Issues: (i) Whether the NCLT, New Delhi Bench-II could exercise jurisdiction over a Section 95 application against a personal guarantor when the corporate debtor's CIRP was pending before the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench-II; (ii) Whether Rule 16(d) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 permits transfer of such proceedings between Benches in different territorial locations.

Issue (i): Whether the NCLT, New Delhi Bench-II could exercise jurisdiction over a Section 95 application against a personal guarantor when the corporate debtor's CIRP was pending before the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench-II.

Analysis: Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, operating notwithstanding Section 60(1), requires an insolvency or bankruptcy application concerning a personal guarantor to be filed before the same NCLT where the corporate debtor's CIRP or liquidation is pending. The provision mandates consolidation before one Adjudicating Authority to secure consistency and avoid parallel or conflicting proceedings.

Conclusion: In favour of the Appellant. The NCLT, New Delhi Bench-II lacked territorial and inherent jurisdiction over the Section 95 proceedings, which were coram non judice and non-est in law.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 16(d) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 permits transfer of such proceedings between Benches in different territorial locations.

Analysis: Rule 16(d), read with Rule 2(7) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, empowers the President of the NCLT to transfer a case from one Bench to another when circumstances warrant. This power is not confined to transfers within the same territorial jurisdiction where transfer is required to give effect to the mandatory forum prescribed by Section 60(2).

Conclusion: In favour of the Appellant. The restrictive interpretation limiting Rule 16(d) to intra-territorial transfers was incorrect.

Final Conclusion: Proceedings against the personal guarantor must be instituted before the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench-II, being the Adjudicating Authority where the corporate debtor's CIRP was pending; the creditor remains at liberty to pursue proceedings before the competent forum in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the corporate debtor's CIRP or liquidation is pending before an NCLT, Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 mandatorily fixes the forum for personal-guarantor insolvency proceedings at that same NCLT, and Rule 16(d) permits inter-Bench transfer to enforce that mandate.

Issues: Whether the direction requiring repayment of the amount released to the complainant under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be set aside because it was made by the trial court rather than the appellate court.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 148(3) mandates repayment, with stipulated interest, of an amount released to the complainant where the appellant is acquitted. The complainant had also undertaken before the appellate court to repay the amount subject to disposal of the appeal. Although the refund direction ought ordinarily to have been made by the appellate court, the subsequent deposit of the amount pursuant to court directions and the complainant's failure to comply promptly did not justify interference with the refund direction.

Conclusion: Upon acquittal of the accused, the complainant was bound to repay the released amount, and the refund direction was sustained against the petitioner.

Issues: Whether documents already relied upon in the show cause notice and a related additional ground could be placed on record in the appeal.

Analysis: The requested documents did not constitute additional evidence, as they had already been relied upon in the show cause notice. The proposed ground only highlighted their corroborative effect and did not introduce a new ground. No objection arose to citing further authorities or withdrawing reliance on previously cited authorities.

Conclusion: The request to place the documents on record and amend the appeal was allowed.

Issues: Whether rectification jurisdiction under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be invoked to make a fresh disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, where no such disallowance had been made in the original scrutiny assessment.

Analysis: Section 154 permits rectification only of an obvious, patent and self-evident mistake apparent from the record; it does not confer a power of review or permit fresh adjudication. A disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D requires examination of the accounts and statutory satisfaction under section 14A(2) regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim. Availability of exempt-income and investment figures in the record does not itself establish such a mistake.

Conclusion: The fresh disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was outside rectification jurisdiction; the rectification order to that extent was quashed and the addition was deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether compensation for compulsorily acquired agricultural land situated in Hazira Notified Area was chargeable to capital gains tax; (ii) Whether compensation for built-up assets was entitled to deduction of cost of acquisition at 60%.

Issue (i): Whether compensation for compulsorily acquired agricultural land situated in Hazira Notified Area was chargeable to capital gains tax.

Analysis: Agricultural land in the Hazira Notified Area was outside a municipal area and did not constitute a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The land records established agricultural operations, and the acquisition was compulsory. The requirements for exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were also satisfied. Compensation attributable to that land was therefore not liable to capital gains tax.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 53,58,334 towards long-term capital gains on compensation for agricultural land was deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation for built-up assets was entitled to deduction of cost of acquisition at 60%.

