Issues: Whether the bank's freezing of the customer's account on the basis of allegedly suspicious transactions and enhanced due diligence was lawful.

Analysis: A bank acts as custodian of its customer's account and is not an enforcement agency empowered to question legitimate business transactions. The transaction profile did not justify the suspicion asserted, particularly where the account statement did not support the alleged magnitude of transactions. The Reserve Bank of India Commercial Banks Know Your Customer Directions, 2025, require monitoring of suspicious transactions but do not authorise arbitrary freezing of an account. Freezing has serious civil and commercial consequences; its imposition without prior notice, a show-cause opportunity, or a personal hearing reflected non-application of mind, violated principles of natural justice, and failed the test of proportionality.

Conclusion: The account freeze was arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of the petitioner's rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India; the restriction was required to be lifted forthwith.

Issues: (i) Whether notices under Section 153C for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 were barred by the ten-year limitation period; (ii) Whether proceedings under Section 153C could be initiated for assessment years without year-specific incriminating material and recorded satisfaction.

Issue (i): Whether notices under Section 153C for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 were barred by the ten-year limitation period.

Analysis: For proceedings against a person other than the searched person, the date on which the jurisdictional Assessing Officer receives the seized material is treated as the date of search. Explanation 1 to Section 153A distinguishes the computation of the six-year period from the ten-year period, the latter being reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year of the deemed search. Receipt of the material in March 2021 made Assessment Year 2021-22 the first year of the ten-year block, extending only to Assessment Year 2012-13.

Conclusion: Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 fell outside the permissible ten-year period; the notices for those years were time-barred and invalid, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under Section 153C could be initiated for assessment years without year-specific incriminating material and recorded satisfaction.

Analysis: Jurisdiction under Section 153C requires incriminating material concerning the other person that bears upon determination of total income for the particular assessment year. The correlation between the seized material and the relevant assessment year is a jurisdictional fact, and the recorded satisfaction must disclose that nexus. The ten-year block is an outer temporal limit and does not authorise mechanical reopening of every year within it.

Conclusion: In the absence of year-specific incriminating material and corresponding satisfaction for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 to 2017-18, initiation of proceedings for those years was without jurisdiction, in favour of the assessees.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdiction under Section 153C was unavailable both for years outside the prescribed block period and for years lacking a demonstrated nexus with incriminating material; the impugned reassessment action could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction under Section 153C is confined to the statutory block period reckoned from the deemed search date and arises only upon recorded satisfaction founded on incriminating material relatable to the particular assessment year.

Issues: Consideration of the pending representation seeking provisional release of imported goods.

Outcome: The customs authorities were directed to decide the representation on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate forum.

Issues: Whether delay in filing Form No. 10IC for opting for the concessional tax regime could be condoned so that the assessee may claim the benefit under Section 115BAA.

Analysis: The prescribed form was not filed due to an inadvertent procedural lapse, while the assessee had subsequently made a condonation application that remained pending before the competent authority. The Tribunal applied the approach adopted in the relied-on decision permitting acceptance of delayed Form No. 10IC and noted that the Revenue did not object to the requested relief.

Conclusion: The delay in filing Form No. 10IC was directed to be condoned, enabling the assessee to claim the concessional tax-regime benefit under Section 115BAA.

Outcome: The miscellaneous applications were dismissed; the prior order was clarified to be confined to the peculiar facts of the case and not to affect other matters under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 or the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Issues: Whether redemption fine and penalty could be imposed for delayed clearance of warehoused goods despite the importer's explanation for the delay.

Analysis: Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962 governs the permissible warehousing period. Failure to clear goods within that period may attract duty consequences under Section 72(1)(b), confiscation under Section 111(j), penalty under Section 112, and redemption fine under Section 125. The delay was supported by explained and justified circumstances, including commercial obsolescence and disruption. Such delay did not amount to willful suppression of facts warranting penal consequences.

Conclusion: The duty and interest liability was sustained, but the redemption fine and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether office premises acquired before the end of the relevant year could be included in the block of assets for computation under Section 50 despite absence of physical possession or business use during that year.

Analysis: The registered purchase agreements and bank records established that the assessee had acquired the two office premises and paid the entire consideration before 31.03.2014. Section 50 requires acquisition of the new depreciable asset for inclusion in the block; it does not require physical possession or actual business use of that asset during the relevant year. Actual use is relevant to allowance of depreciation, but not to determination of whether the acquired asset forms part of the block of assets.

