Issues: (i) whether working capital adjustment was required to be granted while benchmarking the international transaction of software development services; (ii) whether, after accepting the combined benchmarking approach for the logistics segment under TNMM, separate transfer pricing adjustments could still be made for royalty and Global Accounts Manager charges; (iii) whether deduction under section 80G could be denied merely because the donation formed part of CSR expenditure; (iv) whether the claim for TDS/TCS credit required verification and consequent relief; and (v) whether the disallowance under section 43B required restoration for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): whether working capital adjustment was required to be granted while benchmarking the international transaction of software development services.

Analysis: The DRP had directed the transfer pricing authorities to make working capital adjustment after the assessee furnished reliable segment-wise data. The assessee had claimed to have filed the relevant material before the authorities, including in rectification proceedings. The order giving effect proceeded on the footing that no such data had been furnished. In these circumstances, the adjustment issue required reconsideration on the basis of the record already supplied by the assessee.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the AO/TPO to grant working capital adjustment after considering the material furnished by the assessee, and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (ii): whether, after accepting the combined benchmarking approach for the logistics segment under TNMM, separate transfer pricing adjustments could still be made for royalty and Global Accounts Manager charges.

Analysis: The operating cost for the logistics segment had already included royalty and GAM charges while the segment was benchmarked under TNMM. Once the combined approach was accepted, the same elements could not again be isolated and benchmarked separately under a different method. The Tribunal relied on the principle that adoption of one most appropriate method requires consistency in applying that method to the transaction set as a whole, and separate adjustments for embedded costs would distort the ALP exercise.

Conclusion: Separate ALP adjustments for royalty and GAM charges were held to be impermissible once the combined approach had been accepted.

Issue (iii): whether deduction under section 80G could be denied merely because the donation formed part of CSR expenditure.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the disallowance framework for CSR expenditure under section 37(1) operates in the computation of business income, whereas deduction under section 80G operates at the stage of computing total income under Chapter VI-A. A donation otherwise eligible under section 80G does not lose its character for that purpose merely because it is also part of CSR spending. Denial of the deduction in such a situation would amount to double disallowance, which is not contemplated by the Act.

Conclusion: The deduction under section 80G was allowed.

Issue (iv): whether the claim for TDS/TCS credit required verification and consequent relief.

Analysis: The issue turned on verification of the tax deducted or collected vis-a-vis the income on which such credit was claimed. Since the factual correlation had to be checked by the assessing authority, the matter was remitted for examination in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The AO was directed to verify the TDS/TCS claim and decide the matter afresh.

Issue (v): whether the disallowance under section 43B required restoration for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The adjustment had been made in processing without proper confrontation to the assessee. In the interests of justice, the matter required a fresh opportunity and reconsideration by the AO after hearing the assessee.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was interfered with only to the extent indicated above, with the working capital adjustment and TDS/TCS and section 43B matters sent back for reconsideration, the royalty and GAM standalone transfer pricing adjustments deleted in principle, and the section 80G claim sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a composite transfer pricing method is accepted for a segment and the disputed items are already embedded in the operating cost base, separate ALP adjustments for those embedded items are not permissible; likewise, a CSR-linked donation does not lose eligibility for deduction under section 80G merely because it is also CSR expenditure.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal against the assessment order was liable to be condoned and the appeal directed to be heard on merits.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The delay was attributed to circumstances beyond the petitioner's control arising from the sudden demise of the proprietor, and the Court found that refusal to entertain the appeal would cause grave prejudice. Following earlier Coordinate Bench decisions taking the same view, the Court held that the circumstances disclosed sufficient cause for condonation.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of restoring the petitioner's appellate remedy and enabling consideration of the dispute on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where delay in filing a statutory appeal is shown to have occurred due to bona fide circumstances beyond the appellant's control, the delay may be condoned so that the appeal is decided on merits.

Issues: Whether the common approval granted by the Principal Commissioner for 111 reassessment cases satisfied the requirement of independent application of mind under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the notice under section 148 and the consequential reassessment were valid.

Analysis: The approval was granted in a consolidated manner for multiple cases without case-specific satisfaction. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's view that sanction for reopening is not a ritualistic formality and must reflect independent consideration of the material relating to each assessee. A common omnibus approval, without any indication of individual examination, was held to be mechanical and contrary to the statutory safeguard built into section 151. Since the reopening was founded on that invalid approval, the notice issued under section 148 could not survive and the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.