Analysis: The separate compensation received for assets such as structures and improvements required computation after allowing a reasonable cost of acquisition. On the identical acquisition facts, 60% of the compensation for such assets was regarded as an appropriate cost of acquisition.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee to the limited extent that 60% of Rs. 1,16,41,667 must be allowed as the cost of acquisition.

Final Conclusion: The land-compensation addition was deleted, and the computation relating to compensation for built-up assets must be revised by allowing the directed cost-of-acquisition deduction.

Issues: Whether imported goods, after completion of Customs formalities, could be withheld for non-payment of detention charges, container detention charges, ground rent or demurrage accruing during Customs detention.

Analysis: Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 and Regulation 10(1)(l) of the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 prohibit recovery of rent or demurrage for goods detained or seized by Customs. The goods remained under Customs detention, Customs formalities culminated in reassessment and payment of duty, and detention-waiver certificates were issued. Delays attributable to Customs authorities or disputes between the shipping line and custodian could not be transferred to the importer or justify withholding physical delivery.

Conclusion: The importer is entitled to release and physical delivery of the goods without liability for detention charges, container detention charges, ground rent or demurrage for the certified period of Customs detention; any inter se liability among the concerned authorities remains open for determination in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether breach of the prescribed investment conditions by a charitable trust results in denial of exemption and taxation at the maximum marginal rate of its entire income, or only of the income connected with the breach.

Analysis: Applying the settled interpretation of Section 13(1)(d), the proviso to Section 164(2), and Circular No. 387 dated 06.07.1984, forfeiture of exemption upon a contravention is confined to the part of income that loses exemption. Eligibility for exemption is distinct from forfeiture of exemption arising from a statutory breach.

Conclusion: The maximum marginal rate is chargeable only on the non-conforming portion of income; exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied in respect of the trust's entire income.

Issues: (i) Whether royalty and fees for technical services were taxable on receipt basis rather than accrual basis; (ii) Whether consideration from supply of software constituted taxable royalty; (iii) Whether the consortium arrangement constituted an association of persons; (iv) Whether income from offshore supply of goods was taxable in India; and (v) Whether an ad hoc transfer-pricing adjustment was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether royalty and fees for technical services were taxable on receipt basis rather than accrual basis.

Analysis: Article 12 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement employs the expressions "paid" and "received" in respect of royalties and fees for technical services. The receipt-basis treatment had consistently been accepted in earlier years and no distinguishing facts were shown for the relevant assessment years.

Conclusion: Royalty and fees for technical services are taxable on receipt basis and not on accrual basis, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether consideration from supply of software constituted taxable royalty.

Analysis: The software supplied was standard software under restricted, non-exclusive and non-transferable licences, without transfer of any copyright rights. Binding precedent applicable to such end-user and distributor transactions establishes that consideration for use or resale of software, without a right to exploit copyright, is not royalty under the Act or the treaty.

Conclusion: Consideration from supply of software is not taxable as royalty, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the consortium arrangement constituted an association of persons.

Analysis: Section 2(31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with the applicable principles requires, among other elements, a common design to earn income, common management, and sharing of profits or losses for an association of persons. The consortium members had separate and identifiable scopes of work, separately invoiced and received their respective consideration, retained separate profits and losses, and indemnified one another for individual defaults. Joint and several liability to the customer was only a contractual safeguard and did not establish a joint enterprise.

Conclusion: The consortium arrangement did not constitute an association of persons, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether income from offshore supply of goods was taxable in India.

Analysis: The Protocol to Article 7 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and the settled treatment of comparable offshore supplies in earlier years governed the issue. In the absence of distinguishing facts, the established position that income from offshore supply of goods was not chargeable to tax in India applied.

Conclusion: Income arising from offshore supply of goods is not taxable in India, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether an ad hoc transfer-pricing adjustment was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires determination of arm's length price through the prescribed transfer-pricing methods and a proper analysis of the relevant transactions. Differences in reported values were explained by receipt-basis accounting and differences in the transactions reported by the assessee and its associated enterprises. In the absence of defects in the transfer-pricing analysis, and where corresponding transactions had been benchmarked in associated enterprises' cases, a flat 10% mark-up could not be imposed.

