The restriction on eligible-unit deductions for transfer-pricing adjustments applies where tax authorities enhance income through an arm's-length-price determination, not where the taxpayer voluntarily computes and returns the adjustment as business income. Exempt-income expenditure cannot be disallowed on an ad hoc basis where investments have no opening or closing balance, own funds are sufficient, and no related expenditure is identified. Foreign-exchange fluctuation loss recognised at the balance-sheet date is allowable business expenditure. For captive ITeS transactions, comparables may be excluded when functionally dissimilar, lacking reliable segmental data, or failing related-party-transaction or employee-cost filters; prior functional analysis may be followed where material facts remain unchanged.

Section 80P(2)(d) allows a co-operative society to deduct interest or dividend income earned from investments with another co-operative society. A co-operative bank continues to qualify as a co-operative society for this purpose. Section 80P(4) restricts a co-operative bank's own eligibility for deduction; it does not prevent another co-operative society from claiming deduction on interest received from investments with that bank. Interest income from investments with co-operative banks is therefore eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).

Reassessment under Sections 147 and 148A(d) cannot duplicate identical additions from an original assessment when those additions have already been adjudicated on merits by the first appellate authority and remain under examination in pending tax appeals. A precedent allowing reopening after annulment of an assessment solely on a technical ground does not apply where the appellate decision also addresses the merits. The doctrine of merger and the bar against parallel proceedings preclude a second assessment process on unchanged additions. Reassessment in these circumstances is legally impermissible.

Interest earned on funds provided by the Government is not assessable as the recipient entity's income where legal ownership of that interest remains with the Government, regardless of its earlier tax treatment. A signature bonus received on transferring developed power projects constitutes taxable business revenue when it arises from the ordinary activity of developing and transferring those projects. Such consideration is not a capital receipt where it does not compensate for the extinction or sterilisation of an income-producing source, particularly when related development expenditure has been claimed as revenue expenditure.

Form No. 10B accepted after the return is filed but before the extended return-filing deadline satisfies the audit-report requirement for charitable exemption where the report was obtained and uploaded on the filing date. The audit requirement is substantive, while the timing and electronic mode of portal acceptance are procedural; a one-day acceptance delay should not defeat exemption. Relief under Section 119(2)(b) is an additional, not mandatory, remedy, and its circular-based time limit cannot displace entitlement based on substantial compliance. Availability of an appellate remedy does not bar relief where validation occurs within the extended filing period.

Deletion of an addition for alleged unaccounted foreign-bank deposits is supportable where concurrent factual findings establish that the credited amount was transferred from funds already held in another foreign-bank account, rather than constituting a fresh deposit in the relevant year. In the absence of cogent material disproving the explained source, an addition resting solely on presumption lacks factual basis. Such fact-bound findings do not ordinarily raise a substantial question of law in a further appeal.

Section 143(2) requires a valid notice as a jurisdictional condition for an assessment under Section 143(3). Where a return discloses the taxpayer's death, is filed by a registered legal heir, and that registration is approved before notice issuance, notice addressed to the deceased person is invalid. Such defective service creates a jurisdictional defect rather than a curable irregularity, rendering the resulting assessment proceedings without legal validity.

Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) requires assessment of whether the arm's length price was determined under Section 92C and whether the taxpayer acted in good faith and with due diligence. Use of the transactional net margin method, coupled with disclosure of filters, comparables and operating-margin computations in a transfer-pricing study, supports compliance where no finding establishes a departure from the statutory framework or lack of good faith. Methodological differences over the profit-level indicator or treatment of operating items, without false or inaccurate particulars, do not sustain a transfer-pricing penalty.

Reassessment proceedings cannot rest solely on unverified Insight portal information where the notice and order disclose no transaction or material linking the alleged escaped income to the assessee. Reuse of the same alleged amount in proceedings against multiple ceramic dealers, without supplying or independently verifying the underlying material, did not establish the required nexus or application of mind. A roving and fishing inquiry cannot justify reassessment. The High Court quashed the reassessment notice and the order treating issuance of notice as a fit case.

Revision under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Explanation 2(a) applies where an order is passed without inquiries or verification that should have been undertaken. Where the Assessing Officer called for and examined books of account, bank statements, lender details, confirmations, balance sheets and returns concerning unsecured loans, the absence of detailed discussion in the assessment order does not by itself establish lack of inquiry or non-application of mind. Revision is not sustainable merely because further inquiry or a different view is preferred.

