Issues: Whether, after the appellate orders were quashed for want of jurisdiction, the assessee's appeals should be remitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) having territorial jurisdiction for adjudication on merits.

Analysis: Section 23 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and the CBDT Circular dated 07.04.2021 vested jurisdiction over the assessee's wealth-tax appeals with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai. The earlier appellate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-31, Delhi were invalid for want of rightful legal jurisdiction. Since the merits grounds had not been adjudicated by the competent appellate authority, omission to remit the appeals constituted an error requiring rectification.

Conclusion: The appeals are restored to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai for de novo adjudication of the assessee's grounds on merits after hearing the assessee.

Outcome: Revenue appeal dismissed as withdrawn; the assessee's cross-objection was fixed for hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether payments to non-resident entities for online advertising services were taxable as royalty or otherwise chargeable to tax in India, requiring tax deduction at source and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether the discount on shares issued under an Employee Stock Option Scheme was allowable as a business expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether payments to non-resident entities for online advertising services were taxable as royalty or otherwise chargeable to tax in India, requiring tax deduction at source and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The advertising platform provided by the non-resident entities was a standard facility for displaying advertisements. The assessee had no control over, access to, or managerial role in the servers or equipment used for providing the platform, and possessed no economic or possessory right in the servers. The payments were therefore not for the use or right to use equipment, nor did they constitute royalty or fees for technical services. The Revenue did not controvert the factual findings or the applicability of the assessee's earlier case-law.

Conclusion: The advertising payments were not royalty or otherwise chargeable to tax in India so as to require deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the discount on shares issued under an Employee Stock Option Scheme was allowable as a business expenditure.

Analysis: The discount on issue of employee stock options represented employee cost recognised over the vesting period. Applying the Special Bench principle adopted in the assessee's own case, the discount was treated as expenditure incurred in connection with employment and allowable in computing business income, subject to appropriate adjustments for options exercised, vested, or lapsed.

Conclusion: The ESOP discount was an allowable deduction as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Final Conclusion: The deletion of both the advertisement-expense disallowance and the ESOP-expense disallowance was sustained, leaving no surviving disallowance on the issues adjudicated.

Ratio Decidendi: Payments for a standard online advertising facility do not constitute royalty where the payer has no right to use, control over, or possessory interest in the service provider's equipment or servers; discount on employee stock options is deductible as employee cost incurred for business purposes.

Issues: Whether the denial of input tax credit by retrospectively applying subsequently prescribed evidentiary parameters for proving genuine transactions warranted interference and fresh consideration.

Analysis: Input tax credit initially allowed in reassessment was withdrawn through rectification after information cast doubt on the supplier and transactions. The appellate authorities relied on standards requiring the purchasing dealer, under Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, to establish actual physical movement of goods and genuineness of transactions beyond invoices and banking payments. Since those parameters had not been laid down when the reassessment proceedings occurred, their application without affording an opportunity to meet them resulted in denial contrary to principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The adverse appellate orders were set aside, and the input tax credit claim must be freshly considered after granting sufficient opportunity to establish compliance with the applicable evidentiary requirements, including through additional evidence; no opinion was expressed on the merits.

Issues: Whether service tax under reverse charge is payable on royalty paid under mining lease agreements executed before 01.04.2016.

Analysis: The mining lease agreements, material to determine when the service of grant of mining rights was provided or agreed to be provided, had not been produced before either lower authority. Under the pre-01.04.2016 negative-list regime, services provided by Government, including grant of rights in natural resources, were generally not taxable; Government services to business entities became taxable after the amendment effective from 01.04.2016. The lease agreements require examination under the governing Tribunal decisions.

Outcome: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was returned for fresh adjudication.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice issued for assessment year 2015-16 was barred by limitation and invalid for want of application of mind; (ii) Whether addition for investment in immovable property could be made in assessment year 2015-16 when the payments were made in the preceding financial year.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice issued for assessment year 2015-16 was barred by limitation and invalid for want of application of mind.

Analysis: Notices for assessment year 2015-16 issued on or after 1 April 2021 were required to be dropped under the applicable limitation regime. The notice dated 12 April 2022 was consequently beyond time. Independently, the registered property documents and payment schedule showed that the relevant payments had been made in an earlier year; issuance of notice without verifying those basic available facts disclosed non-application of mind and a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was time-barred and bad in law; the consequential reassessment order was void ab initio, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether addition for investment in immovable property could be made in assessment year 2015-16 when the payments were made in the preceding financial year.

