Issues: Whether an unsuccessful scheme proponent that withdrew from the process after its scheme was not accepted could be compelled to deposit the earnest money deposit guarantee into the liquidation estate.

Analysis: The earnest money deposit secured submission of the appellant's proposed scheme. Once that scheme was not accepted and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, the appellant retained the commercial choice whether to continue in the process. A scheme proponent undertakes to submit its own scheme, not to remain bound to formulate or pursue a scheme meeting the requirements of the committee of creditors or the Adjudicating Authority. The liquidator did not establish any legal basis for recovery of the guarantee amount after the appellant withdrew.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to pay the earnest money deposit guarantee to the liquidation estate; the recovery claim was unsustainable in law.

Issues: (i) Whether production before an available Magistrate other than the nearest Magistrate after court hours rendered the arrest or detention unlawful; (ii) Whether the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner's relatives in breach of the constitutional requirement; (iii) Whether prolonged custody and the material on record warranted bail despite the statutory restrictions under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether production before an available Magistrate other than the nearest Magistrate after court hours rendered the arrest or detention unlawful.

Analysis: Production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at night, instead of the nearer Magistrate who may not have been available after court hours, was treated as a precautionary measure. The petitioner was produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours, and no resulting prejudice was established.

Conclusion: The production before the available Magistrate did not vitiate the arrest or detention. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner's relatives in breach of the constitutional requirement.

Analysis: The grounds of arrest were admittedly supplied to the petitioner. The subsequent search record showed that those documents were no longer with him, supporting the inference that he had handed them to relatives present at the premises. Prompt steps in the criminal proceeding, including moving for bail, also negatived any prima facie case that the relatives lacked knowledge of the arrest or its grounds, or that prejudice resulted.

Conclusion: No prima facie breach of the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest to the petitioner or his relatives was made out. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether prolonged custody and the material on record warranted bail despite the statutory restrictions under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Custody of about one year and two months was insufficient to override the statutory bail restrictions because the proceeding had progressed and charges were expected to be framed. The material allegedly linked the petitioner to numerous mule accounts, illegal betting operations and substantial proceeds of crime. The alleged leading role, prior abscondence, possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and risk of fleeing were material aggravating factors. The petitioner could not prima facie establish lack of guilt or that he would not commit an offence while on bail.

Conclusion: The statutory conditions for bail were not satisfied, and the custody period did not justify release. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The arrest-related objections did not establish illegality or prejudice at this stage, while the gravity of the alleged money-laundering activity, prima facie material, and risks to the process outweighed the claim based on incarceration.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 requires satisfaction of the statutory threshold, and custody duration alone does not warrant release where prima facie incriminating material and a substantial flight or interference risk persist.

Issues: (i) Whether the aircraft arrangement constituted Supply of Tangible Goods Service or a transfer of possession and effective control outside that taxable entry; (ii) Whether amounts recorded as "other collections" were includible in the taxable value; (iii) Whether taxing the appellant on receipts already made subject to proceedings against the related concern resulted in double taxation; (iv) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable; and (v) Whether penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the aircraft arrangement constituted Supply of Tangible Goods Service or a transfer of possession and effective control outside that taxable entry.

Analysis: Section 65(105)(zzzzj) applies where tangible goods are supplied for use without transfer of possession and effective control, whereas a transfer of the right to use goods requires exclusive legal possession and control. The contractual terms permitted the lessor to use the aircraft when not used by the lessee, required redelivery after each trip, retained operational, maintenance and running-cost responsibility with the lessor, and allowed termination on thirty days' notice. These features established that effective control and legal possession remained with the lessor.

Conclusion: The arrangement was taxable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether amounts recorded as "other collections" were includible in the taxable value.

Analysis: The show-cause notices alleged only Supply of Tangible Goods Service concerning the aircraft lease. The other collections were neither alleged to arise from the lease nor shown to have a nexus with that transaction. Taxable value could not be expanded beyond the allegations forming the foundation of the notices.

Conclusion: Other collections were not includible in the taxable value, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether taxing the appellant on receipts already made subject to proceedings against the related concern resulted in double taxation.

Analysis: The assertion that the same lease receipts were already included in a demand proposed against the related concern remained uncontroverted. Confirmation of tax against the appellant on those identical receipts would duplicate the levy on the same transaction.

