Assessment proceedings and an appellate order against a sole proprietorship were invalid because the proprietor had died before the assessment order was issued and the objection was raised in appeal. Where GST liability is pursued after a sole proprietor's death, the assessing authority must follow the procedure under Section 93(1)(b) of the CGST Act against the legal representative. The common appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh action against the legal representative after an opportunity of hearing.

Burial-ground upkeep and maintenance involving sweeping, cleaning and daily garbage collection is classified under SAC 999424 as general waste collection services, rather than a residuary service category. The municipal-function exemption under Entry 3A requires a composite supply of goods and services. Welfare kits, bins, tools, consumables and equipment used by the service provider to perform cleaning, without transfer of ownership or possession to the Corporation, do not constitute a supply of goods to the recipient. As the arrangement lacked the required composite supply, the Entry 3A exemption does not apply.

Residential housing-unit sweeping, cleaning, collection, segregation and storage of garbage are classified as general waste collection services under SAC 999423, which is more specific than the residuary category for other services not elsewhere specified. The arrangement is not eligible for the exemption available for composite supplies of goods and services to a local authority in relation to municipal functions. Cleaning and garbage removal formed the predominant supply, while welfare kits, bins, tools and consumables merely facilitated service performance and were procured at the service provider's cost. As ownership or possession of those items was not transferred to the local authority, no supply of goods occurred and the composite-supply condition was not met.

Judicial review of a Look Out Circular is confined to testing whether the originating authority acted within constitutional and legal limits; it does not permit re-evaluation of that authority's subjective satisfaction that foreign travel would harm India's economic interests. Review may intervene where no material exists, or the material is speculative or so insubstantial that no reasonable authority could rely on it. Material relating to alleged trade-based money laundering, hawala transactions, over-invoiced exports, fraudulent export incentives, bogus purchases, fake invoices and undisclosed foreign investment was sufficient for the travel restriction. The Look Out Circular was upheld, the order quashing it was set aside, and the challenge was dismissed.

Section 264(4) does not bar revision merely because the statutory period for filing an appeal has expired. Where no appeal or condonation application is pending and waiver of appeal is not relevant, the Revisional Authority should entertain the revision on merits. Refusal on the premise that the revision is non-maintainable is erroneous, and merits observations founded on that premise cannot stand. The rejection was set aside, with the revision restored for fresh adjudication on merits; all substantive contentions remain open.

Section 119(2)(b) supports condonation where genuine hardship would otherwise result and substantial justice would be defeated by a procedural lapse. A timely original return, coupled with a bona fide correction confined to the partnership firm's nomenclature, did not alter income, tax liability, or substantive claims and caused no prejudice to the Revenue. The delay was therefore treated as arising from a purely clerical omission rather than a substantive default. Rejection of condonation was quashed, the corrected return was treated as validly filed, and it was directed to be processed in accordance with law without influence from the rejection order.

Rejection of books of account is sustainable where a civil contractor fails to produce material bills, vouchers and supporting details despite repeated opportunities. Net profit may then be estimated at 8% of turnover by reference to the presumptive-profit benchmark, particularly where no evidence supports a lower rate claimed from an earlier year. Interest income not arising from contract receipts does not form part of turnover-based estimated business income and remains separately taxable. The business income is therefore determined at the estimated net-profit rate, with non-contractual interest assessed independently.

Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional similarity and reliable current-year segmental data. Bilcare Ltd. was excluded because of diversified operations, unavailable segmental data, and its pharmaceutical packaging profile, which differed from paper-based aseptic packaging for food and drink products. Karur KCP Packaging Ltd. was excluded because it produced kraft paper and polypropylene bags principally for the cement industry, making its products materially dissimilar. Earlier-year segmental data could not support current-year inclusion where relevant data was unavailable. The Tribunal's fact-based comparability findings disclosed neither error nor perversity, so no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed; the separate Revenue appeal issue remained open.

Condonation of delay in a statutory appeal may be warranted where the taxpayer explains that the assessment order was not served and became known only during recovery proceedings. Dismissing the appeal solely on limitation without adequately considering that explanation can prevent examination of challenges to reassessment initiation and assessment based on total turnover rather than taxable income. The appeal may be restored for an independent merits decision, subject to costs for substantial delay, with all merits contentions remaining open.

Compounding of offences for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source under Sections 276B and 278B was restored where stipulated charges were not paid within the prescribed period but were subsequently deposited in full. Financial difficulties and the company's subsequent liquidation were treated as bona fide reasons for the delay. The High Court extended the payment period up to the actual date of deposit, set aside rejection of the compounding applications, and made the earlier compounding order effective until that date. Restoration remained subject to additional costs payable to the Department, which could seek withdrawal of the deposited compounding charges. A second compounding application was unnecessary.

