Deemed rental value of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade was not assessable for Assessment Year 2017-18. Section 23(5), which expressly provides for taxation of deemed rental income from unsold stock-in-trade, took effect from Assessment Year 2018-19 and did not apply retrospectively. Where High Court views conflicted, the interpretation favourable to the assessee applied. Accordingly, the notional rental-income addition for unsold flats retained as stock-in-trade for Assessment Year 2017-18 was deleted.

Reassessment notices issued more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year require prior sanction from the higher authorities expressly specified in section 151(ii). Approval by a Principal Commissioner, rather than the prescribed Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Director General, fails this jurisdictional condition. Consequently, the notice under section 148 and all consequential reassessment proceedings are void from inception. A delay caused by an accountant's absence due to a family medical emergency may be condoned where supported by an affidavit and shown to be unintentional and beyond the assessee's control.

Section 80P(2)(d) permits a co-operative housing society to claim deduction for interest earned from investments with co-operative banks. The term "investment" is not limited to fixed deposits and includes funds kept in savings accounts. Interest from savings accounts maintained with co-operative banks therefore qualifies for deduction, as such banks are treated as co-operative societies for this purpose. The deduction applies to interest income earned from both deposits and savings accounts with co-operative banks.

Property-purchase additions treated as unexplained money were unsustainable where agreements to sell, cash-flow statements corroborated by bank records, family income-tax returns, loan confirmations, sale deeds, and booking and payment records established the sources and legitimacy of the transactions. The documented evidence sufficiently explained the funds used to acquire the two properties, requiring deletion of the addition.

Interest income earned by a co-operative housing society from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The provision permits deduction of interest or dividend derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society, and co-operative banks are treated as co-operative societies for this purpose. The exclusion in Section 80P(4), applicable to co-operative banks, does not bar an assessee co-operative society from claiming deduction on interest received from such banks.

Unexplained expenditure under section 69C requires failure to explain the source of expenditure or an explanation of that source that is unsatisfactory. Payments made through bearer cheques from the assessee's recorded bank accounts cannot be added merely because they exceed the purchases and expenses claimed, unless the source of those payments is found unexplained. An inability to establish the purpose or destination of payments does not satisfy the statutory requirement concerning their source. The addition was therefore unsustainable and liable to be deleted.

Rule 68B's 2019 extension of the period for sale of attached immovable property applies to recovery claims still within the earlier limitation period but cannot revive claims already time-barred. Recovery-sale proceedings for the earlier assessment years were therefore barred, while those for later years remained timely because the amended period applied before expiry. Tax Recovery Officer functions concerning attachment, sale proclamation and setting aside sales are quasi-judicial; consequently, the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation exclusion applied. For unappealed demands, Rule 68B finality arises only after expiry of the demand-payment and ordinary appeal periods, preserving the later recovery proceedings and preventing release of the attachment.

A writ challenge to a Tribunal recall order does not remain maintainable once the Tribunal passes a final order pursuant to that recall. The recall order merges into, and no longer exists independently from, the final order. Where the final order is separately challenged through the statutory tax appeal remedy, the antecedent recall order cannot be challenged independently by writ petition. The challenge against the assessee therefore failed on maintainability.

Section 11(1)(d) exempts voluntary contributions only where a donor specifically directs in writing that they form part of the corpus. Interest earned on fixed deposits held in a charitable trust's own name arises from its investments and remains revenue income unless a donor expressly directs that such interest be treated as corpus. Donor permission to use refunded funds for self-help group or micro-credit programmes does not amount to a corpus direction for deposit interest. Earmarking funds for programme purposes constitutes application of income after accrual, not diversion at source. Claiming tax-deducted-at-source credit on the interest is inconsistent with excluding it from receipts.

Foreign investment was treated as duly explained where documentary evidence established the investors' registration and tax status, the investment-cum-collaboration agreement, restructuring, inward remittances, audited financial statements, and issuance of shares and compulsorily convertible debentures. The transfer-pricing report contained no adverse finding. Concurrent findings accepting the investors' identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions cannot be disturbed without demonstrated perversity. Failure by the assessing authority to objectively address the assessee's supporting material also breached procedural fairness. Consequently, no addition for unexplained foreign investment under Section 68 was sustainable and no substantial question of law arose.

