenue is established. Explanation 2 does not permit revision merely on a change of opinion.

A delayed tax appeal requires sufficient cause for condonation; an unexplained delay unsupported by an application, affidavit, explanation or material prevents admission. An appeal against a company's assessment may be maintained only by the assessee affected by the order or a person duly authorised to represent it. A former director of a struck-off company has no personal right to challenge assessment and appellate orders made against the company where no personal liability, authority to represent the company, or foundational assessment order is shown. Striking-off provisions preserving liabilities do not independently confer locus standi.

Reliable internal uncontrolled comparables should be preferred over external comparables where they more closely match the transaction's terms and credit profile. For fixed-rate masala bonds, bank borrowings of the same enterprise provided an appropriate internal CUP, unlike floating-rate external lending comparables; the interest adjustment was deleted. Operational, technical, knowledge-sharing and systems support received from an associated enterprise were not shareholder activities where business need, actual receipt, costs and mark-up were established. Under the CUP method, an arm's length price cannot be fixed at nil without supporting uncontrolled comparables; the related services adjustment was deleted. Tax deducted at source credit remains subject to verification under law.

The beneficial proviso to section 50C(1) permits use of the stamp valuation applicable when sale consideration was fixed and acted upon, rather than the valuation prevailing at registration, where guideline value later increased. A continuous evidentiary chain comprising statutory rehabilitation, contemporaneous transferor and transferee resolutions, banking-channel advance payments, and sale deeds reflecting identical consideration can establish prior fixation of consideration. A formal bilateral agreement is not indispensable where the parties' conduct conclusively proves that fixation. The differential long-term capital gains addition based on the later stamp valuation was deleted.

External Development Charges paid to Haryana Urban Development Authority were treated as payments subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194C. A deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default where the payee has filed its return, included the relevant receipts in taxable income, paid the tax due, and the deductor furnishes the prescribed accountant's certificate under the first proviso to Section 201(1). Verification of these conditions is necessary before imposing liability under Sections 201(1) or 201(1A); the matter requires verification by the Assessing Officer.

Consideration for live telecast rights in a composite cricket media-rights agreement is not royalty because a live sporting event is not a pre-existing copyrighted work and no copyright is transferred. Consideration attributable to non-live or repeat telecast rights is royalty, as it relates to the use of copyright. Where tax was required but not deducted, only the royalty component is disallowable under the withholding-tax provisions. Applying the established live-to-non-live viewership ratio, 93% of the payment attributable to live broadcasts is not disallowable, while 7% attributable to non-live broadcasts is royalty and is disallowable.

Section 54F applies only where long-term capital gains arise from transfer of an asset other than a residential house; a transfer of a residential property is therefore governed by Section 54, not Section 54F. Section 54 requires the same assessee who transfers the original residential property to purchase or construct the replacement residential property within the prescribed period. A property bought solely in the spouse's name is treated as acquired by a distinct legal person and cannot be linked to the assessee's sale for the exemption. Consequently, capital gains remain taxable where neither provision's conditions are met.

Disallowance computed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot, merely because it is disallowed for normal tax computation, be added to book profit under Section 115JB. The relevant Explanation permits adjustment only for expenditure relating to exempt income determined under the book-profit computation, and does not import the Section 14A/Rule 8D mechanism. Accordingly, book profit cannot be increased solely by the amount disallowed under Section 14A using Rule 8D.

Eligibility under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 extends to a person whose writ petition challenging an interest determination and rejection of an interest-waiver application was pending on the specified date. Such a person falls within "appellant", while the challenged interest is treated as disputed interest and tax arrears. FAQ 15 applies only where the waiver application itself remained pending before the competent authority on that date; it does not exclude a pending High Court challenge to a decided waiver application. This interpretation permits settlement of a genuine pending interest dispute.

Section 179 liability imposed on a company director requires consideration of the director's reply and supporting documents submitted in response to the show-cause notice. Failure to consider those materials breaches principles of natural justice and renders the liability order unsustainable. The order was quashed, with the matter requiring fresh decision in accordance with law after proper consideration of the director's response and documents.

Approval for reassessment after expiry of the extended three-year period required sanction from the authority specified under Section 151(ii). The relaxation period under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 permitted approval under Section 151(i) only until 30 June 2021. Consequently, approval by the Principal Commissioner under Section 151(i) for an order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 issued on 29 July 2022 did not meet the statutory requirement. The reassessment revival was therefore without jurisdiction.

Validity of a penalty notice was examined in relation to a cyclostyled show-cause notice that retained irrelevant particulars, raising vagueness concerns and questioning whether such a notice could validly found a penalty. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 and dismissed the special leave petition, leaving the impugned order undisturbed.

Reassessment notices for pre-2021 assessment years are considered in relation to the six-year limitation prescribed under the erstwhile reassessment regime. For AY 2017-18, a notice issued after expiry of that period was challenged. The Special Leave Petition involved an inordinate delay that was not satisfactorily explained, and the High Court's orders were not disturbed.

GST exemption for uncoated paper and paperboard under tariff heading 4802 applies only where a recipient established as a manufacturer uses the paper exclusively to produce exercise books, graph books, laboratory notebooks or notebooks. Rate treatment turns on established actual end use at the manufacturing stage, not paper grade, specification, tariff heading alone, or intended use. Paper put to the specified uses is exempt; paper used for other purposes is taxable at 18%. The revised rate scheme takes effect from 22.09.2025, leaving no stated uncertainty over supplies from that date.

Ruled or lined uncoated paper, whether supplied in rolls or cut sheets, remains classifiable under Heading 4802 because ruling, lining and cutting do not create finished stationery articles under Heading 4820. The end-use exemption for qualifying paper applies only to a direct supply to a manufacturer that actually uses it to produce specified books; intended eventual use through an intermediate supply chain is insufficient. Each supply is independently assessed for exemption. Paper mills supplying reels to intermediate processors must charge tax where no separate exemption applies, as recipient-side reverse charge is inapplicable; input tax credit remains subject to statutory conditions.

Section 98(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 bars admission of an advance-ruling application where the questions raised are already pending or decided in proceedings concerning the applicant. Classification and tax-rate questions previously determined in enforcement proceedings, following adequate hearing opportunities, cannot be reopened through the advance-ruling mechanism. The application is therefore inadmissible because the same questions had already been decided under the Act.

Actual electricity charges recovered from unit holders at the distribution company rate, without markup, for metered HVAC, non-HVAC and apportioned common-area consumption are deemed to be recovered as a pure agent under Circular No. 206/18/2023-GST. Although electricity supplied with maintenance services ordinarily forms part of a composite supply, the circular's deeming treatment applies where recovered charges equal those charged by the electricity board or distribution company and are separately identified from common-area maintenance charges. Such recovery is excluded from the value of supply under Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, and GST is not leviable on those electricity charges.

Refund under the inverted duty structure may cover accumulated input tax credit on higher-taxed packaging materials used for packaged tea. Packaging materials used in the course or furtherance of business qualify as inputs, and the refund calculation cannot be confined to bulk tea by disregarding ancillary eligible inputs. Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST is confined to credit accumulation caused by a GST rate reduction on the same goods at different points in time. Where bulk tea and packaged tea attract the same rate and no such reduction occurred, the circular does not bar the claim. An administrative circular cannot curtail a statutory refund entitlement.

Statutory appellate remedy before the GSTAT was treated as efficacious for challenging the impugned GST order. The petitioner was directed to file the appeal within the stipulated period, with exclusion of the writ-pendency period when calculating limitation. Pending disposal of the statutory appeal, coercive recovery was restrained. No final determination was made on the validity of the impugned order.