Annual election between the Income-tax Act and the applicable tax treaty permits an assessee to select the more beneficial regime independently for each assessment year, with no identified bar on changing that option across years. Where treaty treatment under the India-Mauritius DTAA renders capital gains non-taxable in India, earlier short-term capital losses validly carried forward need not be set off against those exempt gains. Those losses may therefore continue to be carried forward. The Revenue's challenge to further carry forward of the losses failed on merits, while the reassessment challenge became infructuous.

Offshore supply profits from equipment, integrated designs and spares manufactured, delivered FOB and paid for outside India were not taxable in India where title passed abroad, no fixed-place PE was established, and the supervisory PE had no connection with the supplies. The attribution of those profits was deleted. Supervisory services exceeding the treaty duration threshold created a supervisory PE; receipts directly connected with it were taxable as net business profits under Article 7, not gross-basis fees for technical services. Offshore designs and drawings supplied solely for internal plant use transferred no right to commercially exploit intellectual property and were business income, not royalty or fees for technical services. Advance-tax interest was not chargeable for the relevant period, while return-delay interest and tax-deduction credit required verification.

For arm's length pricing of preform silica imports, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method applies where reliable internal and external uncontrolled-price data exist for the same raw material. Customs data and internal uncontrolled purchases supported that the associated-enterprise purchase price did not exceed uncontrolled prices. In the absence of changes in the transactions, parties or asset base, a consistently accepted CUP method should not be replaced by the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) without justification. Under TNMM, a diversified manufacturer and service provider without reliable segmental revenue or margin data is not functionally comparable to an entity manufacturing only optical fibre. The CUP-based pricing was accepted, and the TNMM-based transfer-pricing adjustment was deleted.

Specified amendments under rule 2 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2021 take effect from 1 January 2022. The operative provisions are sub-rules (2) and (3), clause (i) of sub-rule (6), and sub-rule (7) of rule 2.

Penalty proceedings for concealment require the Assessing Officer to reach satisfaction during assessment; a later notice cannot replace that jurisdictional requirement. Section 271(1) uses "may", preserving discretion and preventing automatic penalty merely because additional income is declared in returns filed under section 148. The deeming fiction in section 271(1B) applies strictly only where an addition or disallowance is made and the assessment order contains a clear direction to initiate penalty. A statement that proceedings "will be initiated separately" is only a future intention. Explanation 5A may deem concealment in specified circumstances but cannot cure invalid initiation or make penalty automatic. Penalties were deleted, while their merits remained open.

Renewal of charitable registration for an institution established without a written trust deed must be assessed by examining its charitable objects, genuineness of activities and legal compliance relevant to those objects. A written constitutive instrument cannot be imposed as an additional statutory condition where the rules also recognise applicants established otherwise than under an instrument. Registration records and certificates under public-trust law, together with an undisputed history of charitable educational activity, require objective consideration. Refusal solely for non-production of a trust deed was unsustainable, and renewal was directed. Donor-tax approval could not be refused solely because registration renewal had been rejected; absent any independent adverse finding, approval was directed subject to other statutory conditions.

Composite letting of commercial premises, amenities and permanently embedded fixtures is assessable as income from house property where the ancillary agreements are integral to and co-terminus with the principal leave-and-licence arrangement. The substance of the arrangement and the parties' dominant intention prevail over separate documentation or apportionment of consideration; amenities not independently exploitable remain part of the integrated commercial unit. Such assessment permits the standard deduction for house property income. Interest on a refinanced loan remains deductible where it replaces acquisition-related borrowing, the funds are traceable to property acquisition, and no diversion to a non-qualifying purpose is established, subject to arithmetical verification of utilisation.

Charitable exemption remains available to trusts pursuing education, medical relief or relief of the poor where rental income and licence fees arise from property held under trust. The restrictive proviso to the charitable-purpose definition applies only to advancement of general public utility, not to specified charitable objects merely because incidental income is generated. A valid charitable registration cannot be disregarded without cogent material that activities are non-genuine or outside the charitable objects. Rental and licence receipts do not constitute commercial activity absent an independent business venture, private diversion of funds or departure from charitable purposes; exemption was consequently restored.

Reassessment additions based solely on material gathered after reopening cannot survive where no addition or modification is made on the issue that formed the basis for reopening. Although the Explanation to section 147 permits assessment of subsequently noticed income after a valid reopening, the Tribunal applied the principle that this power depends on making an addition on the foundational reopening issue. The condition applies equally to reassessment following search where section 148A procedure is dispensed with. As the Revenue did not establish any addition based on material available at initiation, all additions arising from subsequent enquiries and verification were deleted. Both appeals were allowed, with remaining grounds left open.

Input tax credit for relevant invoices or debit notes may be availed only where supplier details are furnished in FORM GSTR-1 or through the invoice furnishing facility and communicated to the recipient in FORM GSTR-2B. A new recovery procedure permits sale or disposal of detained or seized goods or conveyance where penalty remains unpaid, subject to auction notice, payment safeguards, special treatment for perishable or hazardous goods, and stay on appeal in specified cases. The amendments also revise annual-compliance deadlines, refund documentation, disposal of sale proceeds, provisional attachment objections, and related GST forms.