Conclusion: The approval under section 151 was invalid, the notice under section 148 was without jurisdiction, and the reassessment was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer of the assessee's case under section 127 was valid for coordinated investigation. (ii) Whether the notice issued under section 153A was valid and whether the reassessment proceedings had become time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer of the assessee's case under section 127 was valid for coordinated investigation.

Analysis: Section 127 permits transfer of a case after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing and recording reasons. The transfer was made on the ground of coordinated investigation after notice and consideration of the circumstances, including the group-wide centralisation of connected cases and the assessee's own earlier request for transfer to the same jurisdiction. The administrative order was not shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or vitiated by non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The transfer under section 127 was valid and this issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice issued under section 153A was valid and whether the reassessment proceedings had become time-barred.

Analysis: Section 153A applies where a search is initiated under section 132, but the record did not disclose any factual search against the assessee supported by incriminating material. The notices reflected inconsistent search dates, the premises were found closed, and the proceedings were treated as initiated merely on the basis of the warrant without the necessary factual foundation. Even otherwise, the Department did not complete the assessment by resorting to section 144 within the permissible period, and the proceedings had elapsed by limitation.

Conclusion: The notice under section 153A was illegal and the reassessment proceedings were time-barred, so this issue was decided in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the transfer failed, but the challenge to the search-related reassessment succeeded, resulting in the writ petition being allowed and the impugned reassessment proceedings coming to an end.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer under section 127 is sustainable when supported by recorded administrative reasons and coordinated investigation, but a section 153A proceeding cannot be sustained without a valid search foundation and relevant incriminating material, and it cannot survive once the statutory time for assessment expires.

Issues: Whether the assessment for the year under appeal, completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was liable to be treated as one required to be made under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because it fell within the relevant six preceding assessment years counted from the date of recording satisfaction.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the settled principle that, for assessment of a person other than the searched person under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the six preceding assessment years are computed from the date of handing over of seized material or the date of recording satisfaction, as applicable. On the admitted facts, the satisfaction was recorded on 04.10.2022, and the relevant six assessment years therefore extended to cover the assessment year in question. Since the year under appeal fell within that block, the assessment made under Section 143(3) could not stand.

Conclusion: The assessment for the year under appeal was liable to be made under Section 153C and the assessment under Section 143(3) was vitiated.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the assessment order did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 153C assessments, the six preceding assessment years are to be reckoned from the date of recording satisfaction or handing over of seized material, and an assessment year falling within that block cannot validly be completed under Section 143(3).

Issues: (i) Whether the revisionary order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the Assessing Officer had already examined the seized material and made additions in the related concern on the same basis.

Issue (i): Whether the revisionary order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the Assessing Officer had already examined the seized material and made additions in the related concern on the same basis.

Analysis: The impugned revision was founded on the view that the assessment order lacked proper verification of cash entries recorded in seized material and did not consider the survey statement. However, the record showed that the same seized documents had already been acted upon by the Assessing Officer in the assessment of the connected concern, where additions were made as unexplained money. In those circumstances, the premise that there was a failure to inquire into or verify the seized material in the assessee's case was not sustainable. The presumption under the search provisions could not, by itself, justify revision once the Assessing Officer had already applied the material in the connected assessment and the supposed lapse was not established.

Conclusion: The revisionary order under section 263 was not sustainable and stood quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was restored and the revisionary interference was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Revision under section 263 cannot be sustained on alleged lack of inquiry where the Assessing Officer had already considered the same seized material and made substantive additions in the connected assessment on that very basis.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's application under Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 could be admitted to support the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a legal ground; (ii) Whether additions made in a completed assessment under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could survive in the absence of incriminating material found during search.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's application under Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 could be admitted to support the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a legal ground.

Analysis: The assessee had already raised the jurisdictional ground before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the application was intended only to sustain the relief granted by the first appellate authority. A respondent may support the impugned order on a legal ground that was raised below, and the objection to maintainability was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The Rule 27 application was admitted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether additions made in a completed assessment under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could survive in the absence of incriminating material found during search.