Conclusion: Tax could not be confirmed on receipts already subjected to demand against the related concern, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The Department had knowledge of the relevant transaction and receipts when it issued the earlier notice to the related concern. The subsequent notice proceeded on the same facts, without establishing a fresh positive act of suppression or an intent to evade payment. The prerequisites for the extended period were therefore absent.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable; only demands falling within the normal limitation period could survive, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were sustainable.

Analysis: Fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax was not established. The circumstances also warranted the statutory benefit available for reasonable cause.

Conclusion: The penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Tax liability survives only for the applicable normal period on the taxable aircraft-supply arrangement, excluding unrelated collections and duplicate levy, without penalties.

Issues: Whether an amount deposited during investigation and remaining unspent in the personal ledger account, before determination of duty liability, attracts interest from the date of deposit at 12% per annum rather than interest only under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The amount was deposited before any determination or appropriation of duty liability and was refundable as a revenue deposit/unspent advance deposit. Such amount did not acquire the character of duty merely because it was credited in the personal ledger account. The statutory scheme under Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governing refund of duty and delayed statutory refunds was therefore inapplicable. The jurisdictional High Court decision on materially identical facts was treated as binding and as affirming interest from the date of deposit, including interest at 12% per annum where the Revenue had retained the amount for a prolonged period.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the refundable revenue deposit from the respective dates of deposit until refund.

Issues: Whether fertilizer subsidy received directly from the Government of India under the Nutrient Based Subsidy Policy is includable in the assessable value as additional consideration for levy of central excise duty.

Analysis: Section 4 bases valuation on transaction value where price is the sole consideration. Rule 6 permits addition only where additional consideration flows directly or indirectly from the buyer to the manufacturer. Subsidy paid independently by the Government under a policy scheme to make fertilizers affordable does not emanate from purchasers merely because its amount is linked to the quantity or category of fertilizers sold. The applicable Board clarification, binding on departmental authorities, also treats such fertilizer subsidy as not linked to the buyer.

Conclusion: The Government subsidy is not additional consideration flowing from the buyer and is not includable in the assessable value; the consequential duty, interest and penalty demands cannot survive.

Issues: (i) Whether bail granted to a foreign national accused of an NDPS offence involving commercial quantity was sustainable under the statutory conditions governing bail; (ii) Whether uniform safeguards concerning bail, sureties and monitoring of foreign nationals accused in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity could be issued.

Issue (i): Whether bail granted to a foreign national accused of an NDPS offence involving commercial quantity was sustainable under the statutory conditions governing bail.

Analysis: Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 requires satisfaction of both conditions that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The material concerning the alleged role, the commercial quantity involved, prior conviction in an NDPS case, and the possibility of enhanced punishment under Section 31A required heightened scrutiny. Prolonged custody and the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 do not dispense with the mandatory statutory framework. The bail order did not record the requisite satisfaction under Section 37 or address the likelihood of reoffending. The accused also absconded after release and the surety furnished was found to be fictitious.

Conclusion: The grant of bail was unsustainable and the bail stood cancelled, against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether uniform safeguards concerning bail, sureties and monitoring of foreign nationals accused in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity could be issued.

Analysis: Fabricated sureties and the absence of a uniform verification mechanism created a systemic gap capable of frustrating criminal proceedings. Article 142 of the Constitution of India permits limited measures to secure complete justice where existing procedures prove inadequate, without supplanting substantive law. The safeguards were confined to foreign nationals accused in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity and were calibrated to preserve personal liberty, proportionality and judicial discretion where appropriate.

Conclusion: Binding safeguards were issued requiring, among other measures, deposit of passport, FRRO registration, ordinarily two verified sureties, re-verification of the accused's address and contact details before release, disclosure of financial sources and bank accounts, intimation to the concerned Embassy, creation of centralised databases and digital verification systems, departmental inquiry where verified sureties are subsequently found fake, creation of lien or charge over surety property, and insertion of Form 47A under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Final Conclusion: A uniform and targeted bail-security framework was established for foreign nationals accused of commercial-quantity NDPS offences, while retaining the constitutional requirement that restrictions on liberty remain lawful and proportionate.

Ratio Decidendi: In commercial-quantity NDPS cases, the statutory twin conditions for bail must be affirmatively satisfied and cannot be displaced solely by the duration of pre-trial custody; Article 21 operates harmoniously within that statutory framework.

Issues: Whether a penalty under section 271AAB could survive where the penalty notices did not specify the applicable statutory limb.

