Issues: (i) Whether a duplicate service-tax payment, already discharged for the same liability and neither taken as CENVAT credit nor passed on, is refundable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Whether consequential interest is payable on the admissible refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether a duplicate service-tax payment, already discharged for the same liability and neither taken as CENVAT credit nor passed on, is refundable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 11B permits refund of tax not legally due, subject to the claimant establishing that the incidence has not been passed on. The treasury challans, reconciliation, accounting records, audited financial statements and auditor's certificate established that the original liability had been discharged and that the subsequent payment was a duplicate payment unsupported by any fresh taxable liability. The duplicate amount was neither availed nor utilised as CENVAT credit and was continuously reflected as receivable from the Department. Non-reporting of the original payment in the ST-3 return, or an error in accounting head or service category, could not negate an actual payment or convert a duplicate payment into tax legally due. The evidence also rebutted unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The duplicate service-tax payment is refundable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether consequential interest is payable on the admissible refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied to service tax through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, mandates statutory interest where an admissible refund is not sanctioned within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: Consequential interest on the admissible refund is payable under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A duplicate indirect-tax payment, proved through primary payment and accounting records and shown not to have been credited or passed on, must be refunded with statutory interest notwithstanding return-reporting or accounting-category errors.

Ratio Decidendi: Documentary proof of a duplicate indirect-tax payment, coupled with proof that its incidence was neither availed as credit nor passed on, satisfies the refund and unjust-enrichment requirements; procedural reporting errors do not render the duplicate amount legally due.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax was leviable on international outbound package tours consumed outside India; (ii) Whether air-ticket costs reimbursed by customers could be included in the taxable value of domestic package tours; (iii) Whether booking-cancellation charges were consideration for taxable tour-operator service; (iv) Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked for 2007-2009.

Issue (i): Whether service tax was leviable on international outbound package tours consumed outside India.

Analysis: The outbound tour service was consumed by tourist customers beyond Indian territory. The applicable principle concerning the territorial reach of the levy excluded such service from service-tax liability.

Conclusion: No service tax was leviable on international outbound package tours consumed outside India, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether air-ticket costs reimbursed by customers could be included in the taxable value of domestic package tours.

Analysis: Air-ticket charges recovered from customers were reimbursements and not an amount chargeable to service tax as part of the taxable value of the package-tour service.

Conclusion: Reimbursed air-ticket costs could not be included in taxable value, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether booking-cancellation charges were consideration for taxable tour-operator service.

Analysis: Cancellation charges were received as compensation for cancellation and did not constitute consideration for provision of a taxable tour-operator service.

Conclusion: Booking-cancellation charges were not chargeable to service tax, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked for 2007-2009.

Analysis: The relevant ST-3 returns had been filed before issuance of the show-cause notice. In the absence of fraud, suppression, or wilful negligence to evade service tax, the extended period was unavailable.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period was invalid and the demand for 2007-2009 was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No service-tax liability survived on the disputed outbound tours, reimbursed ticket costs, or cancellation charges, and the demand was also barred by limitation.

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be sustained against a person who supplied laminates and miscellaneous goods and extended a loan, without evidence that he dealt with excisable goods knowing them to be liable to confiscation.

Analysis: Rule 26 requires proof that the person acquired possession of, or was concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling, purchasing, or otherwise dealing with excisable goods, with knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. The record established only assistance in procuring materials and extension of a loan; it did not establish participation in any activity specified under Rule 26. The references to the appellant's role lacked clarity owing to similarity of names, while the statements concerning manufacture and transport attributed supervision to another individual. The adverse statement relied upon had also been retracted and lacked corroborative evidence.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether customised greenhouses supplied in ready-to-assemble form are classifiable under Tariff Item 9406 00 11 rather than Tariff Item 8419 89 60; (ii) Whether the two-year normal limitation introduced on 14.05.2016 could revive an excise-duty demand for March 2014 to December 2014 where the original one-year period had expired.

