Issues: Whether penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable when the alleged cash loan transaction remained unestablished.

Analysis: The penalty rested on the alleged acceptance of a cash loan in violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The transaction was said to be supported by seized material and a third-party statement, but the assessee consistently denied having taken the loan. The quantum assessment had already been quashed on legal grounds, so there was no final adjudication establishing the alleged loan transaction. The record also showed uncertainty regarding the directness of the transaction and the alleged intermediary, with no effective enquiry to verify the asserted loan arrangement.

Conclusion: The alleged violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not established and the penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether late fee under Section 234E could be levied while processing quarterly TDS returns under Section 200A for the period prior to 01.06.2015.

Analysis: The provision enabling computation of fee under Section 234E during processing of TDS statements was inserted into Section 200A only with effect from 01.06.2015. For the relevant financial year 2014-15, the returns were processed for a period preceding that insertion. In the absence of the enabling clause in Section 200A for the relevant period, the levy of late fee while issuing intimation under Section 200A could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The levy of late fee under Section 234E in the intimation under Section 200A for the relevant period was invalid and was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Late fee under Section 234E cannot be imposed through processing under Section 200A for periods prior to the insertion of the enabling provision with effect from 01.06.2015.

Issues: Whether the addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases and the consequential reassessment could be sustained when the purchases were recorded in the books, payments were made through banking channels, and the assessee's explanation and supporting materials were not found unacceptable on the merits.

Analysis: The appeal before the first appellate authority had been disposed of ex parte. The Tribunal proceeded to decide the matter on the existing record and relied on the principle that where material is already available, the appeal should be decided on merits without remand. On the merits, the disputed purchases were reflected in the books, the transactions were supported by banking payments, and the Assessing Officer had not doubted the books of account or the financial statements. The Tribunal also noted that the addition was made by treating the purchases as unexplained, even though the recorded transactions and corresponding stock movement were not denied in substance. Following the jurisdictional High Court's view that such additions cannot be sustained where the expenditure and purchases are duly recorded and the source of expenditure is explained, the Tribunal found no basis to sustain the impugned addition.

Conclusion: The addition on account of alleged bogus purchases was not sustainable, and the assessee succeeded on the merits of the appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable on income declared in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and accepted in assessment. (ii) Whether penalty was sustainable on the remaining additions made on estimated basis or for calculation errors.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable on income declared in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and accepted in assessment.

Analysis: The return filed in response to section 153A was treated as the operative return for penalty purposes. The assessee had disclosed the major additions in such return, the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income, and no incriminating material was shown to justify a concealment-based penalty on the surrendered income. On the settled approach applied, concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars has to be tested against the section 153A return, and penalty does not arise where the returned income is accepted without further variation on that count.

Conclusion: Penalty was not leviable on the income declared in the section 153A return, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was sustainable on the remaining additions made on estimated basis or for calculation errors.

Analysis: The residual additions were found to be estimated or arising from calculation errors and not from any proved concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Such additions did not establish the mens rea-like culpability necessary for penalty under section 271(1)(c) and could not, by themselves, justify imposition of penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty was also not leviable on the residual estimated or arithmetical additions, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty orders were set aside and the assessee's three appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: For penalty under section 271(1)(c) in a search case, the relevant comparison is between the section 153A return and the assessed income, and penalty cannot be sustained where the returned income is accepted or where the surviving additions are merely estimated or arithmetical in nature without incriminating material indicating concealment.

Issues: Whether the refund claims rejected as time-barred under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 required fresh examination in light of the amended notification, the borrowing of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 into service tax law, and the applicability of the relevant-date concept.

Analysis: The limitation issue had not been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the legal objections raised by the appellant. The dispute turned on the effect of Rule 5 refund procedure, the notifications governing service-tax refund claims, and the interaction between Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the questions were purely legal and required consideration at the appellate stage, including the impact of the later notification prescribing a one-year period for service providers and the significance of the earlier authority relied upon by the appellant.

Conclusion: The matter required remand for examination of all legal issues relating to limitation and the applicability of the relevant refund notification framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellate authority has not examined material legal objections bearing on limitation and the refund framework, the proper course is remand for fresh adjudication.

