Tax-audit penalty under section 271B is not sustainable where the audit is completed within the prescribed period and the audit report is made available during assessment proceedings. Section 44AB requires the assessee to obtain the report by the specified date, while section 271B permits rather than mandates a penalty. Section 273B further protects an assessee who establishes reasonable cause. Mere failure to furnish the report with the return does not by itself establish non-compliance with section 44AB when the report was available to the lower authorities before assessment was completed.

Reassessment initiated solely on a revenue audit objection and verification of material already examined in the original scrutiny assessment lacks fresh tangible material to support a belief that income escaped assessment. Reopening such concluded matters constitutes an impermissible change of opinion under Section 147. The reassessment was therefore invalid, and the addition made through it was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) requires identification of the person who received the alleged benefit from property acquired below stamp-duty value. Under section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, equal interests of joint purchasers are presumed only where their respective contributions are not evidenced. Where one joint purchaser paid the entire consideration and the other, although named in the purchase deed, made no contribution, the non-contributing purchaser is not chargeable for the valuation difference. The addition was therefore deleted from the non-contributing co-purchaser's assessment.

Proceedings under section 153C for the relevant assessment years were treated as time-barred under the limitation prescribed by the third proviso to section 153B(1), resulting in quashing of the notices and proceedings. The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with that determination while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed the special leave petition. The limitation finding therefore remained operative for the challenged section 153C proceedings.

Section 16(5) overrides the time limit in Section 16(4) for input tax credit relating to financial years 2017-18 through 2020-21. It permits credit to be claimed through a return filed by 30 November 2021. Input tax credit for financial year 2018-19, claimed through a return filed on 23 October 2019, falls within this preserved period and cannot be denied on the limitation ground.

Section 75(7) prohibits an adjudicating authority from confirming a tax demand exceeding the amount proposed in the show cause notice. Confirmation of a substantially higher demand breaches this mandatory statutory restriction, exceeds adjudicatory jurisdiction, and renders the resulting adjudication order unsustainable. The demand must remain within the scope of the notice, ensuring that the person charged receives notice of the proposed liability before it is confirmed.

Bail pending investigation into alleged fraudulent input tax credit claims was granted because material investigation was substantially complete, continued custodial detention was unnecessary, and co-accused had received bail. Release required furnishing the prescribed bond and surety, with monthly appearance before the investigating officer until submission of the charge sheet. The determination balanced investigative requirements against the nature and gravity of the allegations, the accused's period in custody, and parity with co-accused granted bail.

Revocation of a cancelled GST registration was made available subject to filing pending returns and satisfying statutory requirements. The registered person was required to submit a revocation application within one week. Tax authorities were required to communicate any additional compliance promptly and consider revocation once the required compliance was completed.

GST budgetary support claims should not be concluded solely on a declaration where the record reveals a discrepancy with a Chartered Accountant certificate submitted at the respondents' direction. The absence of an express mechanism for revising a filed declaration does not remove the duty to act fairly when the claimant identifies an apparent error and offers supporting material. A claimant must receive a reasonable opportunity to explain and substantiate the discrepancy before the eligible input tax credit and consequential budgetary support claim are finally determined.

Alternative statutory remedy is central where disputed questions of fact concern service of a show-cause notice, hearing notice and adjudication order. The dispute concerns the exercise of writ jurisdiction against an adjudication order when service of those notices and the order itself is contested. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court order and dismissed the special leave petition, leaving the impugned order undisturbed.

Fair hearing in budgetary support claims requires the claimant to receive an opportunity to explain discrepancies between an input tax credit declaration and a Chartered Accountant certificate submitted at the respondents' direction. Where the declaration contains an asserted error, the officer must call for an explanation and consider supporting material before concluding the claim on merits. A claim cannot be finally determined merely by relying on the discrepant declaration without this opportunity. The challenged order was set aside to that extent, with directions to permit supporting documents and reconsider the claim after a reasonable hearing.

Bail was granted to an accused alleged to have operated a firm used for fraudulent availment of input tax credit, although the firm was registered in his spouse's name. The High Court treated the investigation concerning the accused as almost complete and considered that certain co-accused had already received bail. Balancing the detention period against the nature and gravity of the allegations, it found that further custodial detention was unnecessary for the investigation. Release was subject to a bond and surety, monthly appearance before the Investigating Officer, and compliance until submission of the charge-sheet.

Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act overrides section 16(4) and preserves input tax credit entitlement for specified financial years where the return under section 39 was filed by 30 November 2021. For Financial Year 2018-19, a return filed on 23 October 2019 fell within the preserved period. Denial of the related input tax credit was therefore impermissible, and the Order-in-Original denying the claim was set aside and quashed.

Additional documentary evidence on the GST refund mismatch was admitted as vital to verifying its accounting and tax treatment. Because the evidence required verification by the Assessing Officer and the Revenue did not oppose admission, the adjustment reducing the returned business loss was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication after a hearing. Outstanding trade payables arising from purchases could not be treated as unexplained cash credit where creditor-balance differences had been reconciled and supported by documentary evidence. In the absence of contrary material or precedent from the Revenue, deletion of that addition was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Competent sanction under section 151 is a substantive jurisdictional safeguard for reassessment. TOLA extended the authority under section 151(i) only until 30 June 2021; for notices issued in July 2022, approval from the higher authority under section 151(ii) was required. Approval by the Principal Commissioner was neither substantial compliance nor curable under section 292B, so the reassessment and consequential addition were annulled. Penalty for failure to obtain a tax audit requires proof of business activity and legally relevant turnover exceeding the prescribed threshold. Purchases, delivery-based sales and unproved derivative transactions could not establish turnover; consistent investment treatment and capital-gains disclosure also demonstrated reasonable cause. The audit penalty was deleted.

Directly relevant additional evidence supporting commission paid to daily deposit collection agents was admitted because the lower authorities had not examined it, and the commission disallowance was remanded for fresh consideration. Interest estimated on non-performing loans to members was deleted because income from credit facilities provided by a co-operative society to its members qualified for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i), rendering the addition revenue neutral. Interest estimated by applying a uniform rate across housing, mortgage, personal, deposit-backed and overdraft loans was also deleted because those loan categories carried differential rates and the resulting enhanced income would qualify for the same deduction. The appeal was partly allowed.

Payments for a non-exclusive, non-transferable and non-sublicensable licence to use software internally do not constitute royalty under Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA where the licensor retains copyright and proprietary rights and the user cannot commercially exploit, modify, sublicense, reverse engineer or copy the software except for backup. Such payments concern use of a copyrighted article, eliminating withholding-tax liability as royalty. Payments for video-conferencing equipment and allied products are not fees for technical services merely because installation, setup and training accompany the supply. Withholding applies only to the separately identified installation, setup and training component, subject to the applicable India-Germany DTAA rate.

Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 immunity protected declared long-term capital gains from further taxation where the taxpayer had disclosed the share-sale gains and paid the prescribed tax. ITAT therefore upheld deletion of the addition for differential share-sale proceeds under section 68. For unabated assessments under section 153A, additions require incriminating material found during the search of the taxpayer. Third-party investigation material and statements recorded in other proceedings did not satisfy that requirement. ITAT sustained deletion of additions relating to alleged bogus capital gains and short-term capital loss, dismissed the Department's appeals, and dismissed unpressed cross-objections.

For charitable trusts, fixed deposits and balances in a scheduled-bank savings account created from capital-asset sale proceeds constitute acquisition of another capital asset for capital-gains exemption under section 11(1A). A bank deposit is a permissible investment mode, and its status as a capital asset does not depend on the deposit duration. Eligibility requires sale proceeds to be invested only in prescribed modes; qualifying fixed deposits and savings balances therefore fall within the exemption.

Pecuniary jurisdiction over statutory notices under section 143(2) must comply with CBDT instructions allocating cases by returned-income limits. Where an Income-tax Officer issues the notice despite the returned income exceeding that officer's prescribed limit, the defect concerns pecuniary rather than territorial jurisdiction; the territorial-jurisdiction objection rule does not apply. CBDT instructions bind the Department, and issue of a jurisdictional notice by an officer without pecuniary authority is an illegality, not a procedural irregularity capable of validation under section 292BB. The notices and consequential assessment were therefore treated as void from inception and quashed; other grounds remained academic.