Address and business-particular discrepancies in transport documents do not by themselves establish deliberate contravention or intent to evade tax. Where goods are accompanied by a tax invoice and e-way bill and no quantity or quality discrepancy exists, technical or procedural defects require independent, reliable evidence of evasion before a penalty may be sustained. Penalty proceedings cannot rest on assumptions or unsubstantiated allegations. In the absence of sufficient evidence of intent to evade tax, the penalty and the appellate order sustaining it were set aside.

GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B mismatch requires verification of its cause, reconciliation with liability records and subsequent payments, and a determination whether tax remains unpaid; a numerical difference alone cannot establish short payment. Input tax credit reversal demands require a separate statutory basis and computation. Ex parte disposal following non-appearance remains subject to a reasoned determination of material grounds. Statutory claims concerning interest and penalty waiver, service of notices, and duplicate proceedings require examination against applicable conditions and records. The appellate order was set aside and remanded for fresh determination of actual liability and statutory claims.

Expiry of an e-way bill constitutes a procedural or documentary lapse and, without independent evidence, does not by itself establish an intention to evade tax for imposing a GST penalty. Penalty requires assessment of surrounding circumstances, including whether goods were diverted, the transaction was suppressed, goods differed from declarations, or the destination was undisclosed. Where none of these factors is present, the penalty lacks a factual basis and is unsustainable.

Reassessment procedure requires the Assessing Officer to furnish recorded reasons and decide objections to reopening by a speaking order before initiating scrutiny through a notice under section 143(2). A return filed in response to a reopening notice must be processed under the regular assessment procedure, but scrutiny cannot precede determination of jurisdictional objections. Further, no action, including a notice under section 142(1), may be taken for four weeks after service of an order rejecting objections. Notices issued contrary to these requirements, and consequential action, were quashed; the reopening challenge remained open.

Duplicate PAN allocation is in issue where an assessee maintains that only one PAN was held, that no application was made for the other PAN, and that it was never used for any transaction, including the transaction underlying an assessment. The Department was required to produce original records for both PANs, including verification details and profiles, and to provide the reasons and any relevant application concerning deactivation of one PAN. The focus is on verifying the origin, use and deactivation basis of the alleged duplicate PAN before proceeding on the assessment-related transaction.

Transfer-pricing comparability under TNMM requires a FAR analysis; company size may support a turnover filter, excluding high-turnover entities when determining arm's length remuneration for software development services. Where depreciation materially differs because of asset types, technology or investment levels, a cash profit level indicator excluding depreciation may compare real margins. Provision for bad and doubtful debts remains operating expenditure unless extraordinary. Free-use testing equipment supplied by an associated enterprise does not create a taxable business perquisite where ownership remains with the enterprise, no depreciation is claimed, and use is confined to testing software for it.

Section 144B requires a personal hearing in a faceless assessment when the assessee specifically requests one; refusal breaches the statutory procedure and principles of natural justice. The applicable standard operating procedure ordinarily requires at least seven days to answer a final show-cause notice, unless curtailment is necessary because of the assessment limitation date. Without reasons for a shorter period, the response opportunity is inadequate. Denial of either safeguard resulted in quashing of the assessment, consequential demand and penalty proceedings, with fresh assessment directed after granting a hearing and opportunity for further submissions.

Prima facie substance in a limitation challenge to reassessment, coupled with a high-pitched assessment, warranted unconditional protection from recovery pending appeal. The stay-rejection order failed to address the taxpayer's material contentions solely because an appeal was pending. Financial capacity could not be inferred from gross turnover without considering returned income. The rejection was set aside, recovery of the reassessment demand was stayed until appeal disposal, and the appellate authority was to determine the appeal independently and expeditiously on its merits.

Returns filed after the period stated in a reassessment notice are not non est where no statutory embargo applies; they must be recognised as returns in the reassessment proceedings. Once a return is on record in response to a notice under Section 142(1), issuance and service of notice under Section 143(2) are mandatory. Absence of that statutory notice creates a procedural defect that invalidates the reassessment assessment and prevents it from standing.

Regional Rural Banks are deemed to be co-operative societies for Income-tax Act purposes under the statutory fiction in section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act. That fiction remains effective because section 80P(4) does not displace it, and definitions of primary co-operative bank or primary credit society are inapplicable where the bank is not claimed to fall within those categories. Deduction under section 80P is therefore available. An assessment correctly granting that deduction is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, limiting revision under section 263.