Analysis: The assessments for the relevant years were unabated on the date of search. In such a situation, additions under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, and no independent addition can be sustained dehors such material. Since the additions were not founded on seized material, the reassessment could not stand.

Conclusion: The additions were held unsustainable and the reassessment was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed because the reassessment under section 153A could not be sustained without incriminating material, and the first appellate relief was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In respect of unabated assessments under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, additions cannot be made unless they are founded on incriminating material found during search.

Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 were valid in law on the basis of the recorded reasons and whether the impugned reassessment could be sustained.

Analysis: The recorded reasons were found to be materially deficient because they did not clearly disclose the nature of the impugned share transaction or the specific scrip involved and appeared to rest mainly on investigation wing information. The reasons also incorrectly stated that the assessee had not filed a return for the relevant assessment year, although the return and computation showing exempt long-term capital gain were on record. On the facts, the reassessment was held to have been initiated without proper application of mind and without a sustainable independent basis for forming the requisite belief of escapement of income.

Conclusion: The reassessment under sections 147 and 148 was held to be invalid, and the reassessment order was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the cash of Rs. 35,00,000 seized from the employees was satisfactorily explained so as to displace addition as unexplained money under section 69A. (ii) Whether the challenge to the reassessment notice and proceedings was sustainable where the case was reopened on requisition under section 132A.

Issue (i): Whether the cash of Rs. 35,00,000 seized from the employees was satisfactorily explained so as to displace addition as unexplained money under section 69A.

Analysis: The assessee claimed that the cash represented earlier bank withdrawals and return of advances from employees, but no bank statements, employee confirmations, acknowledgments, or day-wise cash trail were produced before the Tribunal. The explanation remained unsupported by contemporaneous records showing that the cash was available and identifiable on the date of interception. In the absence of primary and corroborative evidence, the explanation did not satisfy the statutory burden to explain the source and recording of the cash.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was rightly sustained and the issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the reassessment notice and proceedings was sustainable where the case was reopened on requisition under section 132A.

Analysis: The reopening was based on requisition proceedings under section 132A and not on any independent infirmity in the reassessment action shown by the assessee. No substantive ground was established to show illegality in the reopening process.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment proceedings fails and the issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment addition was maintained and the reassessment challenge was rejected, leaving the assessee without relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A cash seizure is not explained for purposes of section 69A unless supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence establishing the source, movement, and availability of the cash on the relevant date; a reopening founded on requisition under section 132A is not invalid merely because it is challenged in the absence of any demonstrated legal defect.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on the manufacturing segment was sustainable with respect to comparable selection, including exclusion of a functionally similar comparable, exclusion of a company for want of current year data, and grant of working capital adjustment; (ii) whether the adjustment on account of royalty, technical know-how and technical assistance fees was rightly deleted.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on the manufacturing segment was sustainable with respect to comparable selection, including exclusion of a functionally similar comparable, exclusion of a company for want of current year data, and grant of working capital adjustment.

Analysis: Under the Transactional Net Margin Method, broad functional comparability is relevant, and a comparable cannot be excluded merely because it also deals in other products if its functions are broadly similar. A company failing the current year data filter cannot be retained as a valid comparable. A claim for working capital adjustment is a valid transfer pricing adjustment and cannot be denied merely because it was not specifically claimed in the original study, though supporting details must be furnished.

Conclusion: The comparable broadly similar to the assessee was directed to be included, the company lacking current year data was directed to be excluded, and working capital adjustment was directed to be allowed. The issue was partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjustment on account of royalty, technical know-how and technical assistance fees was rightly deleted.

Analysis: The payment was found to be linked with the assessee's manufacturing business and supported by the agreement, supplementary agreements, and contemporaneous material showing receipt of technical support, drawings, designs, and assistance. The transfer pricing authority had not produced robust comparable uncontrolled transactions to justify application of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, and the benefit test was satisfied from the recipient's perspective. The past and subsequent assessments also supported consistency.

Conclusion: The deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment on royalty, technical know-how and technical assistance fees was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the comparables and working capital issues in part, and the Revenue failed on the royalty and technical fee adjustment, resulting in a partial relief to the assessee and dismissal of the Revenue's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing under TNMM, comparables must be selected on broad functional similarity with adherence to material filters such as current year data, and a royalty or technical fee adjustment cannot be sustained under CUP without reliable uncontrolled comparables where the agreement and surrounding evidence establish business benefit.

