Revisionary jurisdiction cannot require initiation of penalty for under-reporting where the assessment retains the returned income and the disputed tax credit was already included in disclosed turnover. As no under-reporting arose, the statutory penalty computation mechanism did not apply. Initiation of such penalty proceedings depends on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and remains discretionary rather than mandatory. Accordingly, failure to initiate penalty did not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, and the revisionary direction was unsustainable.

Settlement orders conclusively determine the matters covered by them and are not subject to writ interference merely because the Department disputes the Settlement Commission's appreciation of oral or documentary evidence. Judicial review is confined to procedural illegality, breach of natural justice, or action contrary to statutory provisions. Where no such defect is alleged and the challenge concerns only alleged unaccounted transactions and evidentiary appreciation, the settlement order remains immune from writ review.

Section 151A requires algorithm-based random allocation for assessment and reassessment under the faceless statutory framework. A Jurisdictional Assessing Officer cannot validly issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 outside that allocation regime, and administrative instructions cannot override or dilute this statutory requirement. Reassessment notices issued contrary to the faceless allocation framework, together with consequential orders, are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Procedural delay in uploading Form 10CCB and filing the income-tax return should not by itself defeat a Section 80IA deduction where the audit report was prepared within time and the delay resulted from the Chartered Accountant's admitted oversight. The failure to upload the report is treated as a technical irregularity, while the claimant's substantive eligibility for the statutory deduction requires examination on merits. Rejection of condonation is therefore unsustainable where the filing delay is marginal and no assessment of entitlement has occurred; the Section 80IA claim should be considered on merits without denial solely for delayed filing.

Reassessment limitation under the substituted regime is examined where alleged escaped income exceeded the threshold for the extended period under the erstwhile regime. A notice issued within the surviving six-year period is treated through the statutory legal fiction as leading to proceedings under Section 148A(b). The time allowed for the taxpayer's reply and completion of the statutory process is excluded when computing limitation for the Section 148A(d) order and consequential Section 148 notice. The stated concession for the relevant assessment year does not apply where escaped income exceeds the prescribed threshold.

A revision order under Section 263 concerning a post-demerger assessment was set aside because it was issued without adequate application of mind and before the audited post-demerger financial statements were prepared. The revised return required fresh consideration based on the relevant audited balance sheet and profit and loss account. The demerger's merits and the claimed capital-gains exemption were left open for independent determination. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after submission of a proper revised return founded on the audited post-demerger financial statements.

Project-specific Government grants subject to mandatory utilisation for a specified scheme are not treated as taxable income where the recipient does not have unrestricted entitlement to the funds. Interest payable on unutilised grant funds under the governing disbursement terms is an ascertained business liability and is deductible, rather than contingent. Under the block-of-assets regime, depreciation cannot be restricted by separately identifying assets retired from active use if business assets within the relevant block are used; simultaneous use of every individual asset is not required.

Sale of flats was characterised as giving rise to capital gains rather than business income because the flats were acquired, recorded and managed as investments, including efforts to lease them. The isolated project, substantial holding period, staggered sales, and lack of volume, frequency, continuity or regularity associated with real-estate trading supported investment intent. While accounting treatment was not conclusive, it remained relevant when considered with the overall conduct. Earlier acceptance of capital-gains treatment, without changed facts or incriminating material, also supported consistency. Whether a transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade depends on intention and the totality of circumstances, with the Revenue bearing the burden of proving trading character.

A special leave petition concerning the allowability of a provision for discount as an expense was not entertained by the SC in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances. The petition was dismissed, while any question of law was expressly kept open. The text does not state a binding determination on whether such discount provisions are allowable deductions.

Reliance on a District Valuation Officer's report following rejection of books of account is discussed in relation to the appropriate valuation benchmark. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) faulted the valuation method used by the District Valuation Officer, while not questioning the procedure of obtaining the valuation report. The text states that valuation should be based on State PWD rates rather than CPWD rates and records dismissal of the Special Leave Petition without interference with the High Court judgment.

