A reassessment following a return furnished in response to Section 148 requires a valid notice under Section 143(2) issued after that return. A notice issued before the return cannot meet this mandatory requirement. Section 292BB may cure defects in the service, timing or manner of service of an issued notice, but cannot cure the absence of a valid post-return notice. Failure to issue the required notice is a jurisdictional defect rather than a curable procedural irregularity, rendering the reassessment invalid.

Reassessment initiation requires a meaningful opportunity to respond and consideration of the assessee's reply before a determination is made. Curtailing the statutory response period despite available time, where an extension was sought before the deadline and a reply was uploaded before the order, causes prejudice and violates principles of natural justice. The order under Section 148A(d) and consequential reassessment notice under Section 148 were set aside, requiring a fresh determination after considering the reply.

Revision under Section 263 validly applies where an assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Expenses claimed despite alleged non-deduction of tax at source required verification from the assessee's records, including evidence of tax deduction and deposit. An unsupported assertion that much of the expenditure comprised reimbursements did not cure the assessment's lack of enquiry. Failure to undertake adequate verification of the tax-deduction-at-source implications rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests, permitting revision.

Rule 29 compliance for additional evidence required fresh determination where Tribunal receipt endorsements and file inspection prima facie showed that Paper Book No. II-A and the supporting affidavit had been filed. The absence of a separately titled Rule 29 application did not by itself justify doubting their filing. The Tribunal must determine whether the affidavit met Rule 29 requirements and, if so, whether the additional material was relevant to the appeal and what consequential effect it should have. The rejection of the miscellaneous application was set aside only to that extent; the grievance concerning Paper Book No. II was not pursued.

Section 260A requires an income-tax appeal to be filed within 120 days and permits delayed admission only where sufficient cause is established. After exclusion of the pandemic-related limitation period, an unexplained delay of 1,116 days remained. Administrative workload, difficulty tracing records and departmental pressure, without supporting material, did not explain the delay after appeal papers were finalised. The absence of due diligence and bona fides precluded a liberal limitation approach, and the delay was not condoned.

Section 10(38) addresses exemption of long-term capital gains, while Section 115JB governs computation of book profits for minimum alternate tax. The relevant interpretive issue concerns the proviso to Section 10(38) and whether gains excluded from total income must nevertheless be included in book profits for MAT purposes. The subject therefore distinguishes ordinary total-income computation from the statutory treatment of exempt capital gains under the MAT regime.

Writ of mandamus was invoked under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 261 and 265 to seek enforcement of statutory duties concerning alleged tax evasion. The allegations relied on an FIR, sworn testimony before a Family Court, affidavits concerning declared assets, and purported unaccounted cash transactions. The central legal issue concerns the scope of writ jurisdiction and judicial restraint where allegations remain disputed, alongside constitutional claims relating to equality, free expression, personal liberty, inter-State recognition, and taxation only by authority of law.

Order giving effect to an appellate direction could not stand where the expressly contemplated reasonable opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee. Earlier High Court directions had also required a hearing. The Supreme Court set aside the appellate-effect order and the impugned High Court judgment, directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter after hearing the assessee and keeping all contentions open.

Section 80IB(10) deduction eligibility depends on calculating the prescribed 1,000 sq. ft. limit through the unit's built-up area. The relevant measurement concerns habitable area and inner measurements at floor level, while requiring consideration of whether common areas, projections and balconies are included or excluded. These components determine whether a residential unit satisfies the area condition for the housing-project deduction.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit under an inverted duty structure is not conditional on the claimant being a manufacturer rather than a trader. A circular addressing accumulation arising from a GST-rate reduction on the same goods does not bar a claim where no such rate reduction occurred merely because input and output classifications overlap. Statutory refund eligibility and the Rule 89(5) formula require computation using period-specific data. Verification of eligible inputs, exclusion of ineligible credit, invoice matching and zero-rated supplies supports the claim where no material displaces the verification findings. Refunds remain sustainable when statutory conditions and the prescribed formula are met.

Personal hearing requirements for GST liability orders under Section 75(4) were central to the challenge. The factual circumstances were not shown to differ from those considered in an earlier ruling on the same requirement. The writ petition was therefore decided in accordance with that earlier decision, addressing whether the impugned GST liability order complied with the statutory personal-hearing requirement.

Statutory appellate remedies against cancellation of registration and rejection of revocation take priority over writ jurisdiction where disputed factual questions require determination. Although the cancellation order was defectively drafted and undated, its service date was to be treated as the relevant date for filing an appeal. The factual dispute concerning production of electronic devices remained open for examination by the appellate authority. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Bail was directed after the charge-sheet had been filed, as no further custodial interrogation was required. Continued custody for nearly three months, coupled with the absence of stated criminal antecedents, supported release. The petitioner was therefore released on bail pending proceedings, and the special leave petition was disposed of on the stated facts.

Anticipatory bail may be granted where investigation has concluded, a charge-sheet has been filed, charges have been framed, and trial is underway, because custodial interrogation is no longer required. Bail remains subject to conditions imposed by the investigating officer, the accused's continued cooperation, and appearance before the jurisdictional court. The relevant consideration is the absence of any continuing investigative need for custody after the matter has progressed to trial.

Regular bail in proceedings alleging offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was granted after weighing parity with co-accused already released on bail, the period of incarceration undergone, and the trial's stage. Release remained subject to terms and conditions fixed by the concerned Trial Court, balancing the accused's liberty against the requirements of the pending criminal proceedings.

Sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay in a revenue income-tax appeal requires a credible explanation demonstrating bona fides and due diligence. Liberal construction of the limitation standard does not excuse negligence, inaction, departmental workload, difficulty locating records, or unexplained delay after appeal papers are finalised. The duration of delay may be relevant, but the adequacy of the explanation remains decisive. Where substantial delay persists even after exclusion of a limitation extension and the applicant provides only excuses, condonation is unavailable. Failure to establish sufficient cause results in dismissal of the condonation application and the appeal as time-barred.

Failure to verify tax deduction at source compliance on remuneration and hire expenses incurred for motion-picture production can render an assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. The claimed expenditure required examination of the extent of TDS deduction and deposit, while an assertion that substantial expenditure represented reimbursements required supporting records and evidence. In the absence of such verification, revisional intervention and a fresh assessment were warranted. The TDS-related expense issue was to be reconsidered after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, framing of charges and commencement of trial remove the need for custodial interrogation, supporting grant of anticipatory bail. Bail may be granted subject to conditions set by the Investigating Officer, continued cooperation with the investigation and furnishing bail bonds before the jurisdictional court. On these grounds, the refusal of anticipatory bail was set aside and anticipatory bail was granted.

Bail may be granted after filing of a charge-sheet where no further custodial interrogation is required. In allegations concerning unrecorded dry-fruit transactions and issuance of tax invoices, release on bail was directed subject to conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court. The accused was also required to appear before that court within two weeks. The material highlights completion of investigation and absence of a continuing custodial need as relevant considerations for post-charge-sheet bail.

Availability of a statutory appellate remedy against GST registration cancellation and rejection of revocation ordinarily precludes adjudication of factual disputes in writ jurisdiction. Appeals lay against both orders; therefore, factual contentions remained open for determination by the appellate authority. Where the revocation-rejection order was undated but served on 22 August 2026, the service date was directed to be treated as the order date for pursuing the appellate remedy. The taxpayer was permitted to file appeals against both orders within two weeks, for expeditious disposal.