Issues: Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for capital gains where the new residential property was in possession before the transfer of the original property.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the dates of execution, possession and registration of the sale and purchase agreements and the payment schedule. It treated the decisive criterion for acquisition under the statute as the date of actual possession of the new residential property, supported by the possession letter and the occupation certificate issued by the municipal authority. The Tribunal relied on precedent that the substance of purchase is the completion of payment and handing over of possession rather than mere date of registration of the agreement. Applying that legal framework to the facts, the Tribunal found that possession of the new property was obtained on 09.11.2015 and the original property was transferred on 26.04.2016 (effective possession), which falls within the statutory period prescribed for claiming the exemption.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the addition of Rs. 3,37,72,765/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and the appeal is allowed.

Issues: Whether the customs authorities could disregard the FSSAI test reports and continue to detain the imported roasted areca nuts, and whether the seizure memo and provisional release conditions requiring a bank guarantee and a no-use bond were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The imported goods had been examined by the authorised officers and tested by the FSSAI laboratory, which issued NOCs confirming conformity with the applicable standards. The Court held that once a specialised statutory authority charged with food safety had certified the goods as fit for human consumption, there was no satisfactory basis for the customs authorities to insist on re-testing or to treat the consignments as not being roasted areca nuts merely on the basis of the later CRCL report. The Court also found that the seizure and the insistence on a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- and a no-use bond lacked justification in the facts, particularly when the FSSAI reports were available and the goods were found to be roasted areca nuts. The Court further noted that the goods could be released on payment of duty, with post-clearance safeguards limited to removal of damaged goods under FSSAI supervision before domestic sale.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded. The seizure memo and the condition insisting on a bank guarantee were quashed, and the goods were directed to be released without insisting on a security deposit or no-use undertaking, subject to the specified FSSAI-supervised post-clearance certification process.

Issues: (i) Whether the order removing the petitioner under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 was vitiated for travelling beyond the show cause notice by relying on fresh allegations. (ii) Whether the order was unsustainable for want of reasons and for non-compliance with the requirements of natural justice in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

Issue (i): Whether the order removing the petitioner under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 was vitiated for travelling beyond the show cause notice by relying on fresh allegations.

Analysis: The power under Section 205 is quasi-judicial and must be exercised within the scope of the notice issued to the elected office bearer. The notice must put the person on clear notice of the specific allegations so that an effective explanation can be furnished. The impugned order relied not only on the charges in the notice but also on additional matters relating to the manner in which later meetings were conducted, which were never put to the petitioner for explanation.

Conclusion: The order was invalid to the extent it relied on matters beyond the show cause notice, and this was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the order was unsustainable for want of reasons and for non-compliance with the requirements of natural justice in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

Analysis: Removal of an elected Panchayat President has serious civil consequences and requires a strict and fair procedure. A quasi-judicial authority must consider the explanation, record reasons for accepting or rejecting it, and pass a speaking order. The impugned order merely set out the charges and the replies in tabular form and then reached a conclusion without explaining why the explanations were rejected. Such an order does not satisfy the requirement of reasoned decision-making and is arbitrary within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The order was unsustainable for want of reasons and violation of natural justice, against the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The removal order could not stand and the disciplinary proceeding was restored to the authority for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In a quasi-judicial proceeding under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, an elected office bearer cannot be removed on grounds not disclosed in the show cause notice, and the final order must be a reasoned speaking order reflecting consideration of the explanation.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 23,47,354 made by the Assessing Officer treating certain payments as non genuine expenses can be sustained; (ii) Whether statutory disallowances (including under sections 40(a)(ia), 14A, 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of depreciation on BOT projects) made in assessment u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) can be sustained in absence of incriminating material found during search.

Issue (i): Deletion of addition of Rs. 23,47,354 on account of alleged non genuine expenses.