Issues: (i) Whether a sub-distributor of mutual fund services was liable to service tax despite reliance on reverse charge notifications and claimed exemption; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and consequential penalties and interest were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether a sub-distributor of mutual fund services was liable to service tax despite reliance on reverse charge notifications and claimed exemption.

Analysis: The demand arose from third-party data showing receipts reflected in the income tax return, while no service tax return was filed for the relevant period. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not a distributor of mutual funds but a sub-distributor providing taxable business auxiliary services. The notification relied upon shifted tax liability in respect of the distributor and did not exempt the sub-distributor. The appellant did not produce adequate documentary evidence to establish that the receipts were covered by the claimed exemption or by any non-taxable category. The Tribunal also held that services rendered to the banks formed part of the gross taxable value and were not shown to be outside the levy.

Conclusion: The appellant remained liable to pay service tax on the services rendered, and the claimed exemption was not established.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and consequential penalties and interest were sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal found suppression of taxable receipts, non-filing of ST-3 returns, and non-payment of tax despite being called upon to explain the discrepancy. The plea of bona fide belief was rejected for want of supporting material. Since the demand was upheld on merits, interest followed as a statutory consequence. The failures to furnish information and to file returns also attracted penalties under the relevant provisions, and the extended period was held to be rightly invoked.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation, interest, and penalties were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full and the demand, interest, and penalties were sustained against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A sub-contractor or sub-distributor remains liable to service tax on taxable services rendered by it unless a complete exemption is proved by clear evidence, and the recipient's liability under a reverse charge arrangement does not by itself relieve the service provider of tax liability.

Issues: Whether a final assessment order passed without first serving a draft assessment order on an eligible assessee, so as to enable recourse to the Dispute Resolution Panel, is sustainable in law.

Analysis: The assessment scheme applicable to eligible assessees requires the Assessing Officer to first forward a draft assessment order where the proposed variation is prejudicial to the assessee. That procedure is not a mere formality. It confers a substantive right to object before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The direct passing of a final assessment order without serving a draft order violates the statutory sequence and amounts to a breach of the mandatory framework under the faceless assessment provisions as well as the dispute resolution mechanism. Such non-compliance is a jurisdictional defect and not a curable irregularity. The proposed course of treating the final order as a draft order or remanding the matter was not accepted; the impugned order itself could not stand.

Conclusion: The final assessment order was quashed and set aside for failure to follow the mandatory draft-assessment procedure, and the petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the case of an eligible assessee, failure to serve a draft assessment order before passing a prejudicial final assessment order violates a mandatory jurisdictional requirement and renders the final order unsustainable.

Issues: (i) whether the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of sale proceeds of shares was sustainable in the facts of the case; (ii) whether the consequential addition under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 towards commission expenditure was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of sale proceeds of shares was sustainable in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The transaction was supported by purchase through banking channels, holding of shares for more than three years, sale through a recognised stock exchange, and demat records. The Revenue relied principally on a general investigation report regarding manipulation in the scrip, but brought no material to connect the assessee with any entry operator, tainted party, or rigging activity. The assessee's name did not figure in the adverse material, and no independent enquiry or contrary evidence was shown to discredit the documentary trail.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.

Issue (ii): whether the consequential addition under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 towards commission expenditure was sustainable.

Analysis: The commission addition was made only as a consequence of the alleged accommodation-entry addition under section 68. Once the underlying addition was found unsustainable, the basis for treating any commission as unexplained expenditure also disappeared.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69C was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish that the share transactions were non-genuine or that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries, and both additions were deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: A general investigation report, any assessee-specific link or independent corroborative evidence, is insufficient to sustain additions for unexplained share sale proceeds or consequential commission where the transaction is supported by banking, demat, and stock exchange records.

Issues: Whether the transfer pricing adjustment and consequential disallowance of interest on loans advanced to wholly owned subsidiaries could be sustained, having regard to the rate of interest charged, the absence of higher risk, and the consistency of treatment in earlier and later years.