Analysis: A notice initiating penalty proceedings must clearly communicate the precise charge and the applicable clause under section 271AAB. The notices did not specify the limb under which penalty was proposed, depriving the assessee of a meaningful opportunity to respond to the particular allegation. The adopted coordinate-bench reasoning treats such omission as a fatal defect in the initiation of penalty proceedings.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable in law and was deleted.

Issues: Whether the penalty order issued under Section 129(3), 230 days after service of the detention notice, was barred by the mandatory seven-day limitation.

Analysis: Section 129(3) requires the proper officer to issue a penalty notice within seven days of detention or seizure and thereafter pass the penalty order within seven days from service of that notice. The use of the word "shall", the fiscal character of the enactment, and the coercive nature of detention and penalty require strict adherence to that period. The limitation objection was based on undisputed dates already forming part of the record and was therefore not an impermissible new ground. The penalty order was made substantially beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The penalty order was time-barred, illegal and without jurisdiction; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could sustain the demand by applying the extended period of limitation without recording findings on the assessee's limitation objection.

Analysis: The Tribunal had merely observed that the extended period was applicable, without addressing the factual dispute concerning the time-barred nature of the demand. The limitation issue required factual adjudication on the material already available on record.

Conclusion: No final ruling on limitation was made; the Tribunal must adjudicate that issue on the factual record.

Issues: Whether refund claims relating to tax paid on licence fees and conservancy charges by an airport duty-free outlet were liable to be processed despite having been filed beyond the specified period.

Analysis: The binding Division Bench precedent in substantially similar circumstances required the refund application to be processed. The revenue accepted that the precedent applied to the claims in question. Consequently, the rejection of the claims on the limitation ground could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The refund rejections were set aside, and the refund claims were required to be processed with applicable interest.

Issues: (i) Whether delays in filing the appeals were liable to be condoned; (ii) Whether rejection of registration applications for absence of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, where registration had been obtained subsequently or remained pending, warranted category-specific restoration; (iii) Whether a summary observation that genuineness of activities was not established justified final rejection without examination of primary material; (iv) Whether incomplete Form No. 10AB, selection of an incorrect clause, and analogous curable defects warranted an opportunity for rectification; (v) Whether rejection for non-compliance with notices or inadequate material warranted a final effective opportunity; and (vi) Whether connected applications for approval under section 80G required restoration where rejection was founded on absence or rejection of registration under section 12AB.

Issue (i): Whether delays in filing the appeals were liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The explanations concerning rural functioning, electronic communications sent to former advisers, and dependence on professional assistance reasonably established that the delays were neither deliberate nor lacking in bona fides. Denial of adjudication on merits for such satisfactorily explained procedural lapses was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The delays were condoned and the appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of registration applications for absence of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, where registration had been obtained subsequently or remained pending, warranted category-specific restoration.

Analysis: A subsequently issued State registration certificate directly altered the factual basis of rejection and required verification of its authenticity, validity, and applicability. Where the certificate remained pending despite the assessee having applied, the application under section 12AB should be preserved so that the certificate could be produced on issuance, rather than requiring recommencement of the registration process. The restored inquiry must remain confined to the recorded deficiency and statutory matters necessarily incidental to it, without an unrestricted fresh inquiry.

Conclusion: The applications were restored for verification of the subsequently obtained certificate or for production and verification of the pending certificate; where no other recorded statutory impediment survives, registration under section 12AB shall be granted in accordance with law.

Issue (iii): Whether a summary observation that genuineness of activities was not established justified final rejection without examination of primary material.

Analysis: Failure to establish genuineness owing to insufficient documents is distinct from a positive finding that activities are sham, fictitious, colourable, or unconnected with stated objects. Genuineness requires examination of accounts, actual activities, supporting material, and their nexus with the objects. Any specific adverse material proposed to be relied upon must be disclosed and an effective opportunity for explanation and rebuttal afforded.

Conclusion: The question of genuineness was left open for fresh, reasoned determination on the complete primary record and could not be treated as conclusively decided against the assessees merely because material was previously inadequate.

Issue (iv): Whether incomplete Form No. 10AB, selection of an incorrect clause, and analogous curable defects warranted an opportunity for rectification.

Analysis: A distinction applies between defects affecting substantive eligibility and defects only in the presentation of the statutory application. An incomplete form, incorrect clause selection, or a document capable of later production should not foreclose consideration where rectification is legally permissible; however, rectification cannot override limitation or other substantive statutory conditions.