Analysis: The registered agreement, deed and payment details established that the loan and balance consideration for the property were paid during financial year 2013-14, corresponding to assessment year 2014-15. Registration during assessment year 2015-16 did not shift the year in which the investment payments were made.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 12,75,000 for assessment year 2015-16 was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings lacked lawful jurisdiction, and the impugned investment addition was also not attributable to the relevant assessment year.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued beyond the prescribed limitation period is without jurisdiction; further, reopening founded on unverified basic facts available from property documents reflects non-application of mind.

Issues: Whether service tax under reverse charge is payable on royalty paid to the Government for mining rights where the mining lease agreement was executed before 01.04.2016.

Analysis: Service tax under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 is attracted when a service is provided or agreed to be provided. Before 01.04.2016, services provided by Government, except specified exclusions, remained in the negative list under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. The subsequent amendment excluding Government services to business entities from the negative list operated from 01.04.2016. Since the lease agreements, which were material to determining the applicable tax regime, had not been produced before either lower authority, fresh examination was necessary in accordance with the Tribunal's settled law.

Conclusion: A mining lease agreement executed before 01.04.2016 may not attract service tax on royalty under reverse charge; the issue requires fresh adjudication after examination of the lease agreements, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to the share premium received in the relevant previous year though the shares had been allotted earlier. (ii) Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's DCF valuation and adding the entire share premium without determining the fair market value.

Issue (i): Whether section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to the share premium received in the relevant previous year though the shares had been allotted earlier.

Analysis: The provision was held to operate on the receipt of consideration in the previous year. Since part of the consideration towards the issue of shares was received in the year under appeal, the earlier allotment in a preceding year did not take the receipt outside the scope of the charging provision.

Conclusion: The provision applied on receipt basis and the challenge to its applicability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's DCF valuation and adding the entire share premium without determining the fair market value.

Analysis: Rule 11UA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 permits the assessee to adopt a recognised method for valuation, and the Assessing Officer cannot insist on a particular method merely because actual results differ from projections. The valuation report based on DCF was not shown to be methodologically defective. Further, the statute requires only the excess over fair market value to be brought to tax, not the whole premium. On the facts, the assessed premium was below the fair market value claimed by the assessee, and the assessee was engaged in setting up its business.

Conclusion: Rejection of the DCF valuation and addition of the entire share premium were unsustainable, and this ground succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the valuation and quantum aspect, while the applicability of section 56(2)(viib) on receipt basis was upheld; the overall appeal was allowed in part in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where share consideration is received in the relevant previous year, section 56(2)(viib) can apply on receipt basis, but the Assessing Officer must accept a statutorily recognised valuation method chosen by the assessee and can tax only the amount, if any, by which the consideration exceeds fair market value.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind and corroborative material. (ii) Whether absence of a notice under section 143(2) vitiated the reassessment where no return was filed in response to the notice under section 148.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind and corroborative material.

Analysis: The reasons recorded for reopening were found to be undated and based only on information from the Investigation Wing regarding alleged accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer had not shown any independent verification, corroborative enquiry, quantification of escaped income, or nexus between the material and the formation of belief that income had escaped assessment. In the absence of a live link between tangible material and the recorded reasons, the reopening was held to rest on borrowed satisfaction and not on a valid reason to believe.

Conclusion: The reopening under section 148 was invalid and the notice, along with the reassessment order, was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether absence of a notice under section 143(2) vitiated the reassessment where no return was filed in response to the notice under section 148.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that section 143(2) is attracted only where a return is filed in response to the statutory notice or under the relevant return-filing framework. Since the assessee did not file a return pursuant to notice under section 148, the requirement of issuing notice under section 143(2) did not arise on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: No separate illegality was found on this ground in favour of the assessee, but the appeal succeeded on the reassessment validity issue.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings having been held unsustainable, the additions did not survive and the assessee succeeded on the legal challenge to reopening, while the merits were left unadjudicated.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 148 requires a live nexus between tangible material and the Assessing Officer's independent reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; reopening based solely on uncorroborated third-party information without application of mind is invalid.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition, filed within the condonable period under the GST appeal provision, could be entertained despite the alternate appellate remedy; (ii) whether the impugned order under the GST demand provision warranted remand for fresh consideration subject to payment of part of the disputed tax and production of records.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition, filed within the condonable period under the GST appeal provision, could be entertained despite the alternate appellate remedy.

Analysis: The impugned order was dated 08.12.2025 and the writ petition was filed on 02.04.2026, which was within the condonable period for an appeal. On that footing, the writ petition was treated as entertainable. The plea of limitation raised by the petitioner was held to be covered against it, and it was noted that the impugned order had been passed under the GST demand provision.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be maintainable and the limitation objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order under the GST demand provision warranted remand for fresh consideration subject to payment of part of the disputed tax and production of records.

