Issues: Whether the prayer for release of seized goods should be decided by the Customs Authority in light of the clarification issued by the Central Bureau of Narcotics.

Outcome: No final adjudication on merits; the writ petition was kept pending and the Customs Authority was permitted to decide the request for release of the seized goods expeditiously.

Issues: (i) Whether the SPV must issue tax invoices to the Administrative Department as the recipient of its centage-based project-management services; and (ii) whether centage charges for such services are GST-exempt and, if not, their classification and rate.

Issue (i): Whether the SPV must issue tax invoices to the Administrative Department as the recipient of its centage-based project-management services.

Analysis: The invoice question was treated as ancillary to the taxability determination. Under Sections 2(31) and 2(93) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, payment of consideration by a person other than the recipient does not determine the recipient; the underlying contractual and requisitioning relationship is determinative. The tripartite arrangement showed that the Administrative Department owned the projects and assigned their implementation to the SPV, whereas KIIFB performed funding, payment-disbursal, review and monitoring functions.

Conclusion: The SPV must issue tax invoices to the respective Administrative Department, which is the recipient of the supply. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether centage charges for such services are GST-exempt and, if not, their classification and rate.

Analysis: Centage charges were consideration for preparation and scrutiny of project reports, technical sanctions, tendering, contractor management, supervision, monitoring and coordination. These were pure project-management services for construction projects, classifiable under SAC 998339. Although the services did not involve goods, exemption under Serial No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 additionally required a sufficient nexus with functions entrusted to Panchayats or Municipalities under Articles 243G or 243W of the Constitution of India. On the material provided, state and coastal highways, tourism corridor roads and similar projects were not within the local-body functions concerning roads and bridges.

Conclusion: Centage charges are taxable as project-management services under SAC 998339 at 18% GST, and the claimed exemption is unavailable. This issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Administrative Department is identified as the recipient of the SPV's services, while the specified centage-based project-implementation services remain taxable.

Issues: Whether the respondent could be denied protection against adverse action for non-deduction of tax at source from annual lease rent paid to GNOIDA merely because it was not a petitioner in the earlier connected litigation.

Analysis: The earlier decision had determined that GNOIDA was not covered by the expression "Government" and that tax was required to be deducted from annual lease rent. That decision covered the relevant assessment period and directed an opportunity of hearing to all similarly situated assessees. The respondent had not been afforded such hearing. The Authority's position concerning non-deduction of tax was reasonably treated as uniform for persons similarly placed. The likely finalisation of GNOIDA's assessment also supported non-interference with the concurrent orders.

Conclusion: The respondent could not be denied the protection from adverse action solely because it was not a party to the earlier litigation; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether ITC is admissible on GST paid on land-survey charges incurred to acquire land surrendered for afforestation obligations linked to the golf-course business.

Analysis: Section 16(1) permits credit only where the input service is used or intended for use in the course or furtherance of business. The alternate land identified through the survey was acquired only to be surrendered to the Forest Department for afforestation; it neither remained with the applicant nor generated an independent economic benefit or taxable outward supply. The survey services relating to the golf-course land were also treated as preliminary services directly connected with construction and development of immovable property on the applicant's own account, attracting the blocked-credit restriction under Section 17(5)(d). Further, the Authority treated survey services relating to the alternate land surrendered and written off as blocked under Section 17(5)(h). Transactions in land were additionally regarded as outside supply under Schedule III.

Conclusion: ITC on GST paid for the land-survey charges is not admissible.

Issues: (i) Whether the additional claim for deduction of foreign withholding tax could be raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) despite not having been made before the Assessing Officer; (ii) Whether foreign withholding taxes, for which credit could not be utilised owing to nil Indian tax liability, were deductible as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the additional claim for deduction of foreign withholding tax could be raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) despite not having been made before the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The return, computation and Form 67 already disclosed the foreign-source income, foreign taxes paid and foreign tax credit claimed. The revised working did not require further fact-finding. A claim founded on material already on record is a legal claim capable of examination in appellate proceedings; Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 did not justify threshold rejection of the claim.

Conclusion: The additional legal claim was admissible for adjudication on merits, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether foreign withholding taxes, for which credit could not be utilised owing to nil Indian tax liability, were deductible as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 covers foreign taxes otherwise eligible for relief under sections 90 or 91. The foreign taxes on income arising outside India were eligible for such relief; their non-utilisation because the gross total income and Indian tax liability were nil did not negate that eligibility. The distinction applicable to foreign taxes attributable to income accruing or arising in India, which is outside the scope of relief under section 91, was inapplicable.