Conclusion: The new office premises were includible in the block of assets, and the tax liability was required to be recomputed accordingly, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether additions in unabated assessments under section 153A, based on disclosed books, special-audit findings and investigation statements rather than search material, were sustainable.

Analysis: The jurisdiction to disturb completed assessments pursuant to a search is confined to additions founded on incriminating material discovered during that search. The additions for cash payments, tax-deduction defaults, expenses, credits and negative cash balances were derived from pre-existing financial records, special-audit observations and statements. No seized document, record or electronic evidence directly relating to the additions was identified, including in the report furnished in response to the Tribunal's direction. A special audit of disclosed records and uncorroborated investigation statements do not constitute search-derived incriminating material for this purpose.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the additions lacked the jurisdictional foundation required for unabated assessments under section 153A and were deleted.

Issues: (i) whether the arrest of the petitioner was illegal for alleged non-compliance with the statutory safeguards governing arrest and communication of grounds of arrest; (ii) whether the remand order passed by the Magistrate was vitiated for being non-speaking and in violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights.

Issue (i): Whether the arrest of the petitioner was illegal for alleged non-compliance with the statutory safeguards governing arrest and communication of grounds of arrest.

Analysis: The record showed that the petitioner's statement had been recorded before arrest, the authorization for arrest was issued by the competent officer, the reasons to believe were recorded and served on the petitioner, and the grounds of arrest were translated and supplied. The Court also noted that the arrest memo and related documents reflected compliance with the applicable provisions, and that the contention regarding absence of family intimation or invalid service was not established on the material placed before it. In judicial review of arrests under special fiscal statutes, the Court confined its scrutiny to whether the statutory and constitutional safeguards were followed.

Conclusion: The arrest was held to be valid and not in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights.

Issue (ii): Whether the remand order passed by the Magistrate was vitiated for being non-speaking and in violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights.

Analysis: The remand order recorded the production of the accused, noted the absence of complaint of ill-treatment, reflected compliance with the relevant BNSS provisions, and specifically stated that the arrest was justified. The Court treated this as an order disclosing application of mind and not as a mechanical or non-speaking remand order. No separate constitutional violation was made out on this ground.

Conclusion: The remand order was held not to be vitiated as a non-speaking order.

Final Conclusion: No violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India was established, and the challenge to the arrest and remand failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a challenge to arrest under a special fiscal statute, judicial review is limited to examining compliance with the statutory and constitutional safeguards, including authorization, recorded reasons to believe, and communication of grounds of arrest; adequacy or sufficiency of the material cannot be examined.

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of External TNMM and the finding that no reliable external comparables were available was justified; (ii) whether the AE and Non-AE segments were comparable so as to justify Internal TNMM as the most appropriate method; (iii) whether the audited segmental accounts could be rejected and the segmental results re-cast for transfer pricing purposes.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of External TNMM and the finding that no reliable external comparables were available was justified.

Analysis: The assessee had undertaken a structured comparability search and applied filters aimed at identifying routine contract manufacturers suited to a limited-risk cost-plus model. The rejection of the entire comparable set was based on a rigid and cumulative application of turnover, export and related party transaction filters, together with broad functional objections, without a satisfactory economic demonstration that those filters were material to profitability in the tested segment. In a cost-plus manufacturing model where export, credit and market risks are not borne by the tested party, export intensity of third-party comparables is not by itself determinative. The record also showed that segmental data existed for several entities and that outright rejection of all comparables was too restrictive.

Conclusion: The rejection of External TNMM and the finding of non-availability of comparables was not justified; External TNMM remained the appropriate method, and the assessee's benchmarking was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the AE and Non-AE segments were comparable so as to justify Internal TNMM as the most appropriate method.

Analysis: The segmental results showed a marked margin differential between the AE segment and the Non-AE segment. The AE segment operated as a limited-risk contract manufacturer on a cost-plus basis, while the Non-AE segment exhibited entrepreneurial returns consistent with bearing market, pricing and credit risks. TNMM comparability depends on functions, assets and risks, not merely on similarity of products. In the absence of any risk adjustment or other reliable basis to equate the two segments, the Non-AE segment could not be treated as a dependable internal comparable. The earlier remand did not permit revival of an approach already disapproved in principle.