Analysis: The loan transactions were with subsidiaries under the assessee's management and control, and the borrowing structure showed that the subsidiaries were not exposed to any higher risk merely because the advances were unsecured or supported by lower interest. The record also showed that the interest rates charged in earlier years had been accepted, and no addition was made in subsequent years on the same loans. In these circumstances, the basis adopted by the tax authorities for imputing a higher arm's length return was found to be unjustified, and the factor of alleged risk did not support the adjustment.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment could not be sustained, and the ground was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could be sustained in respect of exempt income arising from shares and bonds held as stock-in-trade; (ii) Whether disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) was justified where the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and the borrowings were used in business; (iii) Whether the provision for diminution in market value of stock-in-trade was allowable as a business loss.

Issue (i): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could be sustained in respect of exempt income arising from shares and bonds held as stock-in-trade.

Analysis: The exempt income arose from securities held in the ordinary course of trading business, and the Tribunal accepted that such income was incidental to the assessee's business activity. It also found that the Assessing Officer had not recorded a proper dissatisfaction on the assessee's claim before applying Rule 8D. Further, the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, supporting the inference that no interest-bearing funds were deployed for the relevant holdings.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) was justified where the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and the borrowings were used in business.

Analysis: The assessee's capital and reserves exceeded the value of the securities in question, and the Tribunal accepted the presumption that business investments were made out of interest-free funds. It also accepted that the borrowings were utilised for business purposes and that the same interest could not be disallowed again merely because incidental tax-free income had arisen. On these facts, the interest expenditure retained its character as business expenditure.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was not justified and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the provision for diminution in market value of stock-in-trade was allowable as a business loss.

Analysis: The securities were held as stock-in-trade and were consistently valued at cost or market value, whichever was lower, in accordance with the assessee's regular accounting practice and RBI-linked valuation norms. The Tribunal treated the year-end diminution as a legitimate valuation loss on closing stock, not as a contingent or inadmissible provision.

Conclusion: The diminution in value of stock-in-trade was allowable as a deduction and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed on all disputed issues, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer, as partly sustained or deleted by the first appellate authority, were not restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where exempt income arises only incidentally from securities held as stock-in-trade, disallowance under section 14A requires proper recorded dissatisfaction and cannot survive in the presence of sufficient interest-free funds; separately, interest on business borrowings remains deductible under section 36(1)(iii), and year-end diminution in the value of stock-in-trade valued on the lower of cost or market value basis is an allowable business loss.

Issues: Whether the Revenue could, for the first time before the Tribunal, seek exclusion of Onward Technologies Ltd. as a comparable although it had been accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis: The comparable in question was part of the assessee's transfer pricing study and had been accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer for benchmarking the engineering, technical and inspection segment. The Commissioner (Appeals) also retained it as a comparable. The Revenue's challenge before the Tribunal was raised for the first time on the ground of functional dissimilarity. The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not agitate before it a comparable that had not formed the subject matter of challenge before the lower appellate authority, and that the exclusion made in the earlier round was misconceived because the segmental results of the comparable had already been used for benchmarking by the transfer pricing authorities.

Conclusion: The Revenue's ground seeking exclusion of Onward Technologies Ltd. was rejected and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on account of advertisement, marketing and publicity expenses and the alleged short charge for ticketing and tour management services was sustainable. (ii) Whether disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was warranted in respect of payment gateway charges and the cost of air tickets paid through MMT US. (iii) Whether the deferred revenue receipts from the Amadeus and Apollo DKV agreements were taxable in full in the year of receipt. (iv) Whether ESOP-related expenditure and depreciation on certain computer peripherals were allowable as claimed.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on account of advertisement, marketing and publicity expenses and the alleged short charge for ticketing and tour management services was sustainable.

Analysis: The adjustment on AMP expenditure was deleted because the brand was found to belong to the assessee, the bright line test was held inapplicable on those facts, and the expenditure was treated as incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and not as capital in nature. For ticketing and tour management services, the lower authorities' restricted adjustment was upheld because the comparison adopted by the Revenue was not accepted without factoring in the corresponding functions, expenses and risks of the AE. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue itself had not treated similar AMP expenditure as an international transaction in later years.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing addition on AMP expenditure was deleted, and the restricted addition for ticketing and tour management services was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was warranted in respect of payment gateway charges and the cost of air tickets paid through MMT US.