Analysis: The petitioner expressed readiness to produce records and accepted a condition to secure the revenue. On that basis, the matter was sent back for fresh consideration with a direction to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within thirty days and to file supporting documents and evidence. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders, and failure to comply would permit recovery as if the writ petition had been dismissed in limine.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication subject to the specified deposit and compliance conditions.

Final Conclusion: The Court preserved the challenge only to the limited extent of remitting the matter for fresh adjudication, while sustaining the revenue's interest through a mandatory partial deposit and compliance with documentary requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition challenging a GST adjudication order can be entertained within the condonable appellate period, but the matter may still be remitted for fresh decision subject to protective conditions securing the disputed tax.

Issues: Whether the arbitral interim and final awards, though rendered against the SPV alone, could be executed against its constituent shareholder companies as persons claiming under the award debtor, and whether their impleadment in execution proceedings was permissible.

Analysis: The awards had attained finality, and the execution proceedings were governed by Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court distinguished ordinary civil decree execution from execution of an arbitral award and held that Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 extends finality and binding force not only to the parties but also to persons claiming under them. Relying on the settled meaning of that expression, the Court found that the petitioners had created and led the SPV for the coal-block project, participated through their officers in its formation and functioning, shared management and finances, and had already contributed towards satisfaction of the award, showing that the SPV acted only as their instrumentality.

Conclusion: The petitioners fell within the expression "persons claiming under" the award debtor, and the execution against them was legally sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the execution orders failed because the arbitral awards were enforceable against the SPV's constituent companies on the facts of the corporate structure and their relationship with the award debtor.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitral award binds not only the signatory party but also persons whose capacity or position is derived from and is the same as that party, permitting execution against such persons in appropriate cases.

Issues: Whether, after constitution and commencement of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the writ petition should be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal route and by protecting the petitioner against limitation objections for a specified period.

Analysis: The Tribunal had been constituted, members had been appointed, and procedural rules for its functioning had been notified. In these circumstances, keeping the writ petition pending served no useful purpose. The petitioner was therefore granted liberty to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal within the specified period, and any pre-deposit already made pursuant to the interim order was directed to be treated as compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement, subject to production of the interim order and proof of deposit. The Tribunal was also directed to call for removal of defects within the stipulated time and the appeal was to be dealt with in accordance with law on merits.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal with ancillary directions regarding limitation, pre-deposit compliance, and defect removal.

Issues: Whether the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint relating to offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and whether the complaint had to be filed before the Special Court having jurisdiction where the registered office of the corporate person is situated.

Analysis: The complaint arose from alleged non-compliance of directions issued in insolvency proceedings concerning a corporate person whose registered office was admittedly situated at New Delhi. Under Section 236 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, offences under the Code are triable by the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013, and cognizance can be taken only on a complaint by the Board, the Central Government, or an authorised person. Section 60(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 fixes the territorial jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority by reference to the place where the registered office of the corporate person is located. Read with Section 436(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, the special statutory scheme confers jurisdiction on the Special Court linked to that place and overrides the general territorial rules under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The plea that jurisdiction could rest at Gwalior because of residence of directors or continuing default was held not to prevail against this special scheme.

Conclusion: The Gwalior court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and the complaint was required to be presented before the competent Special Court at New Delhi.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, territorial jurisdiction for trial is governed by the special statutory scheme tying the case to the place where the corporate person's registered office is situated, and that scheme prevails over the general territorial jurisdiction provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of cash withdrawals could be sustained where the source of deposits in the bank account was accepted and the withdrawals formed part of the assessee's regular business operations.

Analysis: The receipts credited in the assessee's bank account from the milk union through banking channels were accepted and were evidenced by milk bills and bank statements. The assessment did not dispute the source of the deposits, but proceeded only on the basis that the utilisation of the withdrawals was not satisfactorily proved and that the cash was withdrawn through one individual. Once the source of funds is accepted, an addition cannot be made merely because cash withdrawn from such explained receipts was not traced to each ultimate disbursement. The business model of a milk co-operative society, involving receipt of funds and distribution to members, also supported the explanation. The addition was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69C was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition made in proceedings under section 153C could be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found during search.

Analysis: The addition was made on the basis of cash deposits in bank account and not on the basis of any seized material. The appellate record showed that the assessment was completed without reference to incriminating documents or data recovered in search proceedings. In such circumstances, the foundation for action under section 153C was held to be lacking.

Conclusion: The assessment made under section 153C was held invalid and the addition was not sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the protective addition made in the assessee's hands towards alleged bogus purchases was liable to be deleted.