Conclusion: The AE and Non-AE segments were not economically comparable, and the adoption of Internal TNMM was unsustainable and against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the audited segmental accounts could be rejected and the segmental results re-cast for transfer pricing purposes.

Analysis: The audited segmental accounts were supported by the financial records, and no specific defect in accounting policy, allocation key, or compliance with accounting standards was identified. The re-casting exercise was effectively built around a preconceived margin for the AE segment and a residual allocation of profitability to the Non-AE segment, which is not a permissible substitute for actual audited results absent demonstrated defects. Once Internal TNMM was rejected and External TNMM held applicable, the foundation for such re-casting disappeared.

Conclusion: The audited segmental accounts could not be rejected in entirety, and the re-casting of segmental results was set aside against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing additions were deleted, the international transactions were held to be at arm's length under External TNMM, and both appeals were allowed, with consequential matters left to be given effect in accordance with the order.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing matters, a cost-plus limited-risk manufacturer cannot be benchmarked by a mechanically restrictive comparable search or by internal comparison with an entrepreneurial segment unless functional and risk comparability is established on reliable evidence; audited segmental results cannot be displaced without specific defects.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on guarantee commission was sustainable after rejecting the assessee's benchmarking under the Transactional Net Margin Method and applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method; (ii) whether the upward adjustment on marketing support services for derivative products could stand after applying the Profit Split Method and ignoring aggregation of positive and negative deals; (iii) whether reimbursement of telecommunication and expatriate employee costs was hit by section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iv) whether interest paid by the India branch to its head office and overseas branches was taxable in India under Article 11 of the India-Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on guarantee commission was sustainable after rejecting the assessee's benchmarking under the Transactional Net Margin Method and applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method.

Analysis: The guarantee transaction was a back-to-back arrangement under which the India branch issued guarantees to Indian beneficiaries on the strength of counter-guarantees from overseas branches. The entire risk on invocation of the guarantee was borne by the overseas branch, and the India branch performed only support and processing functions. In these circumstances, the transaction was properly benchmarked under the Transactional Net Margin Method, while the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method based on third-party bank guarantee rates was not reliable because the tested activity was not comparable in terms of functions, assets, risks, and the required adjustments could not be made with confidence.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment on guarantee commission was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the upward adjustment on marketing support services for derivative products could stand after applying the Profit Split Method and ignoring aggregation of positive and negative deals.

Analysis: The India branch acted as a marketing and origination platform for derivative products, while the substantive profit or loss exposure from the underlying trades was not borne by it in the manner assumed by the transfer pricing authorities. The use of the Profit Split Method on a day-end net present value basis was not justified on the facts, and in any event the benchmarking had to be examined on an aggregate basis by considering both positive and negative deal outcomes together. On aggregation, no transfer pricing adjustment survived.

Conclusion: The upward adjustment on marketing support services was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reimbursement of telecommunication and expatriate employee costs was hit by section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The disputed expenses were specific and exclusive costs incurred for the India branch and were not in the nature of common head office or general administrative expenditure. Section 44C applies to executive and general administrative overheads of a common nature, not to direct business expenses incurred wholly for the branch. The assessee was therefore entitled to deduction of such expenditure under section 37(1).

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 44C was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest paid by the India branch to its head office and overseas branches was taxable in India under Article 11 of the India-Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Analysis: Interest remitted by an Indian branch to its own head office or overseas branches does not constitute taxable income in the hands of the same non-resident entity on a receipt-from-self theory as accepted in the governing jurisprudence. The Special Bench view was followed, and the later statutory change referred to in the order did not govern the relevant assessment year.

Conclusion: The interest income was not chargeable to tax in India and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing additions and disallowance were deleted, and the taxability of intra-entity interest was negatived, resulting in full relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a branch performs only support functions in a back-to-back guarantee arrangement and bears no real entrepreneurial risk, benchmarking must reflect the true functional profile, and comparables lacking functional similarity cannot justify adjustment; similarly, direct branch-specific expenses are outside section 44C, and intra-entity interest is not taxable as income to self in the absence of a chargeable receipt in the relevant legal regime.