Conclusion: Foreign withholding taxes otherwise eligible for relief under sections 90 or 91 could not be deducted under section 37(1), against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although the additional claim required merits adjudication, the claimed deduction was barred because the foreign taxes remained eligible for double taxation relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Foreign taxes otherwise eligible for relief under sections 90 or 91 fall within Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii), even where the foreign tax credit cannot be utilised because no Indian tax is payable, and are therefore not deductible as business expenditure.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether input tax credit denied for delayed filing of the March 2020 return under Section 16(4) remains available under the retrospectively operative Section 16(5), notwithstanding expiry of the rectification period prescribed by notification.

Analysis: Section 16(5), made operative retrospectively from 01.07.2017, protects eligible taxpayers who furnished returns by the stipulated cut-off date and contains a non obstante clause overriding the limitation in Section 16(4). The benefit is a statutory right and cannot be curtailed through a notification. The prescribed rectification mechanism was inapplicable because an appeal against the assessment order had already been filed and decided before the amendment.

Conclusion: The taxpayer is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, subject to satisfying the other eligibility requirements for input tax credit.

Issues: (i) Whether Evoke Technologies Private Limited and Maveric Systems Limited should be reconsidered as comparables for the software development support services segment; (ii) Whether Nihilent Limited, Infobeans Technologies Private Limited and Cybage Software Private Limited are functionally comparable with the software development support services segment; (iii) Whether SQS India BFSI Limited satisfies the applicable related party transactions filter for inclusion as a comparable; (iv) Whether the claim for working capital adjustment in the software development support services and sales and marketing support services segments requires fresh examination.

Issue (i): Whether Evoke Technologies Private Limited and Maveric Systems Limited should be reconsidered as comparables for the software development support services segment.

Analysis: The material indicated that both entities provided services substantially similar to software development services. Although their acceptance in the assessee's own earlier years was not established, the functional profile and the treatment of those entities in comparable transfer-pricing decisions warranted fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The comparability of Evoke Technologies Private Limited and Maveric Systems Limited is remanded to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Nihilent Limited, Infobeans Technologies Private Limited and Cybage Software Private Limited are functionally comparable with the software development support services segment.

Analysis: Nihilent Limited performed enterprise transformation and change-management services without segmental reporting; Infobeans Technologies Private Limited was engaged in software-product sales and diversified software activities without segmental details; and Cybage Software Private Limited undertook onsite services, product development and research and development activities. These functions were materially different from routine software development support services.

Conclusion: Nihilent Limited, Infobeans Technologies Private Limited and Cybage Software Private Limited shall be excluded from the final comparable set, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether SQS India BFSI Limited satisfies the applicable related party transactions filter for inclusion as a comparable.

Analysis: The asserted related party transactions constituted 74.56% of the entity's operating revenue, exceeding the stated 25% related party transactions filter. The computation also remained subject to a pending rectification request and required factual verification.

Conclusion: The eligibility of SQS India BFSI Limited as a comparable is remanded for verification of its related party transactions computation and application of the applicable filter, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the claim for working capital adjustment in the software development support services and sales and marketing support services segments requires fresh examination.

Analysis: The working capital adjustment claim had been restored for examination in the assessee's earlier assessment year after noting that the relevant working had been furnished. The same approach applies to both service segments for the relevant year.

Conclusion: The claim for working capital adjustment in both segments is remanded to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh examination and determination in accordance with law, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing benchmarking must be recomputed after excluding the functionally dissimilar entities and after fresh determination of the remanded comparability, related party transactions, and working capital adjustment matters.

Issues: (i) Whether the share capital and share premium could be assessed as unexplained cash credit where the assessee had furnished investor details but the subscribers did not respond to notices; (ii) Whether the notice for reassessment for assessment year 2015-16 was barred by limitation under the amended reassessment regime.

Issue (i): Whether the share capital and share premium could be assessed as unexplained cash credit where the assessee had furnished investor details but the subscribers did not respond to notices.

Analysis: The assessee supplied the names, addresses, PANs, bank-account details, income-tax returns and audited financial statements of the share subscribers. The Assessing Officer did not carry out the directed inquiry through compulsory attendance of the directors under Section 131, despite the revisionary and remand directions. Non-response to notices under Section 133(6), particularly after substantial lapse of time and changes in the subscribers' status or addresses, did not by itself establish that the investors were non-existent or that the receipts represented the assessee's own funds. No independent investigation disproved the material produced by the assessee.

Conclusion: The share capital and share premium addition under Section 68 was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice for reassessment for assessment year 2015-16 was barred by limitation under the amended reassessment regime.

