Investment of entire sale proceeds in construction of a residential house supports deduction where credible material, including a municipal certificate, establishes the construction. Non-production of bills and vouchers alone does not justify denial absent cogent material disproving the investment. Where the full sale consideration is so invested, a separate deemed-income addition based on stamp-duty value cannot be sustained on the same facts. The stated principle links substantiated residential-house construction with both allowance of the deduction and deletion of the related deemed-consideration addition.

Section 270A distinguishes under-reporting from misreporting of income and applies separate statutory penalty rates. Misreporting requires identification of an applicable circumstance specified under section 270A(9); absent such identification, a higher misreporting penalty cannot be sustained. The statutory scheme does not contemplate a 100% penalty for under-reporting. On the stated merits, the penalty was not exigible and was quashed.

Denial of an exemption or deduction claim during return processing, when the new registration number was unavailable and a rectification application remained pending, required fresh consideration. The matter was to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the prior order was set aside for a de novo decision in accordance with law.

Assessment annulment based on alleged non-issuance of a show-cause notice under CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015 was considered unsustainable where the assessment record showed repeated scrutiny notices and questionnaires, and the assessee had submitted extensive financial and supporting documentation. The record therefore contradicted the finding that no opportunity had been provided. As the merits of the additions and disallowances had not been argued, those matters required determination by the appellate authority and were restored for decision on merits.

Timely digital filing of Form No. 10B by the statutory auditor, before filing the return, constitutes substantial compliance with the audit-report requirement for exemption under sections 11 and 12. Where subsequent verification was delayed by technical difficulties and the return was filed on the verification date, rejection solely because approval was belated would be an impermissibly hyper-technical approach. Delayed verification in these circumstances does not defeat the trust's exemption claim.

Revision under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Where the Assessing Officer obtained and examined labour-payment, tax-deduction and subcontractor details, accepted the employer-employee character of daily-wage labour payments, and applied tax deduction requirements where applicable, a tax-audit-report non-disclosure alone did not show lack of inquiry. Directing re-examination of the same material without identifying a specific error or defect amounts to an impermissible fishing inquiry and delegation of revisional authority. A plausible view taken after inquiry cannot be revised merely because further inquiry or another view is preferred. The revisionary order was quashed.

Dismissing an assessee's appeal before considering detailed submissions filed on the adjourned date denied an effective opportunity of hearing and breached principles of natural justice. The appellate order had been passed before the requested filing date due to a communication gap or technical error, preventing the assessee from placing its case before the appellate authority. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision on merits after granting due and adequate hearing opportunity.

An income-tax appeal was dismissed because the assessee's authorised representative appeared at a virtual hearing without the dress prescribed under the applicable standard operating procedure. Non-compliance with the prescribed virtual-hearing attire requirement resulted in dismissal of the appeal.

Reassessment for assessment year 2015-16 was stated to be barred because the six-year limitation period under the former regime expired on 31 March 2022. The relaxation framework under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 did not extend time for a notice issued after that expiry. Supreme Court rulings were identified as requiring reassessment notices for that year issued on or after 1 April 2021 to be dropped. Consequently, a notice issued under section 148 on 3 April 2022 was described as time-barred, depriving the reassessment proceedings of jurisdiction and requiring the assessment under section 147 to be quashed.

Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on enhanced compensation for compulsorily acquired agricultural land is characterised as an accretion to the land's value and forms part of enhanced compensation, rather than income from other sources. This differs from interest under Section 34, which compensates for delayed payment. Amendments governing taxation of interest on compensation address the timing of taxation and do not change the character of Section 28 interest. A contrary High Court view was treated as inapplicable against the Supreme Court position, and a non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition was not a binding declaration of law.

Paragraph 12 of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to grant a requested personal hearing through video conferencing or video telephony. Where an assessee's undisputed request for such a hearing is not considered before the appellate order, the prescribed opportunity of hearing is denied and principles of natural justice are breached. The appellate order was therefore set aside and the matter restored for de novo adjudication after providing a video-conferencing hearing.

Statutory GST appellate remedy was treated as adequate despite allegations that cross-examination was denied and a payment was disregarded. Section 107(11) of the CGST Act permits the Appellate Authority to conduct further inquiry and confirm, modify or annul the challenged order, although it cannot remand the matter. The appellate process can address factual and legal grievances, including the need for cross-examination and accounting for an asserted payment; the payment had been considered in the challenged order. Writ jurisdiction was therefore not invoked, and the petitioner was relegated to appeal with liberty to seek exclusion of the writ-pendency period for limitation.

Appeals against cancellation of GST registration that were rejected solely as time-barred may be restored for merits consideration. Where the taxpayer is permitted to file an appeal within the stipulated period, the Appellate Authority must consider it on merits rather than reject it on limitation. The limitation-based appellate rejection is set aside, enabling adjudication of the registration-cancellation dispute on merits.

Whether the Delhi Jal Board qualifies as a local authority for GST purposes was identified as requiring determination because it affects the GST rate applicable to contracts executed by association members. The challenge also concerns an alert circular. Interim protection available in an analogous pending matter was extended to eligible members, subject to payment of deficient court fees and individual affidavits undertaking to be bound by the eventual decision. Proceedings under the impugned show-cause notices were stayed for those eligible members pending further consideration.

Composite show cause notices under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST/KGST enactments cannot validly combine multiple tax periods or financial years. Clubbing, consolidation, bunching or combining distinct periods in one notice lacks legal authority. Consequently, notices and summaries covering tax periods from 2019-20 to 2023-24 were invalid, and the consequential proceedings were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and non-payment of tax should be addressed through revocation proceedings. The taxpayer must seek revocation, furnish proposed returns, and deposit tax dues. The registering authority must receive the payment and decide the revocation application within the prescribed period, accepting a manual application where online filing difficulties arise. The challenge to cancellation is thereby addressed through consideration of revocation under the stipulated process.

Statutory appellate remedy against a GST penalty adjudication order must ordinarily be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. No basis existed to bypass the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The writ petition was not entertained, and the petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal. The period spent pursuing the writ petition is excluded when calculating the limitation period for that appeal.

Electronic invoicing eligibility and scope under the Arunachal Pradesh GST framework are amended under rule 48(4). The turnover reference is expanded from a financial year to any preceding financial year beginning with 2017-18 onwards. The relevant supply coverage is also extended to exports, in addition to supplies of goods or services or both made to registered persons.

Annual return filing deadline under the Arunachal Pradesh GST framework was extended through an amendment to Notification No. 39/2020-State Tax. The Commissioner, acting under the annual-return provision and prescribed return rule on the Council's recommendations, replaced the earlier deadline of 30 September 2020 with 31 October 2020.

Revisionary jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen a bad-debt deduction claim that was scrutinised, verified and accepted in both assessment and reassessment proceedings. The claim concerned bad debts written off against provisions created before the statutory treatment applicable to co-operative banks. Further verification of the same settled issue would improperly unsettle completed assessments. The revision order was therefore without jurisdiction, and the bad-debt deduction remained allowable.