Clean-slate going-concern sales in liquidation extinguish prior liabilities and investigations, preventing reassessment from being founded on those historical liabilities. Reopening for alleged cessation of interest liability requires a factual basis: where interest was not claimed as a deduction and the liability has not ceased, the alleged escapement of income lacks support. Reassessment proceedings must also remain confined to grounds stated in the show cause notice; introducing bogus-purchase allegations only in the subsequent order denies an opportunity to respond, breaches natural justice, and indicates non-application of mind. These principles support invalidation of the reassessment.

Employee canteen recoveries under statutory canteen obligation - scope of supply - Input tax credit on statutorily mandated employee canteen services Employee canteen recoveries - scope of supply - Employer-provided perquisites - Salary deductions from employees towards subsidised canteen meals at the factory, R&D facility and corporate office - HELD THAT: - The canteen facilities at the factory and R&D facility were required under the Factories Act, while the corporate-office canteen was req... ... ...

Expired e-way bill - relevance of intention to evade tax under section 129 - invocation of section 129 - Intention to evade tax - Validity of invoking section 129 for transport of goods under expired e-way bills where tax invoices accompanied the consignment and no tax evasion or discrepancy was found - HELD THAT: - Section 129 was invoked solely because the validity of the e-way bills had not been extended. The Board's instructions distinguish minor procedural violations from serious sub... ... ...

Fresh adjudication of the GST assessment in view of the petitioner's stated discharge of tax liability and plea of overlapping demands. - HELD THAT: - Taking account of the petitioner's statement that the tax liability had been discharged and that the last three demand components had also been assessed by the jurisdictional officer, the Court did not decide the merits and directed fresh consideration subject to a stipulated deposit of interest and penalty. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11] The impugned as... ... ...

GST demand beyond show cause notice GST demand beyond show cause notice - Mandatory limit on adjudication - Confirmation of GST tax demand and penalty in excess of the amounts proposed in the show cause notice. - HELD THAT: - Section 75(7) was held mandatory. The adjudicating authority is statutorily forbidden from confirming a demand exceeding that proposed in the show cause notice; an order doing so is without jurisdiction. [Paras 3, 4, 5] The adjudication order was set aside and the mat... ... ...

Recovery of GST demand during pendency of appeal - Statutory stay after cumulative appellate pre-deposits - Recovery from the Electronic Cash Ledger despite the claimed cumulative appellate pre-deposits under sections 107(6) and 112(8) of the GST enactment HELD THAT: - The statutory mandate that recovery of the balance demand is deemed stayed upon payment of the prescribed appellate deposit was not disputed. Without deciding whether the petitioner had in fact made the requisite deposits or wh... ... ...

Effective opportunity of personal hearing in GST adjudication - Principles of natural justice denied Validity of GST adjudication where the date fixed for personal hearing preceded the deadline for filing a reply to the show-cause notice - HELD THAT: - Fixing the personal hearing before expiry of the time granted for submission of reply rendered the opportunity ineffective and resulted in breach of the principles of natural justice. Coordinate Bench in M/s Modine Thermal Systems Private Li... ... ...

Summary order. The Executive Engineer was directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representations concerning reimbursement of GST under the work contracts, in accordance with law, within six weeks.... ... ...

Denial of Natural justice - absence of a personal hearing and adequate reasons Validity of the transfer-pricing order where the assessee's written replies were considered but no personal hearing or reasons addressing its contentions were disclosed - HELD THAT: - Though the impugned order indicated consideration of the assessee's replies, it did not disclose that a personal hearing had been afforded. The order was cryptic, contained no reasons, and did not deal with the contentions rai... ... ...

Anti-profiteering methodology in real estate projects - Actual availment of pre-GST CENVAT credit - GST on profiteered amount - Judicial review of anti-profiteering determinations Anti-profiteering methodology in real estate projects - Project-level ITC savings - Validity of the post-remand methodology for determining the additional ITC benefit in the residential project - HELD THAT: - The earlier direction rejected an ITC-to-turnover comparison because turnover does not correspond with accru... ... ...