Direct HO/OB expenditure specifically attributable to an Indian branch is distinguishable from general head-office expenditure and may be considered under section 37(1), subject to evidence and allocation verification, rather than the section 44C cap. Under the India-France DTAA, interest paid by an Indian branch to its HO/OB is not independently taxable within the same enterprise, and treaty rate ceilings for interest and FTS exclude additional surcharge and cess. Transfer-pricing analysis of marketing, guarantee and common-cost transactions requires prescribed methods, functional benchmarking and avoidance of duplicate disallowance. ECB-interest computation must avoid double taxation after PE attribution, while tax deducted at source credit and consequential interest require verification and recomputation.

Notional interest on interest-free tenant security deposits is not taxable where no contractual right to interest exists and the deposits do not mask suppressed rent, because only real income that accrues or arises is taxable. Capital introduced by an identified partner through verified bank accounts cannot be added in the firm's assessment under section 68 absent evidence that the firm's own funds were routed through the partner. Cash deposits already treated as verified partner capital cannot be added again; an uncorrelated balance requires reconciliation and verification. Section 14A does not support an ad hoc expenditure disallowance where no exempt income was earned and no specific expenditure defect is identified.

Dividend exemption under the Income-tax Act applies to dividend actually received during the relevant assessment year. Corporate resolutions and financial statements may establish the dividend rate approved for the preceding financial year and its receipt in the relevant year. A proposed dividend for a succeeding financial year cannot replace the dividend actually received when determining the exemption. The full dividend receipt was therefore treated as exempt, and the related disallowance was deleted.

Revision under section 263 may take account of a Departmental Valuation Officer's report received after assessment because the revisional record encompasses material available when the revisional authority examines it. Where an assessment accepts declared acquisition cost without considering a valuation report sought by the Assessing Officer, that omission may render the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests, requiring redetermination after hearing the assessee. For assessment limitation, the period from the valuation reference to actual receipt of the report is excluded; receipt beyond six months does not itself invalidate the report.

Search-derived information obtained after 1 April 2021 from a third-party search falls within the exclusion from the section 148A procedure. Where alleged escaped income is below the threshold for the extended limitation period, a reassessment notice must be issued within the ordinary limitation period. Time spent using the excluded section 148A process cannot be excluded from limitation. Portal-based communication does not alter the search-derived character of the information, and participation without prejudice cannot cure a jurisdictional defect. Consequently, the delayed reassessment notice and reassessment founded on it were without jurisdiction.

Income-tax returns and net taxable-income details are personal information protected by the RTI Act exemption where disclosure lacks a connection with public activity or interest or would unjustifiably invade privacy. A spouse's private need for financial information in matrimonial maintenance proceedings does not constitute the larger public interest required to override that exemption. Financial particulars should instead be obtained through the maintenance process, which requires both parties to file affidavits disclosing income, assets and liabilities. Accordingly, RTI disclosure of a spouse's income-tax details for a maintenance claim is not justified without an established larger public interest.

Effective cross-examination is required where a seized slip and a third-party statement are the sole basis for an assessment addition. Requiring the assessee to attend cross-examination the following morning does not provide a real or meaningful opportunity and is illusory for natural-justice purposes. An assessment founded on such material without an effective opportunity to test the third party's evidence cannot be sustained; the addition requires fresh determination after that opportunity is provided. Remaining objections to the addition are not addressed.

Section 107 of the CGST Act caps the FAA's authority to condone delayed appeals; equitable relief available in constitutional writ jurisdiction cannot extend that statutory outer limit. Condonation beyond the prescribed period is ultra vires and without jurisdiction. Where registration-restoration orders have been implemented, taxpayers have resumed business, and intervening liabilities have been discharged, a departmental challenge may yield no effective relief without disturbing restored registrations and transactions. Failure to access portal-based revocation under Rule 23 after expiry of its period does not remove the independent appellate remedy under Section 107.

Statutory appellate limitation confines the First Appellate Authority's power to condone delay to the expressly prescribed outer period; discretionary writ relief cannot expand that jurisdiction. Implementation of registration-restoration orders may make a departmental challenge ineffective where registrations have been restored and subsequent business transactions enabled, absent consideration of restoration's consequences. The revocation process for cancelled registration and the statutory appellate remedy operate independently: where portal restrictions prevent a delayed revocation application, failure to seek revocation does not extinguish the right to appeal against cancellation. Equity cannot override an express statutory limitation period.