Issues: Whether the matter required remand for fresh verification of Cenvat credit taken on imported consignments and input services, and whether the documentary verification already on record was sufficient to sustain the credit.

Analysis: The disputed credit related to imported consignments supported by Bills of Entry and to input service credit distributed through the assessee's head office and regional offices. The record included the Range Superintendent's verification report, which stated that the disputed CVD amount tallied with the credit availed and that the relevant Bills of Entry were verified with the original records, including cases where manual processing had been permitted due to system issues. The report also supported the availability of credit on the input service side, with the assessee's establishments functioning as registered input service distributors and issuing invoices in accordance with the service tax rules. In view of this prior verification, the Tribunal found no justification for sending the matter back for denovo adjudication.

Conclusion: Remand was not warranted, and the credit dispute was resolved in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order directing remand was set aside and the appeal was allowed with eligibility to consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant documentary evidence has already been verified and supports the credit availed, a further remand for fresh verification is unnecessary.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate order confirming attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 warranted interference, including the challenge to attachment of properties acquired prior to the Act.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against the Tribunal's final order confirming the provisional attachment of properties alleged to be derived from proceeds of crime arising out of scheduled offences. The record reflected that the Enforcement Directorate had examined the material, recorded statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and formed a view that the properties represented illicit gains reinvested in immovable assets and related acquisitions. The Court found that the Tribunal had already considered the grounds raised, including the objection based on the date of acquisition of properties, and that no substantial question of law, perversity, illegality, or misappreciation of evidence was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the appellate order confirming attachment was sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings were vitiated for non-service of notice under section 148 and lack of jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the initiation and approval for reassessment were invalid for being based on incorrect facts and without application of mind; (iii) Whether the assessment on merits could be sustained when the assessee had already disclosed the property transaction and related capital gains in the original return.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings were vitiated for non-service of notice under section 148 and lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The notice under section 148 was stated to have been sent to the address of the sold property, while the assessee's return records and PAN-linked details reflected a different address. The record also did not show effective service of the statutory notice. Since service of the notice initiating reassessment is a jurisdictional requirement, absence of such service goes to the root of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction for want of service of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (ii): Whether the initiation and approval for reassessment were invalid for being based on incorrect facts and without application of mind.

Analysis: The reassessment was triggered on AIR information treating the assessee as a non-PAN holder and assuming non-filing of return, although the assessee had filed the original return and disclosed the property transaction, capital gains particulars, and exemption claim. On the material placed, the foundation for belief that income had escaped assessment was factually unsound, and the approval for reopening was also not shown to be the product of an informed and independent examination of the material.

Conclusion: The initiation of reassessment and the approval under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were held invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessment on merits could be sustained when the assessee had already disclosed the property transaction and related capital gains in the original return.

Analysis: The original return disclosed the transfer of the house property, the cost figures, the capital gains computation, and the claim under section 54. The Departmental record also acknowledged filing of the return. In these circumstances, there was no escapement of income warranting reassessment, and the addition sustained in the reopened assessment could not stand.

Conclusion: The assessment on merits was not sustainable, as the disclosed return already covered the transaction and no escapement of income was established.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment and the consequential assessment were set aside, and the assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional as well as merits-based challenges.

Ratio Decidendi: Service of the notice initiating reassessment is a jurisdictional prerequisite, and reassessment cannot be sustained where it is founded on incorrect facts despite disclosure of the relevant transaction in the original return.

Issues: Whether TDS deducted in the name of the deceased husband could be granted to the assessee who had offered the corresponding income in her return and whose late husband's PAN had been surrendered.

Analysis: The assessee was accepted on the Income-tax portal as the legal heir of the deceased husband. The record showed that the deceased's PAN had been surrendered and that the assessee had returned the income arising from the deceased husband's professional receipts. In these circumstances, refusing TDS credit merely because the deduction appeared under the deceased husband's PAN, while taxing the corresponding income in the assessee's hands, was found to be contrary to law and inconsistent with Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The requirement of filing a separate return in the capacity of legal heir did not arise on these facts.

Conclusion: The TDS credit was directed to be granted to the assessee, with consequential refund and interest, and the objection based on the absence of a legal-heir return was rejected.