Conclusion: The ad hoc 10% transfer-pricing adjustment is unsustainable and stands deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessments for both years require recomputation by giving effect to the receipt-basis taxation, non-royalty treatment of software receipts, absence of an association of persons, non-taxability of offshore supply income, and deletion of the ad hoc transfer-pricing adjustment.

Issues: (i) Whether compensation for termination of the distribution arrangement was taxable as business income or as long-term capital gains
(ii) Whether the taxable termination compensation could exceed the amount actually received
(iii) Whether depreciation was allowable on non-compete fee paid to protect use of an acquired trademark
(iv) Whether the 10% disallowances of staff welfare and other miscellaneous expenses were sustainable
(v) Whether corporate office expenses and head-office depreciation could be allocated to the Section 80IB eligible units
(vi) Whether finance costs, research and development costs, and foreign travel expenses required allocation to the Section 80IB eligible units
(vii) Whether additional head-office expenses and common export sales-promotion expenses were correctly allocated to the eligible export unit
(viii) Whether 90% of miscellaneous income, the deferred sales-tax discount, and termination compensation was reducible from business profits under Section 80HHC
(ix) Whether the Section 80IB deduction had to be reduced while computing the Section 80HHC deduction under Section 80IA(9)
(x) Whether the additional ground on the sales-tax prepayment discount under Section 41(1) should be admitted and reconsidered

Issue (i): Whether compensation for termination of the distribution arrangement was taxable as business income or as long-term capital gains

Analysis: Section 28(ii)(c) covers compensation received on termination of an agency. The contractual features, including predetermined margins, control over pricing, reimbursement of statutory levies, product-visibility obligations, and limited freedom of termination, established a principal-agent relationship notwithstanding the distributorship label. The termination did not impair the profit-making apparatus or capital structure, and the payment represented compensation for loss of business within the ordinary trading framework.

Conclusion: The termination compensation was a revenue receipt taxable as business income under Section 28(ii)(c), and not as long-term capital gains; against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the taxable termination compensation could exceed the amount actually received

Analysis: Although the agreement contained a compensation formula referring to Rs. 5 crore, the material established that the parties mutually settled the payment at Rs. 4.56 crore. No evidence established receipt or accrual of the balance amount, and commercial settlement decisions could not be replaced by a higher notional amount.

Conclusion: The addition was restricted to Rs. 4.56 crore and the balance was directed to be deleted; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether depreciation was allowable on non-compete fee paid to protect use of an acquired trademark

Analysis: The non-compete covenant, obtained contemporaneously with acquisition of the trademark, restrained the former registered user from competing for 20 years and protected the trademark's commercial value. Such enduring protection constituted a depreciable intangible asset and a business or commercial right of similar nature within Explanation 3 to Section 32(1)(ii).

Conclusion: Depreciation on the non-compete fee was allowable; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the 10% disallowances of staff welfare and other miscellaneous expenses were sustainable

Analysis: Only broad classifications of the staff welfare and miscellaneous expenses were furnished, without supporting sub-details or vouchers for verification. The facts were accepted as comparable to the earlier year in which a restricted 10% disallowance had been sustained. The expenses were therefore not fully established as incurred wholly and exclusively for business.

Conclusion: The 10% disallowances of both expense categories were sustained; against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether corporate office expenses and head-office depreciation could be allocated to the Section 80IB eligible units

Analysis: For determining profits derived from an eligible unit, only expenditure having a direct nexus with that unit's operations is allocable. The eligible units had absorbed their own relevant manufacturing, marketing, and finance costs in standalone accounts, whereas general corporate office expenditure and depreciation lacked such direct nexus.

Conclusion: Allocation of the corporate office expenses and head-office depreciation was directed to be deleted; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether finance costs, research and development costs, and foreign travel expenses required allocation to the Section 80IB eligible units

Analysis: Allocation of finance cost required verification whether the eligible units generated surplus cash and had used no borrowed or dealership-deposit funds. Allocation of research and development cost depended on whether the expenditure related to products manufactured in the eligible units. Foreign travel expenditure required examination of actual unit-wise allocation, since export turnover alone was not a sufficient basis for further allocation.

Conclusion: The allocations were remitted for fresh verification and determination in accordance with the stated principles.