Conclusion: The assessees were to be afforded an opportunity to make legally permissible rectification, after which their substantive eligibility must be determined in accordance with law.

Issue (v): Whether rejection for non-compliance with notices or inadequate material warranted a final effective opportunity.

Analysis: Since the statutory inquiry could not be meaningfully completed without the relevant documents and explanations, substantive adjudication required one effective opportunity to furnish the prescribed forms, constitutional documents, accounts, activity details, and other relevant material. This opportunity carries an obligation of due cooperation and does not permit repeated defaults or avoidable delay.

Conclusion: The applications were restored for one final effective opportunity to comply, following which they must be decided by reasoned orders; on further unjustified default, the prescribed authority may proceed on the material available.

Issue (vi): Whether connected applications for approval under section 80G required restoration where rejection was founded on absence or rejection of registration under section 12AB.

Analysis: Where approval under section 80G was rejected substantially or consequentially because registration under section 12AB was absent or rejected, that premise could not survive once the underlying registration application was restored. Registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G remain distinct statutory determinations, though common matters already examined need not be mechanically reconsidered.

Conclusion: The connected section 80G applications were also restored for independent examination of conditions specific to such approval after or alongside determination under section 12AB.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejections were set aside for category-specific reconsideration by the prescribed authority, with the scope of each restored proceeding confined to the deficiencies and statutory requirements legitimately arising from the respective original rejection.

Ratio Decidendi: On restoration of charitable-registration applications, the scope of further inquiry must correspond to the precise deficiency forming the basis of rejection; curable or subsequently cured deficiencies cannot justify an unrestricted de novo inquiry or final denial without appropriate verification and opportunity.

Issues: (i) Whether an original application for registration under section 12AA, restored for fresh adjudication, could be treated as an application under section 12AB; (ii) Whether denial of exemption for the assessment year 2018-19 on the premise of absence of section 12AA registration could continue after the direction to grant such registration.

Issue (i): Whether an original application for registration under section 12AA, restored for fresh adjudication, could be treated as an application under section 12AB.

Analysis: The application in Form No. 10A was filed under the statutory regime of section 12AA and was the same application rejected initially and restored for fresh adjudication. Proceedings following remand were a continuation of the original registration proceedings. A later statutory regime could not alter the character of the application merely because the consequential order was passed after section 12AB came into force.

Conclusion: Registration must be granted under section 12AA pursuant to the original application, and not under section 12AB. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of exemption for the assessment year 2018-19 on the premise of absence of section 12AA registration could continue after the direction to grant such registration.

Analysis: The sole basis for denial of the exemption claimed under sections 11 and 12 was the absence of registration under section 12AA. Once registration under section 12AA is directed pursuant to the original application, taxability for the relevant assessment year cannot be determined on the contrary premise. The exemption claim requires examination after giving effect to the registration and verification of the applicable statutory conditions.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption based solely on absence of section 12AA registration cannot be sustained; the exemption claim must be reconsidered after consequential registration. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The original registration proceedings remain governed by section 12AA, and the resulting registration must be given consequential effect while determining eligibility for charitable exemption for the relevant assessment year.

Ratio Decidendi: An application restored on remand retains its statutory character under the legal regime applicable when it was originally filed, and a subsequent statutory change cannot convert it into an application under a different registration regime.

Issues: Whether rejection of the financial creditor's application for a further ninety-day period to consider a compromise or arrangement under Section 230, following assignment of the debt, was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 permits a compromise or arrangement with creditors, while Regulation 2B of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 provides a ninety-day window for completing such process. The period is flexible where extension is commercially beneficial and prevents value destruction. The post-rejection assignment of debt to a new sole financial creditor constituted a material change in circumstances, with a distinct decision-making body and commercial mandate; hence, the extension request was neither a collateral challenge nor barred by the earlier rejection. The proposed scheme exceeded the liquidation value, had financial-creditor support, and advanced value maximisation and revival instead of piecemeal liquidation. Commercial wisdom of the financial creditor could not be substituted.

Conclusion: The rejection of the extension application was unsustainable; the ninety-day period under Regulation 2B(1) could be extended for consideration of the compromise or arrangement in the changed circumstances.

Issues: Whether interest on borrowings used to acquire shares in a subsidiary for expansion of the assessee's business was deductible as business expenditure.