Analysis: Section 37(1) permits deduction of business revenue expenditures if they are revenue in nature, not personal or capital, and incurred wholly and exclusively for business. The assessee produced primary documentary evidence (party name and address, PAN, RA bills, purchase register, ledger entries, bank statements) and payments were made through banking channels with TDS deducted. The Assessing Officer did not produce any incriminating material from the search to contradict the evidentiary record. A coordinate bench in the assessee's earlier year upheld deletion on similar facts; factual parity exists between years.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition is upheld; issue decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Deletion of statutory disallowances (40(a)(ia), 14A, 36(1)(iii), depreciation on BOT projects) made in assessment u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3).

Analysis: The law as interpreted by the Supreme Court requires that, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, the AO may assess or reassess completed assessments on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during search; in absence of such incriminating material, additions or disallowances in respect of completed/unabated assessments cannot be made merely on other material. The appellate authority recorded a categorical finding that no incriminating material supported the disallowances and the Revenue did not point to any such material before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court's ratio in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. supports deletion where no incriminating material is found.

Conclusion: The deletions of the statutory disallowances are upheld; issues decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate tribunal upholds the findings of the first appellate authority on the decided issues and dismisses the Revenue's appeal, confirming deletion of the challenged additions and disallowances.

Ratio Decidendi: In assessments consequent to search under sections 132/132A read with section 153A, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions or disallowances in respect of completed or unabated assessments on the basis of non incriminating material; additions or reassessments in such cases are permissible only if incriminating material is unearthed during the search, otherwise the remedy is reopening under the statutory provisions governing reassessment.

Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in invoking revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to enhance the assessee's income by disallowing an additional amount under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and verifications concerning investments and exempt income, and whether the Principal Commissioner pointed to material showing a lack of inquiry or a prima facie error rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal considered the assessee's suo-moto disallowance computed under Rule 8D in respect of investments that yielded exempt income, the assessment record showing repeated queries and documentary replies, and relevant precedents distinguishing lack of inquiry from merely a differing view. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries, accepted the assessee's computation for disallowance of those investments which produced exempt income, and that the Principal Commissioner had not shown that there was no enquiry or produced independent material establishing a prima facie error.

Conclusion: The revisional order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 insofar as it enhanced income by disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 is quashed and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether Notification No. 04/2025-Central Excise dated 31.12.2025, Notification No. 04/2025-Central Excise (N.T.) dated 31.12.2025 and Notification No. 05/2025-Central Excise (N.T.) dated 31.12.2025 and the Chewing Tobacco, Jarda Scented Tobacco and Gutkha Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection Duty) Rules, 2026 are ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 empowers the Central Government to notify goods for capacity based excise duty and to frame rules specifying factors relevant to production and the manner for determination of annual production capacity. Rule 4 of the 2026 Rules identifies number of packing machines and maximum capacity of such machines as factors relevant to production and aligns with Section 3A(2)(b)(i) and (ii). Rule 5 prescribes a method based on machine number, speed and retail sale price to determine maximum capacity per machine per month; Rule 7 provides for verification including physical inspection and Rule 8 for passing determination orders. Challenges that the figures are arbitrary because they do not disclose working hours, shifts or man-days were considered against the legislative objective of curbing tax evasion under Section 3A. Precedents recognising capacity or machine-based levies and the need for standardization in similar industries were considered. The mandate for CCTV in Rule 16 was assessed in light of the objective to ensure compliance and prevent evasion.

Conclusion: The impugned notifications and the 2026 Rules are prima facie within the legislative mandate of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and are not manifestly arbitrary; no interim relief is granted to the petitioners. The determination and verification mechanisms provided in the Rules are not shown to render the statutory scheme otiose.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 authorises capacity based levy and empowers rule making to specify factors relevant to production and methods of capacity determination, rules that identify machine number and machine capacity as relevant factors and provide verification procedures are prima facie intra vires and not liable to interim suspension merely because prescribed figures or mechanistic formulas appear harsh absent demonstration of impossibility or manifest unreasonableness.

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment dated 01.01.2026 under Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 of the petitioner's industrial property was justified and lawful.