Issue (vii): Whether additional head-office expenses and common export sales-promotion expenses were correctly allocated to the eligible export unit

Analysis: The additional head-office allocation required verification of the proper sales-turnover basis, including local and export sales. The attribution of common export sales-promotion expenditure also required factual examination of the extent to which it related to the eligible export unit, rather than a mechanical turnover allocation.

Conclusion: Both allocation questions were remitted for factual verification and fresh determination.

Issue (viii): Whether 90% of miscellaneous income, the deferred sales-tax discount, and termination compensation was reducible from business profits under Section 80HHC

Analysis: Section 80HHC permits deduction only for profits derived from export activity, requiring a direct nexus between the receipt and export of goods. Miscellaneous income, savings from deferred sales-tax liability, and compensation for termination of a distribution arrangement were each a step removed from the export business and did not satisfy the derived-from-export requirement.

Conclusion: Reduction of 90% of those receipts from business profits for Section 80HHC computation was sustained; against the assessee.

Issue (ix): Whether the Section 80IB deduction had to be reduced while computing the Section 80HHC deduction under Section 80IA(9)

Analysis: Section 80IA(9) does not require reduction of eligible profits at the stage of computing the Section 80HHC deduction merely because Section 80IB relief has been claimed. The restriction against double deduction operates while allowing the aggregate Chapter VI-A relief, which cannot exceed gross total income. The relevant facts and figures required verification.

Conclusion: The computation was remitted for fresh determination in accordance with the applicable Section 80IA(9) principles.

Issue (x): Whether the additional ground on the sales-tax prepayment discount under Section 41(1) should be admitted and reconsidered

Analysis: The additional ground raised a pure legal question concerning whether the discounted prepayment of deferred sales-tax liability resulted in remission or cessation of a trading liability under Section 41(1). The relevant material was already on record, but the taxability issue had not been examined on merits.

Conclusion: The additional ground was admitted and remitted for statutory determination; no final finding on taxability was made.

Final Conclusion: The termination payment remains chargeable as business income only to the extent actually received, the acquired non-compete right is depreciable, unrelated corporate-overhead allocation is excluded from eligible-unit profits, and the identified allocation and sales-tax questions require fresh statutory determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation for ending an agency-like commercial arrangement is a revenue receipt taxable as business income where termination does not impair the assessee's profit-making apparatus or source of income, notwithstanding the arrangement's distributorship label.

Issues: Whether the subsequently obtained GST registration could be restored despite cancellation of an earlier GST registration that the petitioner did not intend to revive.

Analysis: The petitioner had not carried on business under the earlier registration and did not seek its revival. Continuing cancellation of the subsequent registration would restrict the petitioner from carrying on business and paying tax; no impediment to its restoration was found.

Conclusion: The subsequent GST registration was directed to be restored, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail can be maintained solely on summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when no order authorising arrest under Section 69 of that Act has been passed and communicated.

Analysis: Summons under Section 70 do not make the summoned person an accused and do not, by themselves, create a legally sustainable apprehension of arrest. An order under Section 69, founded on reasons to believe and communicated to the person concerned, is the sine qua non for seeking pre-arrest protection. Searches, an ongoing investigation, and a possible future arrest cannot substitute for that foundational order.

Conclusion: In the absence of an order under Section 69 authorising and communicating arrest, the applications for anticipatory bail were premature and not maintainable.

Issues: (i) Whether a Regional Rural Bank deemed to be a co-operative society under Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, remains entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after insertion of Section 80P(4); (ii) Whether revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid where the original assessment allowed the deduction on that basis.

Issue (i): Whether a Regional Rural Bank deemed to be a co-operative society under Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, remains entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after insertion of Section 80P(4).

Analysis: The assessee's status as a Regional Rural Bank was consistently accepted. Section 22 creates a specific statutory deeming fiction treating a Regional Rural Bank as a co-operative society for income-tax purposes. That fiction had not been overridden by Section 80P(4). The exclusion in Section 80P(4) applies to co-operative banks, whereas the assessee was not shown to fall within the relevant categories of primary co-operative bank or primary credit society.

Conclusion: A Regional Rural Bank deemed to be a co-operative society under Section 22 remains eligible for deduction under Section 80P; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid where the original assessment allowed the deduction on that basis.