Issue (i): Whether customised greenhouses supplied in ready-to-assemble form are classifiable under Tariff Item 9406 00 11 rather than Tariff Item 8419 89 60.

Analysis: The goods comprised fabricated components processed in the factory and cleared for subsequent assembly and installation at site. Greenhouses in ready-to-assemble sets are specifically described under Tariff Item 9406 00 11, whereas Tariff Item 8419 89 60 contains a general description of plant growth chambers and rooms having environmental control. Under the rule that a specific description prevails over a general description, the specific tariff entry governed.

Conclusion: The greenhouses are classifiable under Tariff Item 9406 00 11, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the two-year normal limitation introduced on 14.05.2016 could revive an excise-duty demand for March 2014 to December 2014 where the original one-year period had expired.

Analysis: The statutory extension of the normal limitation from one year to two years was not made retrospective. By the date of that amendment, the entire disputed period had already become time-barred under the pre-amendment one-year limitation. A later enlargement of limitation could not resurrect demands that had already become irrecoverable.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred; the duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although the tariff classification under Tariff Item 9406 00 11 remains sustained, no excise liability for the disputed period survives because the demand was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-retrospective extension of limitation cannot revive an excise demand that was already time-barred when the amendment entered into force.

Issues: (i) Whether manpower supplied by a subcontractor to a private principal contractor executing a Government water-supply project qualifies for exemption under Serial Nos. 3 or 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017; (ii) What GST rate applies to the supply if the claimed exemption is unavailable.

Issue (i): Whether manpower supplied by a subcontractor to a private principal contractor executing a Government water-supply project qualifies for exemption under Serial Nos. 3 or 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: Serial Nos. 3 and 3A exempt specified pure services or composite supplies only where they are supplied to the Central Government, State Government, Union territory, local authority, Governmental Authority, or Government Entity, in connection with the prescribed constitutional functions. The immediate contractual recipient was a private principal contractor, not a specified recipient. The ultimate use of the services in a Government water-supply project does not alter the recipient of the subcontract supply. The supply is a separate taxable supply, and the recipient-specific exemption condition must be strictly satisfied irrespective of whether the activity is treated as pure services or as a composite supply with goods not exceeding the prescribed limit.

Conclusion: The subcontract supply is not exempt under Serial No. 3 or Serial No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): What GST rate applies to the supply if the claimed exemption is unavailable.

Analysis: As the exemption is unavailable, the manpower supply remains a taxable supply under GST.

Conclusion: GST is payable at 18%, comprising CGST at 9% and SGST at 9%, subject to the applicable classification and rate notification. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A subcontractor cannot claim the Government-service exemption merely because its services are ultimately used in a Government project where its contractual supply is made to a private principal contractor.

Ratio Decidendi: A recipient-specific GST exemption requires the supply to be made directly to the prescribed category of Government recipient; ultimate use in a Government project cannot satisfy that condition for a supply made to a private contractor.

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest satisfied the mandatory safeguards under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether bail could be granted notwithstanding the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in light of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the arrest satisfied the mandatory safeguards under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 19(1) requires material in the authorised officer's possession, recorded reasons to believe that the person is guilty of money-laundering, and prompt communication of the grounds of arrest. Judicial review is confined to verifying observance of these statutory and constitutional safeguards and does not extend to assessing the sufficiency or adequacy of the material underlying the authorised officer's subjective satisfaction. The grounds of arrest and recorded reasons were supplied at the time of arrest; the available circumstances supported an inference that the grounds reached relatives present at the time. The ECIR and the subsequent search did not exclude prior independent investigation, and material gathered during the search could supplement pre-existing material. The material was also transmitted to the adjudicating authority within a reasonable time.

Conclusion: The arrest complied with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether bail could be granted notwithstanding the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in light of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The twin conditions under Section 45 are mandatory, and Section 24 places a burden on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption concerning proceeds of crime once the foundational facts are established. Although economic offences require a stringent approach, their gravity cannot justify punitive pre-trial detention or blanket denial of bail. Investigation concerning the petitioner was complete, custodial interrogation had ceased, the evidence was documentary and remained with the investigating agency, and both the predicate proceedings and money-laundering proceedings were unlikely to begin trial shortly. Continued detention for over a year in those circumstances engaged the rights to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21.