Analysis: The Court examined the statutory power under Section 281B in light of precedents requiring strict fulfilment of conditions before ordering provisional attachment, including the need for formation of opinion based on tangible material that attachment is necessary to protect government revenue. The Court considered the petitioner's status as a regular taxpayer with substantial tax payments, the absence of any finalized demand for the relevant years, the limited additions disclosed by search, and the appellant's ability to deposit a percentage of the disputed/provisionally assessed demand as provided in CBDT office memoranda. The Court applied the principle that provisional attachment is a draconian preventive measure and must be exercised with caution so as not to damage the reputation and banking credit of an honest taxpayer; therefore minimum safeguards, including allowing deposit in terms of CBDT guidance, ought to be observed.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment order dated 01.01.2026 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the provisionally assessed demand within one week; if the demand is later found unjustified or reduced, the deposited amount shall be refunded with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional attachment under Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a draconian preventive power that must be exercised only upon formation of an opinion supported by tangible material and subject to minimum procedural safeguards including permitting deposit of the prescribed percentage of the disputed/provisionally assessed demand as per CBDT guidance before effecting attachment.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated and completed during the pendency of regular scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) (and without deciding the assessee's objections to reopening) are valid.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the assessment order and record and found that notice under section 148 was issued during pendency of proceedings under section 143(3). The reasons recorded for reopening formed the basis of the final assessment order and the assessing officer admitted in the remand report that objections filed by the assessee against reopening were not disposed of. The Tribunal reviewed binding authority holding that two concurrent assessment proceedings cannot lawfully be pursued and that reassessment under section 147/148 cannot be initiated while the original scrutiny assessment remains pending. The Tribunal considered the departmental plea of "merging streams" and noted that the existence of a notice under section 148 together with the AO's admission that objections were not decided establishes that reassessment was in fact proceeded with; this gave rise to a jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal also applied the principle that assessment completed without deciding statutory objections to reopening violates the requirement in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. and renders the reassessment invalid. Having found both initiation of reassessment during pending scrutiny assessment and failure to decide objections, the Tribunal held the reassessment order to be without jurisdiction and procedurally flawed.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings and the assessment order dated 28.03.2013 under section 147/148 read with section 143(3) are quashed; decision is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs.27,63,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 treating share capital/share premium as unexplained cash credit can be sustained where the assessee produced documentary evidence (PAN, allotment forms, bank statements, ITR acknowledgements, audited financial statements) and many subscriber companies were subject to scrutiny assessments.

Analysis: The issue was examined on the basis of whether the assessee discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by establishing the identity of the subscribers, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions through documentary and banking evidence. The appellate authority categorised subscribers, noted responses to notices under Section 133(6) and assessment outcomes in subscribers' hands, and relied on precedents of the jurisdictional Tribunal and High Court holding that where subscribers are traceable taxpayers, have substantial net worth, and banking trail is established, the initial onus is discharged and burden shifts to Revenue. The appellate authority also applied the principle that making an addition in the hands of the assessee where the source has already been brought to tax in the hands of the subscriber would amount to double addition. Relevant powers of verification under Section 131 were noted as available to the Assessing Officer but not shown to have been effectively exercised in a manner that would impeach documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 of Rs.27,63,00,000/- is not sustainable. The appellate order deleting the addition is upheld and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.

Issues: Whether the order in original dated 6.10.2022 passed by the adjudicating authority sustaining classification/valuation and detention of imported goods should be quashed; and whether the petitioner is entitled to directions for disposal of deteriorated goods and issuance of a demurrage waiver certificate.

Analysis: The Court examined the factual matrix: detention and seizure of goods on 1.3.2022, the adjudication by Respondent No.3 on 6.10.2022, the petitioner's contention of non receipt of a show cause notice, and the joint inspection report showing complete deterioration of the goods. The Court noted competing contentions on classification and valuation but refrained from resolving those technical disputes on merits in view of the condition of the consignment and the disproportionate impact on a small importer. The Court considered equitable reliefs appropriate where goods have no market value and followed its prior order in Writ Petition No.13178 of 2023 regarding provisional release and demurrage waiver certificates. The Court directed that the Department may deal with the deteriorated goods (auction or destruction), that any realisation be appropriated with surplus to the petitioner, and that a demurrage waiver certificate be issued in respect of the subject bill of entry.

Conclusion: The order in original dated 6.10.2022 is quashed and set aside; the Respondents are permitted to deal with the deteriorated goods by auction or destruction with realisation appropriated and any surplus returned to the petitioner; and the Respondents are directed to issue a demurrage waiver certificate in respect of Bill of Entry No.6184455 dated 9.11.2021.