Analysis: The acquisition increased the assessee's shareholding in an entity engaged in the same line of business, which subsequently merged with the assessee, expanding its multiplex resources. The dominant purpose of the acquisition was business expansion and maximisation of resources, rather than earning dividend income. Investment in the subsidiary to obtain controlling interest was commercially expedient.

Conclusion: Interest on the borrowings was allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether specified companies could be retained as comparables for benchmarking back-office support services and whether working-capital adjustment was allowable; (ii) Whether a separate transfer-pricing adjustment for notional interest on delayed associated-enterprise receivables could be made after allowing for working-capital adjustment; (iii) Whether unbilled revenue included in total turnover but excluded from export turnover required recomputation of the deduction under Section 10A; (iv) Whether communication, computer and professional charges paid to associated enterprises could be assigned a nil arm's length price.

Issue (i): Whether specified companies could be retained as comparables for benchmarking back-office support services and whether working-capital adjustment was allowable.

Analysis: Companies rendering specialised engineering, data-management, mapping, translation, outsourced or other high-end services were functionally dissimilar to the assessee's routine back-office support services. Companies affected by amalgamation, acquisition or demerger, having abnormal growth, material intangible assets, substantially outsourced operations, or materially different turnover were also unsuitable. Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd. was retained because the findings supporting its comparability were reasoned. The assessee, being a captive service provider, was entitled to a working-capital adjustment upon furnishing the necessary computation.

Conclusion: The identified functionally dissimilar or exceptional-event comparables were directed to be excluded, Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd. was retained, and working-capital adjustment was directed to be allowed on submission of supporting workings, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a separate transfer-pricing adjustment for notional interest on delayed associated-enterprise receivables could be made after allowing for working-capital adjustment.

Analysis: The impact of receivables had already been accounted for in the working-capital adjustment and the assessee's credit and recovery policy. A separate charge on overdue receivables would duplicate that adjustment and distort the pricing analysis. Receivables do not automatically constitute an independent international transaction without a proper inquiry establishing a pattern of benefit to the associated enterprise.

Conclusion: The notional-interest adjustment on outstanding associated-enterprise receivables was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether unbilled revenue included in total turnover but excluded from export turnover required recomputation of the deduction under Section 10A.

Analysis: The identical question had previously been restored for examination of the alternative claim that unbilled revenue, if included in total turnover, should also be included in export turnover. Consistency with that prior direction required fresh computation.

Conclusion: The computation of the Section 10A deduction was restored for reconsideration of the parity claim; no final determination was made on the inclusion of unbilled revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether communication, computer and professional charges paid to associated enterprises could be assigned a nil arm's length price.

Analysis: The cost allocations represented genuine international transactions, were incurred without mark-up, and were recharged to associated enterprises with mark-up as part of the assessee's service-cost base. In the absence of any analysis showing that the services were not rendered or that their cost was nil, determination of a nil arm's length price was unsustainable.

Conclusion: Deletion of the adjustment for communication, computer and professional charges was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing computation is to be revised by applying the directed comparability exclusions and working-capital adjustment, without a separate receivables interest adjustment; the Section 10A turnover issue requires fresh computation on the stated parity basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the pricing analysis has duly neutralised the working-capital effect of associated-enterprise receivables, a separate notional-interest adjustment for those receivables is impermissible absent a distinct demonstrated international transaction.

Issues: (i) Appropriate transfer-pricing method and adjustment for intra-group services received from associated enterprises; (ii) Determination of arm's length interest on external commercial borrowings; (iii) Allowability of site-restoration expenditure utilised from the decommissioning provision; (iv) Levy of interest where tax was deducted at source by the payer.

Issue (i): Appropriate transfer-pricing method and adjustment for intra-group services received from associated enterprises.

Analysis: The intra-group services, including management and information-technology charges, were identical to those considered in the assessee's preceding and succeeding years. The services were demonstrated to have been received, to be commercially useful, and not to be duplicative or shareholder activities. As the interlinked transactions were appropriately benchmarked together under the Transactional Net Margin Method, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method could not be adopted merely because a joint-venture partner had approved a different amount. Pending departmental challenges to earlier orders did not justify departure from consistent decisions in the absence of changed facts.

Conclusion: The Transactional Net Margin Method is the appropriate method for the intra-group services, and the transfer-pricing adjustments were deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Determination of arm's length interest on external commercial borrowings.

Analysis: The Dispute Resolution Panel had not adjudicated the external-commercial-borrowing interest adjustment. The earlier direction for the identical transaction required examination of the arm's length price strictly under the statutory transfer-pricing framework.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh determination of the arm's length interest in accordance with the earlier directions.