Reasonable apprehension of bias can invalidate a collective selection process even without proof of actual prejudice. Participation in the Search-cum-Selection Committee by an officer who had faced contempt proceedings initiated by the candidate in the same service dispute created a genuine concern about impartiality. The relevant record also indicated prior departmental actions affecting the candidate's prospects. The rejection of candidature for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT was set aside, and fresh consideration was required by a reconstituted Selection Committee excluding the concerned officer, with the outcome to be communicated to the candidate.

Implementation of GST did not confer an additional input tax credit benefit for the relevant real-estate project. Verification of eligible pre-GST credit, post-GST input tax credit, transitional credit, purchase values and reversals attributable to exempt supplies showed that the eligible-credit-to-purchase-value ratio decreased from 10.44% before GST to 10.08% after GST. On that basis, the investigation report found no additional credit capable of requiring a commensurate reduction in homebuyer prices under the anti-profiteering provisions. No anti-profiteering contravention or amount payable to homebuyers was established.

Section 62 permits best-judgment assessment for failure to furnish GST returns, but treats the assessment order as deemed withdrawn once the registered person files valid returns. Interest and late-fee liability remains payable. Where returns for all disputed periods were filed with the applicable interest and late fee, the amended provision, including condonation of delay for filing returns, applied. Consequently, the assessment orders and consequential recovery action could not continue after valid returns were furnished.

Section 29(2) permits cancellation where registration was obtained through fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or where the Act or Rules are contravened. Allegedly untenable documents were used only for subsequent amendments concerning the business premises, while the original registration pre-dated those amendments and was not shown to have been fraudulently obtained. As the amendments did not affect the underlying business activity, the appropriate measure was to cancel the premises-related amendments while retaining the original registration and permitting a future application supported by valid documents or orders.

Statutory GST appeals may be pursued where the petitioner elects the appellate remedy, subject to filing the required pre-deposit and applications seeking condonation of delay. The challenges to the impugned GST orders were not examined on their merits. The appellate authority was directed to assess the delay on the stated facts and, if satisfied, determine the appeals in accordance with law. The writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to file statutory appeals within two weeks.

Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 bars the Appellate Authority from remanding matters but permits further inquiry necessary for proper adjudication. That power may include allowing cross-examination where required, enabling the appellate forum to examine alleged denial of cross-examination, factual and legal grievances, and claims of payments already made. The statutory appeal is therefore described as an efficacious remedy, with writ jurisdiction not invoked and the petitioner directed to pursue the appellate remedy.

Rule 86A(2) of the GST Rules permits debit from a blocked electronic credit ledger when the conditions that justified blocking no longer exist. Input tax credit was blocked after the petitioner's suppliers were found non-existent and their registrations cancelled. As the application seeking unblocking was stated to be unavailable to the respondents, a copy was required to be served for reconsideration. The application must then be considered and decided on its merits under the prescribed Rule 86A(2) mechanism.

GST demands founded on alleged fraudulent registration and identity theft should ordinarily be challenged through the statutory appellate remedy where impersonation, forgery and use of identity documents require assessment of disputed facts and evidence. Writ jurisdiction is unsuitable for re-evaluating findings already considered by the adjudicating authority, while the identity-theft investigation remains subject to the competent criminal court's supervision. The petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appeal and could seek exclusion of time spent in writ proceedings for limitation purposes.

Under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, uploading a show-cause notice solely on the GST portal after cancellation of the taxpayer's registration does not provide effective service. Once registration is cancelled, the taxpayer is not obliged to monitor the portal, and an alternative mode of service is required to ensure a meaningful opportunity of hearing. Portal-only service in these circumstances breaches the principles of natural justice, rendering the resulting assessment order invalid and liable to be quashed.

Disputed denial of input tax credit, interest and penalty required factual verification of ERP software existence and use, and of the underlying transaction's genuineness. Because those matters had not been tested and a statutory appellate remedy was available, writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for resolving the controversy. The party was permitted to file a statutory appeal within 30 days without pre-deposit, and the appellate authority was directed to decide it on merits within three months.