Analysis: The original assessment correctly granted the deduction by applying the statutory deeming fiction under Section 22. Since the assessment was legally sustainable, it could not be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue so as to justify revision.

Conclusion: The assumption of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory deeming fiction preserves the assessee's entitlement to the co-operative society deduction and leaves no basis for revising the original assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: A Regional Rural Bank deemed to be a co-operative society for income-tax purposes under Section 22 retains the deduction available under Section 80P unless that deeming fiction is expressly overridden; the exclusion applicable to co-operative banks under Section 80P(4) does not apply without establishing that status.

Issues: (i) Whether the bank's Government securities constituted stock-in-trade and the related depreciation was allowable; (ii) Whether the brokerage payment was allowable following the Assessing Officer's post-remand determination; (iii) Whether unclaimed customer balances involved a taxable remission or cessation of trading liability.

Issue (i): Whether the bank's Government securities constituted stock-in-trade and the related depreciation was allowable.

Analysis: Under Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a taxpayer may value stock-in-trade at the lower of cost or market value. A consistent method of accounting and valuation cannot be displaced merely because another method is preferred. The governing position treated Government securities held by the bank as stock-in-trade.

Conclusion: The Government securities were stock-in-trade and the related depreciation claim was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the brokerage payment was allowable following the Assessing Officer's post-remand determination.

Analysis: Following remand by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer considered and allowed the claim during the pendency of the appeal.

Conclusion: The brokerage payment stood allowed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether unclaimed customer balances involved a taxable remission or cessation of trading liability.

Analysis: Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies only where a trading liability, for which an allowance or deduction was obtained, has been remitted or has ceased. Amounts remaining unclaimed by customers do not become taxable where the bank's legal obligation to repay them continues.

Conclusion: The unclaimed balances did not constitute taxable income through remission or cessation of trading liability, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The bank's securities were treated as trading stock, its brokerage-related claim remained allowed, and the unclaimed customer balances were not taxable on a cessation-of-liability basis.

Issues: (i) Whether the exporter was entitled to service-tax exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-S.T. dated 07.07.2009 when the half-yearly return claiming exemption was filed after the deadline prescribed by the notification; (ii) Whether penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was validly imposed.

Issue (i): Whether the exporter was entitled to service-tax exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-S.T. dated 07.07.2009 when the half-yearly return claiming exemption was filed after the deadline prescribed by the notification.

Analysis: The notification made exemption conditional upon submission of the certified half-yearly return and prescribed documents within 15 days of completion of the relevant period. Although the Service Tax Rules permitted filing of a belated return on payment of the applicable fine, the notification independently imposed a shorter and unchallenged deadline for availing exemption. Its conditions were clear and the delayed return did not satisfy them.

Conclusion: The exemption was unavailable owing to non-compliance with the notification's time condition, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was validly imposed.

Analysis: The penalty was computed at a rate higher than that prescribed by Section 76, which then provided for Rs. 100 per day of continuing failure or 1% of tax per month, whichever was higher, subject to a ceiling of 50% of service tax.

Conclusion: The penalty levy was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax exemption claim fails for delayed compliance with the notification, while the incorrectly computed penalty cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether a trust having both charitable and religious objects is eligible for registration under Section 12AA.

Analysis: Section 11(1)(a) excludes income derived from property held under a trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes. Section 12AA draws no distinction between trusts formed for charitable purposes and those formed for religious purposes, and mixed charitable and religious objects do not disqualify a trust from seeking registration.

Conclusion: A trust with both charitable and religious objects is eligible for registration under Section 12AA.

Issues: Whether royalty under a mining lease executed before 1 April 2016 attracted service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis: The negative-list treatment under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 was applied to royalty arising from mining leases executed before 1 April 2016. Since the lease agreements had not been produced before the lower authorities, the date of their execution required factual verification.

Conclusion: Where the mining lease agreements were executed before 1 April 2016, royalty is not liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism and no penalty is imposable.

Issues: Whether an advance-ruling application was maintainable despite non-payment in full of the prescribed fee and failure to specify the statutory category of questions.