Conclusion: Bail was warranted notwithstanding the restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Where continued pre-trial detention becomes disproportionate because investigation is complete and trial is not likely to commence within a reasonable period, constitutional protection of personal liberty prevails over restrictive bail provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged pre-trial incarceration, coupled with completed investigation, documentary evidence, and an unlikely early trial, may justify constitutional bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions applicable to economic offences.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 46 crore as unexplained share capital under section 68 was sustainable despite the established source of funds and alleged non-compliance with FEMA/RBI requirements.

Analysis: Section 68 requires the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the investor and the genuineness of the transaction. The investor was an identifiable Indian company with PAN, and the share subscription was made through banking channels. Its bank records and foreign inward-remittance documents established both the immediate source and the source of its funds. There was no material indicating that the investor lacked financial capacity, was a paper entity, or that the share capital represented the assessee's unaccounted money routed back as an accommodation entry. Alleged non-compliance with FEMA/RBI reporting, valuation, or downstream-investment requirements falls for examination by the authorities administering those laws and does not, by itself, render an otherwise explained share-capital receipt taxable under section 68.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was rightly deleted; the alleged FEMA/RBI violations did not displace the established identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscription.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's claimed deduction for political contribution was allowable under Section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the disallowance was vitiated by non-supply of third-party material and denial of cross-examination.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's claimed deduction for political contribution was allowable under Section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 80GGC requires a genuine eligible political contribution. Payment through banking channels, a donation receipt and registration of the recipient political party are relevant but are not conclusive proof of genuineness. Applying the Test of Human Probabilities, the material concerning the donee's accommodation-entry modus operandi, the inconsistency in the assessee's computations regarding the donee and amount, non-production of the complete bank statement, and failure to explain the circumstances of the contribution established that the formal documentation did not prove a genuine transaction.

Conclusion: The contribution was not proved genuine and was not eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance was vitiated by non-supply of third-party material and denial of cross-examination.

Analysis: The disallowance rested on cumulative material, including deficiencies in the assessee's own evidence and explanation, and not solely on untested third-party statements. The alleged denial of cross-examination therefore did not establish a breach of Principles of Natural Justice affecting the determination.

Conclusion: The alleged non-supply of third-party material and denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the disallowance, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The claimed political-contribution deduction remained unavailable because the payment was not established as genuine, and the assessment was not invalidated by the asserted procedural breach.

Issues: Whether penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting was sustainable where the applicable statutory circumstance of misreporting was not identified and no assessee-specific material linked the donation to an alleged accommodation-entry arrangement.

Analysis: Section 270A distinguishes ordinary under-reporting from under-reporting arising from misreporting, for which the enhanced penalty under section 270A(8) applies. The exclusion from immunity under section 270AA(3) requires the Revenue to establish that the case falls within a specific circumstance enumerated in section 270A(9). A general characterization of the matter as misreporting does not substitute identification and proof of the applicable statutory circumstance. Further, a general alleged modus operandi of a political party cannot establish an assessee's participation in an accommodation-entry arrangement without material specifically connecting the assessee to it. The payment through cheque, the political party's subsisting registration at the time of payment, withdrawal of the claim in response to notice, payment of tax, and acceptance of the revised returned income assumed relevance in the absence of such specific material.

Conclusion: The enhanced penalty for misreporting was unsustainable because neither a specific clause of section 270A(9) nor an assessee-specific factual nexus with the alleged arrangement was established; the penalty was required to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment under Sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, founded on incriminating material seized during a search of a third party, could validly be initiated instead of proceeding under Section 153C.

Analysis: The reassessment was founded on material seized during search proceedings against a developer group, concerning alleged on-money paid by the assessee. The jurisdictional High Court precedent established that, where seized material from a third-party search forms the foundation for assessment of another person, the statutory search-assessment mechanism under Sections 153A and 153C applies. The contrary view of a non-jurisdictional High Court could not prevail over binding jurisdictional precedent.

