Common approval covering 111 reassessment cases does not satisfy the statutory requirement that the competent authority independently consider the assessee's case and the material supporting reopening. Where approval fails to disclose such application of mind and has been treated as mechanical for the same group of cases, reassessment jurisdiction is invalidly assumed. A retrospective provision cannot validate the approval where it was granted before that provision took effect. The resulting reassessment is therefore unsustainable.

An ex parte first-appellate adjudication is unsustainable where hearing notices allow less than fifteen days each for the assessee to respond and substantiate claims. Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act requires a reasoned, speaking appellate determination, while the hearing opportunity must be real, reasonable and effective rather than merely formal. Inadequate response time prevents effective representation and production of supporting evidence. The appellate order should therefore be set aside for fresh de novo consideration through a speaking order.

Section 68 credit addition cannot rest solely on a creditor's comparatively low declared income where the assessee has produced a sale agreement, banking records, ledger account, and the creditor's PAN and address. Such material supports the creditor's identity and the transaction's genuineness; low income alone does not conclusively disprove creditworthiness without further enquiry or contrary material. Failure to undertake requested statutory verification weakens the proposed addition. The later proviso requiring explanation of the creditor's source of funds does not apply to the relevant assessment year, making the addition unsustainable.

Renewal approval under Section 80G cannot be denied solely because an institution's governing objects include maintaining places of worship. Eligibility requires examination of actual activities and financial records for the relevant preceding years, including the extent of expenditure on religious purposes. Where activities principally advance education, medical facilities, public welfare and inter-community cohesion, and records show no religious expenditure, non-discriminatory maintenance of places of worship of different faiths does not itself establish prohibited religious activity. The predominant object, proportionality of expenditure and, where relevant, the Essential Religious Practices test determine whether activity is genuinely religious.

Reassessment initiated solely on investigation-wing information without independent enquiry, verification, or application of mind is vulnerable as borrowed satisfaction. Where recorded reasons do not connect the taxpayer's actual transactions to named entities, reopening lacks a proper factual foundation. An unexplained-credit addition is unsustainable when lender confirmations, ledger accounts, bank records of receipt and repayment, and interest-payment evidence remain unrebutted. Amounts representing reversal of payments to another creditor cannot be treated as fresh loans. Reliance on adverse third-party statements without granting requested cross-examination also cannot displace reliable documentary evidence, including for consequential alleged commission expenditure.

Limitation for issuing a reassessment notice for AY 2017-18 expired on 11 June 2022 under the applicable reassessment framework and principles governing surviving limitation. A notice issued on 27 July 2022 fell outside the available statutory period. The resulting reassessment was treated as time-barred, leading to the reassessment order being quashed. The central legal point is that reassessment proceedings cannot continue where the notice itself is issued after the governing limitation period has expired.

In unabated assessments under Section 153A, additions must rest on incriminating material found during the assessee's own search. Investigation material concerning the company whose shares were sold, or statements recorded in a third-party search, cannot independently support additions. Consequently, differential share-sale proceeds treated under Section 68 despite disclosure of long-term capital gain under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016, as well as disallowance of short-term capital loss and estimated commission additions, are unsustainable without assessee-specific incriminating material.

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.