Analysis: For an assessment year preceding assessment year 2021-22, the first proviso to Section 149(1) preserves the time limit under the pre-amendment regime. The six-year period from the end of assessment year 2015-16 expired on 31 March 2022. The notice issued on 23 March 2023 could not be sustained because the extended ten-year limitation under the amended provision operates prospectively and cannot revive a time-barred reassessment.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 and the consequential reassessment were barred by limitation and invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned unexplained-cash-credit addition is deleted, and the reassessment for assessment year 2015-16 is rendered invalid as time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an assessee furnishes material establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of share subscriptions, an addition cannot rest solely on subscribers' non-response to verification notices without effective contrary inquiry; further, the amended reassessment limitation cannot revive a reassessment that was already time-barred under the pre-amendment regime.

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation, having regard to the date on which the order-in-original was received by the assessee.

Analysis: The limitation period for an appeal commences from communication or receipt of the adjudicating order by the aggrieved party. The postal tracking and acknowledgement record established that, although the article reached the Besroli Sub-Post Office on 08.01.2019, it was ultimately delivered at Mamroli Branch Office, the assessee's place of residence, on 20.01.2019. The date of receipt at the intermediary post office could not be treated as the date of receipt by the assessee.

Conclusion: The appeal filed on 18.04.2019 was within limitation from the actual date of receipt on 20.01.2019; the dismissal on limitation was unsustainable and the merits require fresh adjudication.

Issues: Whether a faceless reassessment initiated and substantially conducted before notification of the scheme under Section 151A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was validly assumed and completed.

Analysis: Section 151A contemplated a notified scheme for faceless assessment, reassessment and issuance of notice for income escaping assessment. The e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 was notified on 29.03.2022. The notice under Section 148 and consequential reassessment proceedings, including statutory notices and show-cause proceedings, had been initiated and conducted before the scheme was notified, although the reassessment order was passed thereafter. The statutory authority for undertaking the proceedings in a faceless manner was therefore unavailable when jurisdiction was assumed.

Conclusion: The faceless reassessment proceedings and reassessment order were without jurisdiction, void ab initio and bad in law, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the suit seeking rights in property purchased by a father in the names of his minor sons was barred by the Prohibition of Benami Properties Act, 1988 and liable to rejection of plaint.

Analysis: The 2016 amendments, insofar as declaratory, procedural, curative and machinery-oriented, apply retrospectively; therefore, the exception in Section 2(9) for property acquired by an individual in the name of a child applied to the transaction. Independently, under the unamended Section 4(3)(b), a father's relationship with his minor children is a guardian-ward fiduciary relationship, bringing the transaction within the fiduciary-capacity exception to the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The suit is not barred under the Prohibition of Benami Properties Act, 1988 and is not liable to rejection of plaint.

Issues: Availability of an appeal before the functional GST Tribunal against the impugned orders.

Analysis: The GST Tribunal had become functional at Bhopal, providing the petitioner with the statutory appellate remedy. The amount already deposited pursuant to the interim order was directed to be adjusted towards the Tribunal pre-deposit.

Outcome: The petition was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before the Tribunal within 30 days, to be considered on merits.

Issues: Whether Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 could sustain proceedings for recovery or denial of IGST refund after its omission without a saving clause.

Analysis: Rule 96(10) imposed restrictions on IGST-refund claims beyond those contemplated by Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was found to be ultra vires and manifestly arbitrary. Its omission through Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax dated 08.10.2024, without a saving clause, rendered the omitted rule unavailable for pending matters that had not attained finality. The binding earlier decision on the same issue was applicable to the petition.

Conclusion: Rule 96(10) could not be invoked to continue the pending proceedings against the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment initiated beyond four years can sustain an addition on an issue not recorded as a reason for reopening when no addition is made on either recorded reason, and whether Explanation 3 to Section 147 permits such reassessment.

Analysis: The recorded grounds concerned recomputation of disallowance under Section 14A and alleged income from NSEL transactions. No addition was ultimately made on either ground: the Section 14A disallowance had already been deleted for absence of exempt income, and the alleged NSEL income did not relate to the relevant assessment year. The only effective reassessment addition was on a separate issue. For a reopening beyond four years, failure by the assessee to make a full and true disclosure in relation to the recorded escapement must be established. Explanation 3 permits assessment of another escaped-income issue noticed during valid reassessment proceedings, but does not cure the absence of a valid foundation for reopening or expand the substantive jurisdiction under Section 147.

