Where corresponding sales are not disputed and purchases may have been sourced from unregistered dealers, treating the entire alleged bogus-purchase amount as unexplained expenditure is inappropriate. A lump-sum disallowance of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases is considered appropriate, while the remaining addition is deleted. The approach limits the adjustment to the estimated profit element or possible irregularity in procurement rather than disallowing the full purchase value.

Section 10(10AA)(ii) leave-encashment exemption is discussed in light of Notification No. 31/2023, which raised the ceiling for non-government employees from Rs. 3 lakh to Rs. 25 lakh. The enhancement is characterised as beneficial and remedial, intended to remove disparity with government employees and mitigate hardship; it may therefore apply liberally to pending proceedings where no vested Revenue right is affected. The notes also describe a liberal, justice-oriented approach to "sufficient cause" for condoning filing delay under section 249(3), where illness, bereavement, bona fides, and absence of deliberate inaction are established.

Permanent establishment under Article 5 of the India-Thailand DTAA was not established because no cogent material showed that employees of the Indian affiliate acted for the Thai assessee, that the assessee deputed personnel to India, or that it had a fixed place of business at its disposal in India. Survey statements concerning expatriates and remuneration paid by a Japanese parent did not prove a taxable presence for the assessee. Goods were supplied and services rendered offshore from Thailand. Earlier years involving materially identical facts had likewise found no permanent establishment, supporting non-taxability of the offshore activities in India.

Capital gains tax applies where an assessee's mortgaged property is sold by a bank to discharge another person's loan and the entire sale proceeds are appropriated towards that secured liability. The owner retains ownership until sale and, by voluntarily creating an equitable mortgage, subjects the equity of redemption to sale upon default. Sale under an enforceable mortgage is treated like a voluntary sale for capital-gains computation. Capital gains are calculated on the full sale consideration under the indexed-cost framework, subject to admissible deductions; adjustment of proceeds against the loan does not change the consideration's character or eliminate the tax liability.

Section 68 requires an assessee to establish the creditor's identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of each credit. Confirmations, permanent account details, bank statements, income-tax records and books of account may discharge this initial burden; a creditor's non-appearance under summons does not by itself negate otherwise reliable documentary evidence. Repayment of an earlier unsecured loan should not be assessed again as an unexplained credit. Once the initial burden is met, the Revenue must produce cogent material to disprove the explanation, as suspicion and omission of share application money from the balance sheet are insufficient. The real income doctrine and approbate and reprobate do not apply without unexplained credits or an inconsistent position.

Section 136(c) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act grants full property-tax exemption to an educational institution registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, while institutions lacking that registration may receive a rebate of up to fifty per cent. A Section 12A certificate issued to an institution in Kunkuri, Raigarh district, did not establish registration of the petitioner-school at Seepat Road, Bilaspur. The institutions could not be treated as the same entity for exemption purposes. Full property-tax exemption was therefore unavailable, and the demand notices remained valid.

Reassessment of an educational trust is impermissible where proposed disallowances do not create taxable escaped income. An approved educational institution may accumulate up to 15% of income if the remaining income is applied wholly and exclusively to its objects. The trust's utilisation remained 86.92% even under the Revenue's computation, preserving its exemption entitlement. Since including the disputed amounts would not increase the trust's lawful tax liability, reassessment proceedings could be dropped. Failure to address the utilisation computation and supporting evidence further left no basis for treating income as having escaped assessment.

Reassessment cannot rest on an alleged payment made during the relevant assessment year when the undisputed ledger evidence shows that the amount was merely an opening balance and no payment occurred in that year. An erroneous factual premise provides no basis to infer escaped income or to reopen a completed scrutiny assessment. The reassessment notice was therefore invalid and quashed in favour of the assessee.

Foreign remittances credited to an undisputed NRE account through banking channels and in accordance with RBI guidelines could not support additions for unexplained investment or unexplained cash credits. Income in NRE accounts is exempt, and the source of qualifying foreign remittances lies beyond the reach of domestic authorities. Consequently, mutual-fund investments funded from wire transfers by non-resident relatives through the NRE account did not justify additions under Sections 69 or 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Interest on fixed deposits maintained from unutilised funds at financial institutions' insistence for business purposes is incidental business income rather than income from other sources, and qualifies for deduction under section 80IAB. Expenditure disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D is restricted to the exempt income earned and cannot exceed that amount. The business-linked deposit interest therefore receives the statutory deduction, while the disallowance remains capped at exempt income.