Issue (iii): Allowability of site-restoration expenditure utilised from the decommissioning provision.

Analysis: The expenditure was incurred to discharge the contractual obligation to restore the worksite and was recorded by debiting the pre-existing decommissioning provision. This accounting treatment did not negate the claim. The obligation was not contingent, and the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business without creating a new asset or enduring benefit.

Conclusion: The site-restoration expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Levy of interest where tax was deducted at source by the payer.

Analysis: Where the resident payer had deducted tax at source on the consideration and such tax covered the assessee's total tax liability, charging interest for default in payment of advance tax was not warranted.

Conclusion: Interest under Sections 234A and 234B was directed to be deleted to the extent the tax deducted at source covered the assessee's total tax liability, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The recurring intra-group-services additions and the site-restoration disallowance do not survive; the external-borrowing interest adjustment requires fresh statutory determination, and interest liability must be correspondingly restricted where tax was deducted at source.

Issues: Whether proceedings for money-laundering may continue against the petitioner after the predicate proceedings against him were quashed for want of jurisdiction of the investigating agency.

Analysis: An offence of money-laundering requires alleged proceeds of crime derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The predicate proceedings against the petitioner had been quashed in their entirety because the investigating agency lacked jurisdiction to register and investigate the case, and that order remained operative and unchallenged by that agency. This was not a curable procedural defect or a termination subsequently found legally erroneous. The Enforcement Directorate could not independently sustain or notionally keep alive the predicate prosecution, nor could proceedings against other accused supply the absent nexus between the petitioner, the alleged criminal activity and the alleged proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: In the absence of a subsisting predicate offence and corresponding proceeds of crime attributable to the petitioner, proceedings under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could not continue against him.

Ratio Decidendi: A money-laundering prosecution requires a subsisting nexus between the alleged proceeds of crime and criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence attributable to the person proceeded against.

Issues: Whether the disputed expenditure claimed on sale of a residential flat qualified as cost of improvement.

Analysis: Cost of improvement requires capital expenditure resulting in an addition or alteration to the capital asset. Expenditure merely connected with the property does not qualify. The relevant test is whether an item is inseparable from the building or can be separately retained or transferred by the owner. Routine repairs, maintenance, decorative articles, and detachable or movable items do not alter the character of the capital asset.

Analysis: Expenditure on pest control, miscellaneous expenses, artwork, upholstery and curtains, paints and chemicals, soft furnishings, gym equipment, plants and decor accessories, furniture and furniture accessories was found to be routine, decorative, or movable and therefore not qualifying expenditure. The character and manner of installation of the remaining items, including glass work, mirror work, kitchen equipment, bath accessories, wallpaper, air-conditioning, home theatre and professional interior-work expenses, required item-wise factual verification through invoices, payment records and installation evidence.

Conclusion: Disallowance of Rs. 49,69,390 for routine, decorative and movable items was sustained against the assessee. The allowability of the remaining disputed expenditure was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh item-wise determination after granting opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether rejection of the petitioner's tender quotation and award of the catering contract warranted judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Judicial review in government-contract matters is confined to the legality, fairness and rationality of the decision-making process; it does not permit re-evaluation of bids or substitution of the tendering authority's decision. Interference is justified only where the process is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, discriminatory, contrary to tender conditions, or detrimental to public interest. The petitioner participated without seeking prior clarification on GST and could not, after rejection, alter the bid through a subsequent offer at a different rate. No unequal treatment, favouritism, mala fides, or procedural infirmity was established. The alleged outstanding dues under the earlier contract were independent of the validity of the fresh tender.

Conclusion: The rejection of the quotation and the concluded tender process did not warrant judicial interference; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issues: Whether penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars was leviable where the computation of capital gains on slump sale, particularly the treatment of negative net worth, was based on a fully disclosed and debatable legal claim.

Analysis: The slump sale, sale consideration and negative net worth were fully disclosed in the return. The addition arose from differing legal interpretations under section 50B concerning negative net worth, with divergent Tribunal views and a substantial question of law admitted by the jurisdictional High Court. A quantum addition, including one accepted by not pressing a ground to avoid further litigation, does not by itself establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A claim unsupported in the assessment, when founded on a bona fide legal interpretation and full disclosure of primary facts, does not attract penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable; the deletion of penalty was sustained in favour of the assessee.