Analysis: The payment gateway charges were held not to attract disallowance because the banking facility did not amount to taxable technical or commission service in the hands of the recipient on the facts found. Likewise, the cost of air tickets paid to MMT US was held not to be fees for technical services or fees for included services, since the transaction was only a purchase on cost basis, involved no managerial, technical or consultancy element, and did not satisfy the make available requirement under the treaty.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted for both categories of payments.

Issue (iii): Whether the deferred revenue receipts from the Amadeus and Apollo DKV agreements were taxable in full in the year of receipt.

Analysis: The receipts were held not to have accrued in full in the year of receipt because they were contingent on exclusive and continued performance over the contractual term and were refundable pro rata or in full on breach or termination. The Tribunal accepted the matching and accrual-based treatment adopted in the accounts and held that only the proportionate income relating to the year had accrued, while the balance was taxable in later years over the life of the agreements.

Conclusion: The additions on account of deferred revenue income were deleted.

Issue (iv): Whether ESOP-related expenditure and depreciation on certain computer peripherals were allowable as claimed.

Analysis: ESOP expenditure was held to be an allowable business expenditure incurred to retain and compensate employees, following the settled view that such cost is revenue in nature. The partial disallowance of depreciation on computer peripherals was not interfered with, while the assessee's challenge to the advertisement and publicity disallowance for the relevant year was accepted in line with the earlier finding that such expenditure was revenue expenditure.

Conclusion: ESOP expenditure and the assessee's claim on advertisement and publicity expenditure were allowed, while the depreciation issue did not result in further relief.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee obtained partial relief on the disputed additions, resulting in a partly favourable outcome for the assessee overall.

Ratio Decidendi: An expenditure or receipt is to be taxed or disallowed according to its real legal character, and contingent receipts are taxable only when they accrue, while business expenditure is allowable where it is incurred wholly and exclusively for business and does not constitute capital outlay; transfer pricing and withholding consequences cannot be sustained where the underlying transaction is not shown to involve a taxable service or an international transaction on the proved facts.

Issues: Disallowance of contract expenses and deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The assessee furnished the underlying work orders, bank statements, TDS records, confirmations from the contractors, ledger accounts, master data, and audited financial statements of the subcontractors to show that the work relating to the airport project had been executed through the stated contractual chain and that payments were actually made. The evidence remained uncontroverted in remand proceedings, and no independent verification was carried out with the subcontractors to discredit the claim. The addition was based substantially on adverse inference from MCA website data, without meeting the documentary record produced by the assessee.

Conclusion: The assessee had discharged the onus of proving the contract expenditure, and the disallowance was unsustainable. The addition was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee produces cogent documentary evidence establishing receipt of contractual income and actual payment of subcontract expenses, and the revenue does not controvert or independently disprove that evidence, the expenditure cannot be disallowed merely on suspicion or adverse inference.

Issues: Whether disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) was justified where the assessee borrowed funds from its holding company, advanced a foreign currency loan to an overseas subsidiary at 5% interest, and earned foreign exchange gain on the transaction.

Analysis: The loan to the overseas subsidiary was advanced in foreign currency, while the borrowings from the holding company were in Indian rupees. The comparable interest rate in the borrower's jurisdiction was about 3% to 4%, and the assessee charged 5%, which was found to be within the arm's length range. The transfer pricing order accepted the international transaction as arm's length. The loan arrangement also yielded substantial foreign exchange gain, which was offered to tax, and the record did not establish absence of commercial expediency. In these circumstances, the Assessing Officer could not substitute the borrowing rate and disallow a part of the interest expenditure merely because the assessee had paid 15% on its own borrowings.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was not sustainable and was rightly deleted; the decision was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a foreign currency lending transaction is accepted at arm's length and the borrowing and lending are commercially connected, interest expenditure cannot be disallowed merely by comparing the assessee's borrowing cost with the lower lending rate charged to the overseas subsidiary.

Issues: Whether the final assessment order was invalid and liable to be quashed for want of a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessee was an eligible assessee within the meaning of section 144C(15), and the assessment was completed without first issuing a draft assessment order. The absence of the draft assessment order was not disputed. The mandatory character of section 144C(1) required prior issuance of a draft assessment order before finalisation, and failure to follow that procedure constituted a jurisdictional defect. The defect could not be cured by section 292B. Accordingly, the final assessment order could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The final assessment order was held to be without jurisdiction, null and void, and was quashed. The additional ground was allowed.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed as barred by delay, as the delay exceeded the condonable period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's activity was classifiable as works contract service and whether the demands raised under commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service were sustainable. (ii) Whether the value of free supplies and the value of goods on which VAT was paid were includible in the taxable value, and whether abatement under Notification No. 01/2006-ST was available.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's activity was classifiable as works contract service and whether the demands raised under commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service were sustainable.