Issues: Whether the assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) required reconsideration in view of the subsequent approval granted for the relevant assessment year.

Analysis: The assessee produced an approval order granting exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) with effect from the relevant assessment year, and that approval was available before the Tribunal when the appeal was heard. The Tribunal found that the appellate order had been passed without considering this later development, which directly affected the basis on which exemption had been denied. In these circumstances, the matter required reconsideration by the first appellate authority in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the exemption claim under section 10(23C)(vi), and the assessee succeeded to that extent.

Issues: (i) Whether the transactional net margin method could be applied to benchmark the assessee's project-office transactions routed through joint ventures, or whether the comparable uncontrolled price method was the appropriate method; (ii) Whether reimbursements, capital contributions, mobilization advances, and receipts linked to interim payment certificates or variation adjustments were exigible to transfer pricing adjustment as international transactions.

Issue (i): Whether the transactional net margin method could be applied to benchmark the assessee's project-office transactions routed through joint ventures, or whether the comparable uncontrolled price method was the appropriate method.

Analysis: The project arrangements were found to be back-to-back construction contracts in which the joint ventures acted as administrative and routing vehicles, while the actual work, assets, and risks were borne by the project office to the extent of work allocated to it. The record showed that the contract price and work allocation were already fixed, the receipts passed through the joint ventures without value addition, and the comparable uncontrolled price reflected the same transaction economics as the controlled transaction. The transfer pricing analysis based on enterprise-wide characterisation and transactional recharacterisation was rejected in favour of a transaction-specific comparison.

Conclusion: The transactional net margin method was wrongly applied and the comparable uncontrolled price method was the correct benchmark, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reimbursements, capital contributions, mobilization advances, and receipts linked to interim payment certificates or variation adjustments were exigible to transfer pricing adjustment as international transactions.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that reimbursement items were cost-to-cost pass-throughs without service element or markup, capital infusions and mobilization advances were capital or working-fund movements, and the variation-adjustment and interim-payment flows were routed through the joint ventures merely for administrative convenience. It was also found that the relevant project receipts were already offered to tax in India and that there was no realistic scope for profit shifting outside India on the facts of the case. The transfer pricing adjustment was therefore not sustainable on these items.

Conclusion: These items did not warrant transfer pricing adjustment, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenge to the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment failed, and the assessee's benchmarking approach and characterization of the disputed flows were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a back-to-back construction arrangement where the joint venture is only a routing or administrative conduit and the controlled transaction mirrors the uncontrolled transaction, CUP is the preferred method and cost-to-cost, capital, and pass-through flows without service value addition do not justify a transfer pricing adjustment.

Issues: Whether the disallowance of provision for expenses deleted by the first appellate authority was sustainable when the evidences relied upon were not before the Assessing Officer and no remand report was obtained.

Analysis: The dispute turned on a provision for expenses claimed to have been made against later-received invoices, while the Assessing Officer had treated the amount as contingent and unascertained. The appellate record showed that invoices, ledger extracts, TDS details, bank statements and contract copies relied upon for relief were not part of the material before the Assessing Officer. Such materials amounted to fresh evidence, and their admission without obtaining the Assessing Officer's comments contravened the procedure governing additional evidence. The assessee had also not fully substantiated the entire expenditure claimed before the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition could not be sustained, and the matter was required to be set aside to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was remanded for fresh examination, with the revenue's appeal succeeding only for statistical purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence relied upon for granting relief to an assessee cannot be accepted without following the mandated procedure of confronting it to the Assessing Officer and obtaining a remand report where required.

Issues: Whether the additions relating to cash deposits, agricultural income, unsecured loan and gift were liable to be sustained, or whether the matter required restoration to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

Analysis: The assessee had produced additional material before the appellate authority to explain the cash deposits as business receipts, the agricultural income by reference to land holding and produce details, the unsecured loan by a confirmation from the lender carrying a Permanent Account Number and income-tax status, and the gift by reference to the family relationship and supporting material. The appellate authority forwarded the additional evidence for a remand report, but no report was received. In such circumstances, the evidentiary material supporting the assessee's explanation required proper examination by the Assessing Officer, and the appellate authority ought not to have finally rejected the claims without that verification.

Conclusion: The additions were not finally affirmed and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification of the assessee's explanations and supporting evidence.