Actuarially backed ad hoc contributions made to remedy an established deficit in an approved superannuation fund are distinguished from ordinary annual contributions and initial contributions. Their legal character depends on their deficit-remedying purpose, including liabilities arising from earlier funding constraints, rather than the period over which the deficit arose. The annual ceiling under Rule 87 does not apply to such actuarially necessary funding, as applying it could impair fund solvency and conflict with the deduction available for contributions to approved funds under section 36(1)(iv). A reasoned application of governing precedents supports deletion of a disallowance and does not render that determination arbitrary or perverse.

Actuarially necessary contributions made to cure deficits in approved superannuation funds are distinguished from ordinary annual or initial contributions and are not subject to the Rule 87 ceiling. Applying that ceiling to deficit funding would impair fund solvency and conflict with the deduction available for approved superannuation-fund contributions. Contributions that bridge an actuarial shortfall in an approved gratuity fund are likewise not subject to the Rule 103 ceiling. Where approval of the gratuity fund remains in force, the Assessing Officer cannot revisit that approval or use Rule 103 to disallow actuarially required funding. Such deductions remain available where payments cure approved employee-benefit fund deficits.

Actuarially determined ad hoc contributions made to eliminate accumulated funding deficits in an approved superannuation fund are not ordinary annual contributions subject to the Rule 87 ceiling. Their character depends on the purpose of curing the gap between fund assets and actuarial liabilities, including deficits carried from earlier years, rather than on whether deficit funding recurs. Such payments are also distinct from initial contributions. Applying the annual ceiling to necessary actuarial-deficit funding would undermine fund solvency and conflict with the deduction framework for approved superannuation funds. A reasoned appellate determination based on applicable precedents is not arbitrary or perverse.

Composition eligibility lapses from the day aggregate turnover exceeds the prescribed threshold, requiring payment of tax under the regular scheme on subsequent supplies. Where turnover calculations have excluded accepted e-way bill errors, the remaining admitted turnover determines the lapse; input-tax credit remains unaddressed without a substantiated claim. Post-lapse invoice values must be treated as tax-inclusive where the composition taxpayer did not collect tax separately. Rule 35 requires extraction of the tax component from the total consideration, even if cum-tax treatment was not expressly claimed earlier. Tax, interest and penalty require redetermination on that cum-tax basis.

Rule 86A of the CGST Rules permits temporary restriction only of input tax credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger when the prescribed officer records reasons to believe that the credit was fraudulently availed or is ineligible. Credit availability at the time of invocation is a condition precedent. The rule does not authorise departmental debit entries, negative blocking, or restrictions exceeding the ledger balance. Although prior notice is unnecessary for an emergent restriction, recovery of wrongly availed or utilised credit must proceed under the statutory recovery mechanism. Restrictions beyond available credit are invalid.

Delayed GST appeals filed beyond the ordinary and condonable periods under Section 107 may, in peculiar circumstances involving factual questions requiring appellate examination, receive a further opportunity for merits adjudication. The delay was condoned, the dismissal and rectification orders concerning the appeal were quashed, and the appeal was restored for adjudication after adequate hearing.

Reliance on AI-generated legal authorities was questioned where the impugned tax order appeared to rest exclusively on cited decisions that may be nonexistent or inapplicable. Revenue authorities were required to obtain instructions confirming the existence and applicability of those authorities. Further consideration was retained, with potential directions for the issuing officer's presence and further action depending on verification. The matter remains listed for further hearing.

GST demand proceedings initiated against a deceased sole proprietor are invalid where show cause notices and the consequential demand order are issued in the deceased person's name. The proprietorship registration had been cancelled, while the legal heir was unconnected with the business and unaware of portal communications, leaving no effective opportunity to respond. The notices and demand order were quashed, without preventing lawful proceedings against the legal heir for any outstanding GST liability.

A timely rectification application under Section 161, decided by a reasoned order, governs computation of the limitation period for an appeal under Section 107 against a refund rejection. Limitation must run from the date of the rectification order rather than solely from the original adjudication order. Computing limitation only from the original refund-rejection order, without accounting for the rectification decision, improperly treats the appeal as time-barred. This principle applies where the statutory rectification application was filed within the prescribed period and was subsequently decided.

Input tax credit mismatch demands based on differences between FORM GSTR-3B and FORM GSTR-2A require verification under Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST. The proper officer must obtain invoice-related details from the registered person and verify compliance with the conditions for input tax credit under Section 16 before confirming a demand. Where an ex parte assessment is issued without that exercise, the demand requires fresh consideration after permitting supporting evidence and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The ex parte adjudication order was quashed and the demand was remitted for reconsideration under the circular and applicable law.