Government securities held by a bank as stock-in-trade may be valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower. A consistently and regularly adopted valuation method cannot be displaced merely because the tax department prefers another method, supporting depreciation on such securities. Brokerage expenditure was allowable after the assessing authority accepted the claim on remand. Unclaimed bank balances do not constitute remission or cessation of a trading liability merely because customers have not claimed them; the bank's legal liability continues and the balances are not taxable on that basis. The departmental appeals were dismissed.

Technical know-how consideration payable by an Indian resident to a non-resident for use in its Indian business is chargeable to tax in India under source-based taxation of fees for technical services, including under the applicable treaty. Release of funds by a foreign grant administrator after certification of contractual claims merely discharges the resident's contractual liability; it does not change the resident payer's identity or the consideration's character. The location from which funds are remitted is not determinative. Tax deduction at source is therefore required, and non-deduction results in disallowance under Section 40(a)(i).

Section 263 revision cannot be invoked solely because the Assessing Officer did not initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A. Penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings, so a failure to record an opinion on penalty liability does not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Revisional jurisdiction therefore cannot be used to direct initiation of penalty proceedings, including under a different penalty provision. The revision order was quashed and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

Personal-use motor cars constitute personal effects rather than capital assets where their intimate and common personal use is established. Non-claim of depreciation, disallowance of car expenses as personal, and absence of business activity support that classification; balance-sheet treatment as a fixed asset does not prevail over actual user. Accordingly, transfer of such a motor car does not generate an allowable capital loss. Authorities concerning business assets or depreciation were distinguishable.

Section 194B required the applicable threshold to be tested for each payment when made, without annual aggregation of a player's winnings. Player-funded payouts not claimed in the profit and loss account could not attract disallowance, and sponsored-prize disallowance required proof of an identified taxable payment without withholding. Deposit-linked and referral bonuses were promotional incentives rather than game winnings, so no withholding obligation arose. Corporate social responsibility payments otherwise qualifying as donations remained deductible under section 80G notwithstanding exclusion from business-expense deduction under section 37(1); employee stock option plan expenditure remained deductible. Income computation required verification of all subsisting assessment and appellate orders in chronological sequence, with remand for fresh computation.

Embezzlement losses incurred by a charitable blood bank may be allowed where detailed FIR allegations and the institution's conduct establish misappropriation, even if criminal proceedings have not reached a final outcome. Misappropriation by persons managing the institution does not, merely for that reason, constitute a benefit to specified persons. Where the resulting loss is absolute or irrecoverable, disallowance on the basis of an alleged benefit to specified persons is not warranted. The disallowance of the claimed embezzlement loss was deleted.

National Long Distance operations qualify as an independent undertaking for deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, dedicated resources, and separately identifiable revenue and expenditure establish a commercially distinct unit; an independent accountant's prescribed audit certificate suffices. Computer-integrated switches may fall within the computer block, while obsolete assets remain depreciable where the business block continues in use. Interest from temporary deployment of circulating business funds is business income. No additional exempt-income disallowance arises where no exempt income is earned, although a voluntary disallowance remains if its computation is not shown erroneous. Goodwill from business acquisition is a d.....

Agency reimbursement income under an MOU is computed from the principal's opening aggregate deposit liability in finalised accounts; later variations are recognised in the following period. Expenditure is assessed by crystallisation of liability and business nexus: promotional and welfare costs may warrant reasonable restriction where entertainment or extravagance is possible. UPS battery replacement, printing and stationery are revenue items, while communication equipment is capital. Group expenditure requires documentary support, payment evidence, tax-deduction compliance and reasonable allocation. NBFC norms do not govern a partnership firm's field-agent commissions. Deposit collections held as agent pending remittance are not loans or advances for deemed-dividend purposes. Grievance-redressal costs connected with agency services qualify as business expenditure.

Service of a reassessment notice by affixture at an address differing from that in the registered sale deed requires proof of due diligence, confirmation of the correct property, and verification by local witnesses or neighbours. Without those safeguards, substituted service is invalid and section 292BB does not preclude an objection to defective service. Reassessment proceedings cannot validly commence where the notice has not been properly served.

Regulation 16(1) permits exceptional preventive suspension of a Customs Broker licence only where available material demonstrates a genuine need for urgent action; pending enquiry or serious allegations alone are insufficient. "Immediate" requires reasonable promptness, assessed from the investigation, offence report and licensing authority's response. Circular No. 9/2010-Customs remained binding and permitted only reasonably explained departure from prescribed timelines. Substantial unexplained delay meant the immediate-action requirement was unmet, so the High Court set aside suspension and continuation orders while preserving proceedings on the underlying allegations.