Conclusion: Reassessment under Sections 143(3) and 147 was without jurisdiction and invalid; the reassessment order was quashed.

Issues: Whether the assessee's jurisdictional challenge to the notice under section 148 could be raised under Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

Analysis: The jurisdictional objection was a pure legal ground going to the root of the reassessment and was therefore admitted under Rule 27. The available record did not contain the relevant assignment, transfer, and jurisdictional records required to determine whether the officer issuing the notice was vested with jurisdiction on the date of its issuance. A conclusive determination of the challenge was therefore not possible on the existing record.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional ground was admitted under Rule 27, but the validity of the notice remains undetermined pending examination of the jurisdictional records.

Issues: Whether, where the assessee failed to substantiate alleged purchases or explain the expenditure, the entire amount of bogus purchases was liable to be added under Section 69C rather than restricting the addition to an estimated profit element.

Analysis: Section 69C treats unexplained expenditure as income where the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation of its source and disallows its deduction. The search material established that the alleged suppliers were accommodation-entry concerns without actual stock or delivery of goods. The assessee neither participated in reassessment proceedings nor produced suppliers, delivery records, transport documents, stock records, or other evidence of receipt and consumption of goods. An estimated addition based on an assumed grey-market purchase was unsupported by any material and would effectively allow deduction of unproved expenditure.

Conclusion: The entire amount of the bogus purchases was liable to be added under Section 69C; restricting the addition to 25% was impermissible.

Issues: Whether the tolerance-band proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) applies retrospectively to Assessment Year 2018-19 and excludes an addition where the stamp-duty-value variation is within the prescribed margin.

Analysis: Section 56(2)(x)(b) deems the excess of stamp duty value over purchase consideration as income in specified circumstances. The tolerance margin introduced to address hardship from marginal valuation differences is curative and clarificatory in character. The analogous provisions in section 50C(1) and section 43CA(1), read with the legislative intent reflected in Circular No. 8/2018 dated 26.12.2018, support retrospective application of the tolerance band. The 2.61% difference between the consideration and stamp duty value falls within the 5% tolerance margin.

Conclusion: The tolerance-band proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) applies to Assessment Year 2018-19; as the variance is within the prescribed margin, no addition under that provision is warranted.

Issues: Whether the first appellate order satisfied the requirement to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and reasons under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 250(6) requires a reasoned appellate order identifying the points for determination and recording decisions with reasons. Although multiple hearing opportunities had been provided, the appellate discussion substantially relied on the absence of further submissions and the assessment conclusion, without independently addressing the agreement date, registration date, payment evidence, or applicability of the impugned addition.

Conclusion: The first appellate order did not satisfy the statutory requirement of a reasoned adjudication and required fresh determination in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of the transfer-pricing adjustment on interest paid on debt instruments issued to an associated enterprise was sustainable; (ii) Whether Rule 8D could be invoked without an objective dissatisfaction recorded with reference to the assessee's accounts under section 14A(2); (iii) Whether the addition to book profit under section 115JB based on the disallowance computed under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the deletion of the transfer-pricing adjustment on interest paid on debt instruments issued to an associated enterprise was sustainable.

Analysis: Arm's-length benchmarking of interest on debt instruments requires a reliable comparability analysis having regard to the currency of the debt, the borrower's creditworthiness and prevailing market conditions. No material factual distinction was shown to displace the accepted benchmarking methodology or to justify interference with the deletion of the adjustment arising from the alternative database search.

Conclusion: The deletion of the transfer-pricing adjustment was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 8D could be invoked without an objective dissatisfaction recorded with reference to the assessee's accounts under section 14A(2).

Analysis: Section 14A(2) requires an objective dissatisfaction, based on examination of the accounts, regarding the correctness of the assessee's disallowance before Rule 8D may be applied. General references to administrative expenditure, employee costs and investment decisions, without demonstrating from the accounts why the voluntary disallowance was incorrect, did not fulfil that statutory precondition.