Analysis: The addition arose from reopening based on alleged accommodation entries in the business of a partnership firm, while the assessee had been assessed only on a protective basis. The record showed that the assessee was not directly linked with the impugned purchase transactions in the relevant year, and the assessment proceeded without any clear basis for selecting the assessee alone for protective taxation. In these circumstances, the order deleting the addition was found free from infirmity. The cross objection did not survive once the Revenue's appeal failed.

Conclusion: The protective addition was rightly deleted and the Revenue's challenge failed; the assessee's cross objection became infructuous.

Issues: Whether the denial of exemption on account of delayed filing of the return and Form 10B was sustainable, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the appellate authority.

Analysis: The assessee's registration under section 12AB, the delayed filing of the return, and the condonation granted for filing Form 10B were not in dispute. The appellate authority had not examined the assessee's contention that the delay in filing the return was linked to the Covid period and whether the relevant extensions or reliefs were applicable. Since the issue raised before the first appellate authority was not adjudicated on merits, further examination was necessary. The appropriate course was to set aside the matter for fresh consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the appellate authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with law, with due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether payments for ambulance-based emergency medical services to BVG attracted deduction of tax at source under section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or fell under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the contracts with HLL and FSMS required taxation under section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or warranted fresh examination on the basis of the contractual terms.

Issue (i): Whether payments for ambulance-based emergency medical services to BVG attracted deduction of tax at source under section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or fell under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The ambulance arrangement was found to involve more than mere carriage of patients. The service vehicles were equipped with medical apparatus, medicines and emergency medical technicians, and were designed to provide pre-hospital emergency care and patient stabilisation. On these terms, the service assumed the character of a specialised medical service rather than a simple works contract. The presence of ambulance staff and medical support was integral to the service and not merely incidental to transport.

Conclusion: The payments to BVG were held to fall under section 194J and not section 194C. The assessee's challenge on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the contracts with HLL and FSMS required taxation under section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or warranted fresh examination on the basis of the contractual terms.

Analysis: The contractual terms governing sample collection, transport, storage, reporting and biomedical equipment maintenance were not adequately analysed by the lower authorities. The materials placed before the Tribunal indicated that the agreements contained composite obligations and that some activities could potentially be logistical or maintenance-related rather than professional services. Since the precise contractual clauses were central to the classification exercise, a detailed reappraisal was necessary before deciding whether section 194J or section 194C applied.

Conclusion: The findings on the HLL and FSMS contracts were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was sustained only in part. The ambulance-service issue remained adverse to the assessee, while the controversy concerning HLL and FSMS was reopened for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of TDS liability depends on the real and dominant nature of the contractual services, and composite contracts must be examined on their specific terms before deciding whether they constitute professional services or works contracts.

Issues: Whether exemption under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be denied on the ground that the residential property was purchased from related family members and the transaction was a colourable device to evade tax.

Analysis: The assessee substantiated the purchase of the residential flat with registered documents, developer confirmation, demat records, maintenance bills, electricity records and other corroborative material. The Revenue's objections were based on surrounding circumstances such as the family relationship of the parties, the use of a power of attorney, and the allegation that the sellers continued to reside in the property. The evidentiary material on record did not establish any legal infirmity in the purchase transaction or any basis to disregard the registered transfer. A deduction under section 54F cannot be refused merely because the transaction is between relatives, where the transaction is otherwise genuine and supported by record. The allegation of a colourable device was not sustained by cogent material.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption under section 54F was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the deduction.

Final Conclusion: The addition made by disallowing the capital gains exemption was deleted and the assessee's appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction under section 54F cannot be denied solely because the investment is made in property purchased from relatives if the transaction is genuine, duly documented, and not shown by cogent evidence to be a sham or colourable device.

Issues: Whether the nominal amount recovered from employees for transportation arranged through a third-party transporter constitutes a taxable supply under Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The arrangement involved two distinct transactions: the transport service provider supplied transportation to the employer, while the employer merely arranged employee transportation and recovered only a nominal portion from salary. The activity of arranging buses for employees was held not to form part of the employer's core business of providing engineering, IT and business process outsourcing services. It was also held not to be incidental or ancillary to that business, and not to be in the course or furtherance of business, since the facility was optional, welfare-oriented, and could be opted out of by employees. The authority further found that the nominal recovery did not constitute consideration for a supply by the employer, because the actual transport service was supplied by the third-party transporter and the recoveries were only part of cost-sharing. Independently, the transportation facility was treated as a perquisite under the employment arrangement, and the authority relied on the principle that such employer-employee perquisites fall outside GST.

Conclusion: The nominal amount recovered from employees for the transportation facility does not amount to supply under Section 7, and the issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A welfare-oriented employee transportation facility arranged through a third-party transporter, where the employer merely recovers a nominal share of cost and retains no consideration, is not a supply when it is neither in the course nor in furtherance of business and is covered as an employment perquisite.