Conclusion: The reassessment was without jurisdiction, and the addition made on an issue outside the recorded reasons could not survive; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a business loss of an earlier assessment year could be set off against income of later years despite non-filing of returns in the intervening assessment years.

Analysis: Carry-forward and set-off of a business loss require a valid return under Section 139(3) and determination of the loss in the relevant assessment process. The absence of returns for the intervening assessment years prevented determination and notification of the unabsorbed loss available for further carry-forward. The settled interpretation of Sections 72, 80, 139(3) and 157 was applicable.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to set off the assessment year 2003-04 business loss against income for the assessment years under consideration.

Issues: Whether revision of the assessment under Section 263 on the ground of inadequate verification of unsecured loans and trade payables was valid.

Analysis: Section 263 permits revision only where the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Explanation 2(a) applies where an assessment is passed without inquiries or verification that ought to have been made, but does not dispense with the requirement that both conditions must be established. The assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had specifically sought and received details concerning unsecured loans and trade payables and accepted the explanations after inquiry. The revisional action rested on audit objections and an expectation of further inquiry, without material demonstrating consequent prejudice to the Revenue. A plausible view adopted after inquiry cannot be revised merely because the Principal Commissioner prefers further verification or a different view.

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

Issues: Whether refund of excess customs duty was barred by unjust enrichment where the importer produced a Chartered Accountant certificate and sales records showing that bunker oil was sold below its import value.

Analysis: Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires the claimant to establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on. The Chartered Accountant certificate, read with Bills of Entry and sales invoices demonstrating that the bunker oil was sold below the import value on which duty had been assessed, established that the importer had not recovered even the import cost, much less the duty. Debit of duty as expenditure in the profit and loss account did not, by itself, establish that its incidence had been passed on. Once this evidence was produced, the evidentiary burden shifted to Revenue, which produced no material to rebut it.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the assessee was entitled to refund of the excess customs duty.

Issues: Whether reassessment could be initiated where the transactions alleged to result in escaped income had already been scrutinised and formed part of the original assessment.

Analysis: The original scrutiny assessment covered purchases from high-risk billers, GST reconciliations, supplier confirmations, bank-payment evidence and related books of account. The assessment had rejected the books and determined income by estimating net profit at 10% of total sales. The alleged escaped income in the subsequent proceedings was not disputed to have been subsumed in that original assessment. Reopening on the same examined material was therefore a change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reassessment initiation was invalid as it was founded on an impermissible change of opinion, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether an unauthorised acceptance of resignation was validated retrospectively by subsequent ratification of the competent authority; (ii) Whether the acceptance of resignation and refusal to permit its withdrawal under the applicable statutory framework were valid.

Issue (i): Whether an unauthorised acceptance of resignation was validated retrospectively by subsequent ratification of the competent authority.

Analysis: The Board of Management was the competent authority to accept the resignation. Although the officer holding additional charge as Vice-Chancellor lacked valid delegated authority, the Board subsequently expressly ratified the acceptance. Ratification by the authority competent to perform the act validates an initially unauthorised but otherwise lawful act and operates retrospectively from the date of the original act. Further, the employee had sought waiver of notice, accepted the consequential documents and benefits, and acted upon the completed separation; he could not later challenge the transaction on a technical defect in its acceptance.

Conclusion: The Board's ratification retrospectively validated the acceptance of resignation, and the employee could not withdraw the resignation after it had taken effect. The issue is against the employee.

Issue (ii): Whether the acceptance of resignation and refusal to permit its withdrawal under the applicable statutory framework were valid.

Analysis: Under Statute 30, resignation took effect on its acceptance by the appointing authority, without communication of acceptance or expiry of the notice period being conditions of its legal effectiveness. The notice period regulated actual relieving only. The applicable Office Memorandum preserved the competent authority's discretion to refuse withdrawal before relieving, provided reasons were recorded and communicated. The reasoned refusal, founded on the employee's stated disinclination to continue and the stated purpose of joining another institution, was neither unlawful, mala fide nor perverse; judicial review could not substitute its assessment for that of the competent authority.

Conclusion: The resignation became effective upon acceptance, and the reasoned refusal to permit withdrawal was valid. Reinstatement and back wages were unavailable. The issue is against the employee.

Final Conclusion: The employee's separation from both institutions remained legally effective, and no entitlement to reinstatement or consequential back wages survived.

Ratio Decidendi: A competent authority's express ratification of an otherwise unauthorised but lawful acceptance of resignation relates back to validate it from inception; where a governing statute makes resignation effective on acceptance, withdrawal is subject to the competent authority's reasoned statutory discretion.