Analysis: Section 97(1) of the CGST and KGST Acts, read with Rule 104 of the corresponding Rules, mandates payment of the prescribed application fee. Despite repeated opportunities, the balance fee was not paid and there was no compliance with hearing notices. The application also omitted the category of questions required under Section 97(2), constituting a fundamental statutory defect.

Conclusion: The advance-ruling application was not maintainable because the mandatory filing requirements were not met.

Issues: Whether non-payment of the prescribed fee renders an application for advance ruling not maintainable.

Analysis: Section 97(1) and Rule 104 require an advance-ruling application to be accompanied by the prescribed fee under both the central and State enactments. The full fee was not remitted despite repeated opportunities to cure the defect, and there was no appearance or compliance by the applicant.

Conclusion: Full payment of the prescribed fee is a mandatory precondition for entertaining an advance-ruling application; non-compliance precludes examination of the questions on merits.

Issues: Whether an advance-ruling application is maintainable where the prescribed application fee was not paid in full despite repeated opportunities for compliance.

Analysis: Section 97(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 104 of the corresponding Rules, require payment of the prescribed fee for an advance-ruling application. The applicant neither remitted the balance fee nor responded to the communications and hearing opportunities provided to cure the defect. Full payment of the prescribed fee was treated as a mandatory condition for entertaining the application.

Conclusion: Non-payment of the prescribed fee in full rendered the advance-ruling application not maintainable.

Issues: (i) Whether the Principal Commissioner (Central) had jurisdiction to cancel the trust's registration after centralisation under section 127. (ii) Whether section 12AB(4), introduced with effect from 01.04.2022, could be invoked retrospectively for alleged pre-01.04.2022 conduct and whether the statutory cancellation procedure was followed. (iii) Whether the allegations concerning salary refunds, unrecorded fees, brokerage and funds from purported shell entities established a specified violation warranting cancellation of regular and provisional registration.

Issue (i): Whether the Principal Commissioner (Central) had jurisdiction to cancel the trust's registration after centralisation under section 127.

Analysis: Transfer of the assessee's case to the Central Charge under section 127 vested jurisdiction in the authorities of that charge. Notification No. 70/2014 authorised the Principal Commissioner (Central) to perform statutory functions in respect of cases assigned to Assessing Officers subordinate to that charge. Section 12AB(4) uses the expression "Principal Commissioner or Commissioner" and does not reserve cancellation powers exclusively for the Commissioner (Exemptions).

Conclusion: The Principal Commissioner (Central) had jurisdiction to initiate and decide cancellation proceedings. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether section 12AB(4), introduced with effect from 01.04.2022, could be invoked retrospectively for alleged pre-01.04.2022 conduct and whether the statutory cancellation procedure was followed.

Analysis: The specified-violation regime inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 carries penal consequences and applies prospectively. The alleged conduct, search material and statements relied upon related entirely to periods preceding 01.04.2022. The notice and cancellation order also failed to identify the particular clause of the Explanation to section 12AB(4) allegedly attracted. No distinct inquiry and recorded satisfaction regarding a specified violation preceded the proposal to cancel registration, as required by the statutory sequence.

Conclusion: Section 12AB(4) could not be retrospectively invoked for the alleged pre-01.04.2022 conduct, and the cancellation proceedings were procedurally invalid. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the allegations concerning salary refunds, unrecorded fees, brokerage and funds from purported shell entities established a specified violation warranting cancellation of regular and provisional registration.

Analysis: The allegations were founded substantially on search material and statements that were retracted or contradicted, without independent corroborative inquiry or an effective opportunity to test the material. Employee examinations did not confirm repayment of salaries. The actual conduct of educational institutions was not found to be non-genuine, and no condition of registration was identified as having been breached. Alleged diversion or benefit to persons specified under section 13(3) fell within section 13(1)(c), for which denial of exemption or taxation at the assessment stage is contemplated, and did not by itself constitute a specified violation under section 12AB(4).

Conclusion: The allegations did not establish any specified violation under section 12AB(4) warranting cancellation of either registration. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The cancellation order could not survive, and the assessee's regular and provisional registrations remain effective.

Ratio Decidendi: Cancellation under section 12AB(4) cannot rest on conduct predating the specified-violation regime and requires clear identification and proof of the statutory violation through the prescribed inquiry.