Analysis: The activity involved execution of contracts comprising both supply of goods and provision of construction services. Such contracts fall within the statutory concept of works contract introduced in section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. For composite contracts, classification is governed by section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, and the specific taxable entry must prevail over a general service description. The demand was nevertheless raised under commercial or industrial construction and construction of complex despite the composite nature of the contracts and the introduction of works contract service during the relevant period.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained under the heads invoked by the department, and the appellant's activity was to be treated as works contract service.

Issue (ii): Whether the value of free supplies and the value of goods on which VAT was paid were includible in the taxable value, and whether abatement under Notification No. 01/2006-ST was available.

Analysis: The value of cement and steel supplied free of cost by customers was not consideration flowing to the service provider and was therefore outside the taxable value. The gross amount charged for service could not be expanded to include such free supplies. The appellant was also entitled to abatement under Notification No. 01/2006-ST, and the demand could not be computed by denying abatement on the entire receipt or by including the value of goods on which VAT had already been discharged. The valuation adopted by the department was inconsistent with the principles affirmed in the cited authorities on free supplies and on segregation of the service portion from the goods portion in composite contracts.

Conclusion: Free supplies were not includible in the taxable value, abatement was available, and the valuation adopted by the department was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demands and penalties could not survive, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite construction contract involving transfer of property in goods and provision of service is to be assessed as works contract service under the specific statutory entry, and free supplies by the customer do not form part of the taxable value or gross amount charged for service tax valuation.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant, a 100% EOU, was entitled to exemption from basic customs duty on DTA clearances under the relevant exemption notification. (ii) Whether the demand based on alleged undervaluation of granite slabs cleared to DTA was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant, a 100% EOU, was entitled to exemption from basic customs duty on DTA clearances under the relevant exemption notification.

Analysis: The appellant established that the DTA clearances were made under the EOU regime, that marble clearances were supported by the directions of the Supreme Court and the Development Commissioner, and that the Department produced no admissible evidence to show that the granite slabs cleared to DTA were manufactured from imported granite blocks. The condition requiring intimation to the proper officer was treated as directory in the context of supervised DTA clearances by the EOU authorities. The appellant was also found to have complied with export obligation, and the benefit of the exemption notification was held available.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the exemption, and the demand of basic customs duty was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand based on alleged undervaluation of granite slabs cleared to DTA was sustainable.

Analysis: The clearances were assessed by the proper customs officer, duty was paid on the declared invoice value, and ER-2 returns were regularly filed. The Department relied on contemporaneous import data and residual valuation, but did not establish a reliable comparison between the appellant's DTA clearances and the alleged comparable imports. The record also showed that the related unit's purchases from the appellant formed only a small part of its turnover, and the evidence was insufficient to reject the declared value.

Conclusion: The allegation of undervaluation was not proved and the valuation-based demand failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief under law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a supervised EOU DTA-clearance regime, a procedural intimation condition in a beneficial exemption cannot be treated as mandatory in the absence of contrary evidence, and a demand based on undervaluation cannot stand without admissible evidence establishing rejection of the declared value and a proper comparative basis.

Issues: Whether ad-interim stay should be granted against the show cause notice, the impugned reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, and the assessment proceedings pending the writ petition.

Analysis: The petition raised a challenge to the reference made under Chapter X on the ground that income chargeable to tax in India had not first been established, particularly in the context of the DTAA and the alleged absence of a taxable income arising from the transaction. The respondents sought time to file a reply. Pending further hearing, the Court directed filing of an affidavit in reply and listed the matter for ad-interim consideration. In the meantime, the Court granted ad-interim protection in terms of the prayer seeking stay of the impugned notice, the impugned order, and the reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, and also stayed the assessment proceedings.

Conclusion: Interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner by staying the impugned notice, the reference under section 92CA(1), and the assessment proceedings until further orders.