Reassessment based on material and an interest-income claim already examined and accepted in the original scrutiny assessment constitutes a mere change of opinion and lacks a valid jurisdictional basis. Interest earned by a co-operative society from investments with a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), because a co-operative bank is treated as a co-operative society for that purpose. The reassessment was therefore invalid, and the deduction was available on the interest income.

Regular bail in alleged fraudulent availment and utilisation of input tax credit was considered within the comprehensive offence framework of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Where the alleged amount exceeded the prescribed threshold, Section 132 provided a maximum imprisonment term of five years. Statutory compounding, the applicant's custody since 1 July 2025, and bail granted to a co-accused supported release. Regular bail was granted subject to furnishing the stipulated bond and sureties and complying with prescribed conditions.

Cancellation of GST registration does not extinguish tax liability for periods preceding cancellation. For the 2018-19 assessment, the taxpayer was served with a show-cause notice and DRC-01 through the common portal, along with opportunities to pay the proposed tax, respond to reminders, and attend a personal hearing. Non-use of those opportunities did not establish an infirmity in the assessment merely because portal access was allegedly unavailable after cancellation. The assessment imposing tax and penalty remained unaffected, with the statutory appellate remedy available.

Effective notice and a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing are required before completing a GST assessment ex parte. Uploading notices on the GST portal is a valid mode of service, but repeated non-response requires the assessing officer to consider other statutory service methods, preferably registered post with acknowledgement due, to secure actual notice. Mere completion of portal-upload formalities without ensuring an effective opportunity to respond or be heard is inadequate. The assessment was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration, and the consequential attachment could not continue.

Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax establishes a special procedure under the CGST Act for appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 that were not filed within ordinary limitation, were rejected solely for delay, remained pending, or were filed by the extended cut-off date. Subject to prescribed payment conditions, its benefit extends to an appeal filed after the notification's issue and before 31 January 2024, even where no earlier limitation-based rejection occurred. The Appellate Authority must consider the notification when deciding such an appeal; rejection solely on limitation is not sustainable where the conditions are met.

Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars CGST proceedings only where State GST proceedings on the same subject matter were initiated earlier. A CGST show-cause notice issued before SGST notices does not attract that bar. Proceedings arising from goods seized during a search may remain distinct from a later investigation-based adjudication concerning wrongful input tax credit and tax evasion, even for the same period. Although writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite an alternative remedy, it is discretionary and ordinarily should not displace the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 absent exceptional circumstances or a jurisdictional infirmity.

Provisional release of goods seized under Section 67(6) operates independently of tax determination and payment under Section 74A(9); the provisions address separate statutory fields. A constitutional challenge requires a demonstrated infringement of a constitutional mandate. Where a show-cause notice is challenged without such infringement, the noticee may submit a reply and seek discontinuance of the proceedings rather than obtain writ interference. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to respond to the show-cause notice.

Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice is not sufficient service unless the assessee acknowledges receipt or files a reply; ex parte adjudication resulting from such defective service must be restored to the show-cause-notice stage, with time to reply and a fresh hearing. Similarly, uploading an order-in-original solely on the common portal does not begin the limitation period for an appeal where the order was passed after contest. An appeal dismissed as time-barred on that basis must be restored for decision on merits. Where both defects occur, the adjudication and appellate orders must be set aside and proceedings restored to the show-cause-notice stage.

Service of a show-cause notice or adjudication order solely by uploading it on the common portal, without acknowledgement of receipt or a response, is insufficient to bind the assessee. Portal-only service cannot support consequential ex parte proceedings or appellate limitation consequences without applying the governing principles on valid service. Affected taxpayers may pursue consequential remedies where proceedings have been initiated or limitation has been computed on the basis of such portal-only upload.

GST appeal rejection solely on limitation was treated as unsustainable where cancellation of registration seriously affected the taxpayer's business and non-compliance resulted from an accountant or local advocate failing to communicate return-filing requirements, the show-cause notice and ensuing proceedings. As the appeal had not been examined on merits, merits consideration was required in accordance with law, subject to payment of admissible late fees, penalty and statutory deposits.