Conclusion: Invocation of Rule 8D was invalid; the disallowance was restricted to the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition to book profit under section 115JB based on the disallowance computed under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustainable.

Analysis: A notional exempt-income disallowance computed under Rule 8D cannot automatically be imported into clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB. Since the Rule 8D disallowance itself was unsustainable, no basis existed to disturb the relief from the corresponding book-profit adjustment.

Conclusion: Deletion of the addition to book profit was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The relief relating to arm's-length interest benchmarking, exempt-income disallowance and book-profit computation remained undisturbed.

Issues: Whether, for deduction under Section 54, purchase of an under-construction residential flat is to be reckoned from the date of the agreement or from the date of completion and delivery of possession.

Analysis: Section 54 permits exemption where a residential house is purchased within one year before, or two years after, transfer of the original asset. Though the agreement for the under-construction flat pre-dated the statutory period, consideration was paid in instalments and possession of the completed, habitable flat was delivered within one year before the transfer. Applying the substance of the transaction, an agreement for an under-construction property merely confers a right to purchase; the purchase is substantially completed upon completion of construction, payment of consideration and delivery of possession.

Conclusion: The date of possession of the completed flat was the relevant date of purchase for Section 54. The deduction was allowable in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied where the consideration was paid, the sale deed was executed, possession was delivered, and stamp-duty adjudication was initiated before 01.04.2017, but registration occurred thereafter.

Analysis: Section 56(2)(x) was inserted with effect from 01.04.2017. The entire consideration had been paid years earlier, the binding sale deed was executed and possession delivered on 13.10.2016, and the statutory process for stamp-duty adjudication had commenced before 01.04.2017. Registration on 15.04.2017 was the culmination of a transaction already substantively completed before the provision came into force. Further, the stamp-duty valuation relied upon for the addition had not attained finality, while the valuer's report showed a value below the agreed consideration.

Conclusion: Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was inapplicable to the transaction; deletion of the addition was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether tax was deductible at source on common-area maintenance payments made as reimbursements of actual expenses without any mark-up.

Analysis: The payments were towards common-area maintenance charges reimbursed on an actual-cost basis, without any additional mark-up. A pure reimbursement of such expenses does not attract tax deduction at source; consequently, the payer cannot be treated as an assessee in default for short deduction in respect of those payments.

Conclusion: No tax was deductible at source on the actual-cost reimbursement of common-area maintenance charges; the assessee was not liable under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A), in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid; (ii) Whether cash deposits of Rs. 11,50,24,260 were properly added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid.

Analysis: Specific information from the Investigation Wing concerning substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts constituted tangible material. The Assessing Officer examined that information and formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. No material was produced to displace the finding that the reopening was founded on such information and not on mere suspicion or change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reassessment was valid, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cash deposits of Rs. 11,50,24,260 were properly added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Recording amounts as cash sales in the books did not, by itself, establish that the cash deposits arose from genuine business transactions. The assessee failed to substantiate the nexus between the alleged cash sales, stock movement and bank deposits, and the available invoices and cash-book entries did not prove the genuineness of the large cash receipts.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 11,50,24,260 as unexplained cash credit was sustained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reopening based on investigation information and the addition for unsubstantiated cash deposits remain legally sustainable.

Issues: Whether the sale consideration received on sale of listed equity shares through a recognised stock exchange could be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely on the basis of general allegations of penny-stock price manipulation.

Analysis: The documented purchase of the original shares through banking channels, court-sanctioned amalgamation, credit of resultant shares in the Demat account, holding period exceeding two years, sale through SEBI-registered brokers on the BSE, payment of securities transaction tax, and receipt of consideration through banking channels established the genuineness of the transactions. The documentary evidence was not discredited, and no material established that the assessee had paid cash, participated in price rigging, or was connected with any accommodation-entry arrangement. Suspicion, however grave, could not substitute legal proof. Judicial consistency also supported the treatment of identical transactions in the same scrip and assessment year as genuine.

Conclusion: The sale consideration could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.