Circular No. 135/05/2020 has limited application to accumulated input tax credit caused by different tax rates applying to the same input and output supply at different times. It does not govern refund claims where credit accumulates because certain inputs are taxed at rates higher than the output supply, even where a principal input and output attract the same rate. Refund eligibility under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 must therefore be assessed under that provision rather than denied solely under the Circular.

CGST audit limitation runs from the later of the date records are made available and the date the audit is instituted at the registered person's business premises. An on-site audit commenced after records were furnished is therefore within time when measured from that later date. Before finalising audit findings, the registered person must receive the discrepancy intimation, be given a meaningful opportunity to respond, and have that response considered. An intimation of discrepancies is not final audit findings; a show cause notice based on findings finalised without this opportunity lacks procedural validity.

Failure to decide a Section 74 proceeding on its scheduled hearing date requires the adjudicating authority to fix and communicate a further hearing date. Non-communication denies the assessee an effective opportunity for personal hearing and breaches principles of natural justice. An ex parte adjudication made in those circumstances is liable to be set aside. The matter requires a fresh personal hearing, followed by a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Payment of the prescribed cumulative pre-deposit for a GST Tribunal appeal triggers a statutory stay on recovery of the unpaid disputed demand. CBIC clarification confirms that recovery remains stayed once the required pre-deposit has been made. During that stay, eligible GST refunds cannot be appropriated or adjusted against the balance disputed demand. Where such adjustment has occurred despite the statutory stay, the appropriation must be reversed and the eligible refund restored to the assessee.

Post-cancellation GST adjudication cannot rest solely on a show-cause notice uploaded to the common portal where the cancelled registrant could reasonably remain unaware of it. The Commissioner's circular requiring physical service in post-cancellation adjudication binds subordinate authorities and addresses the resulting lack of effective notice. The ex parte order was set aside, permitting a reply, requests for cross-examination or relied-upon documents, and fresh adjudication after adequate advance notice of personal hearing.

Validity and jurisdiction of an amended show-cause notice alleging suppression under section 74 of the CGST and UPGST Acts remain undecided. The notice recipient may submit a reply to the amended notice. The competent authority must determine the suppression allegations after providing a hearing. All questions of law, including whether the amended notice falls within the authority's jurisdiction, remain open for consideration at the adjudication stage.

Section 75(7) of the Uttar Pradesh and Central GST Acts prohibits an adjudicating authority from confirming tax, interest or penalty exceeding the amount specified in the show-cause notice. Where the notice proposed only a tax demand but the adjudication order additionally imposed a penalty, the penalty exceeded the scope of the notice. Such action breaches the mandatory statutory limitation and is beyond the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction, rendering the adjudication invalid to that extent.

Demurrer-based limitation rulings cannot conclusively preclude an evidence-based determination where limitation depends on disputed facts. A demurrer tests pleadings on assumed facts and does not permanently admit those facts or prevent contrary evidence. Party autonomy in arbitral procedure remains subject to mandatory limitation law and cannot bypass the duty to dismiss time-barred claims. Under the setting-aside standard, only a severable direction making a preliminary demurrer finding final may be set aside where it denies a proper evidentiary opportunity and offends fundamental justice; the preliminary finding may otherwise remain intact.

VAT-paid hiring of modems and set-top boxes is treated as a deemed sale rather than a taxable service, excluding the related rental charges from service tax. Tax deducted at source by subscribers remains part of the gross consideration because it is deducted and remitted on the service provider's behalf; taxable value therefore includes that amount. CENVAT credit for service tax on bank charges is available where online banking records substantiate the charges and tax debit and permit departmental verification, despite the absence of a formal invoice. Bad debts written off do not represent actual receipts under receipt-based valuation; related valuation and service-category adjustment issues require fresh adjudication.

Section 44AD provides presumptive taxation without requiring the assessee to maintain books of account. Because section 68 operates on credits recorded in books, cash deposits cannot be assessed as unexplained credits where no relevant book entry exists. Restrictions introduced by an amendment concerning cash deposits under section 44AD do not apply to an earlier relevant assessment year. These considerations govern whether revisionary jurisdiction may be invoked on the ground that the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.

Interest or dividend derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), provided both recipient and payer are co-operative societies within the statutory definition. Section 80P(4) excludes only an assessee that itself is a co-operative bank under Part V of the Banking Regulation Act; it does not disqualify a non-bank co-operative society merely because the payer is classified as a co-operative bank. Accordingly, a co-operative credit society that is not a co-operative bank may claim deduction on interest received from deposits with a registered co-operative society.