Issues: Whether software expenses of Rs. 28,24,19,000/- incurred by the assessee for annual maintenance, database support and licence renewal are revenue in nature and deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or are capital expenditure entitling the Assessing Officer to treat them as capital with depreciation.

Analysis: The expenditure comprises annual maintenance charges, fees for database support and licence renewal and has been characterized in the assessee's books as recurring period costs. The payments were for subscription/usage for fixed periods and did not transfer ownership or create any proprietary software asset or intellectual property in favour of the assessee. No cogent material was placed on record to demonstrate creation of a capital asset or enduring benefit beyond the annual period. Prior decisions of coordinate benches and some High Courts treating similar recurring software/subscription costs as revenue expenditure were applied to the facts.

Conclusion: The software expenses are revenue in nature, constitute period/recurring costs, and are deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether remuneration paid to a working partner is allowable under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite an inadvertent incorrect reference to old limits in the partnership deed; (ii) Whether commission income shown in Form 26AS but not received in the year and accounted on cash basis is taxable for Assessment Year 2013-14.

Issue (i): Allowability of partner's remuneration where the partnership deed contains an inadvertent incorrect tabulation of limits but expressly adopts the definition of "book profit" as per Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The partnership deed authorises payment of remuneration and explicitly refers to the definition of "book profit" as per Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or statutory modification thereof. The dispute concerns quantification of remuneration determined by the firm and an inadvertent clerical error in the deed's tabulated limits. The limiting formula under Section 40(b) governs allowability; quantification is for the firm to decide and remuneration actually offered to tax by the partner indicates receipt and taxation in his hands. No loss to revenue arises from allowing the remuneration within the correct limits prescribed by Section 40(b).

Conclusion: The remuneration quantified and claimed by the assessee is allowable under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the addition of Rs. 31,30,490 is deleted. Conclusion: in favour of assessee.

Issue (ii): Taxability of commission income reflected in Form 26AS but not received in the relevant year where the assessee follows a consistent cash basis accounting policy and offers such amounts to tax only on receipt.

Analysis: The assessee consistently follows a cash basis accounting policy, discloses it in notes to accounts, and did not receive the commission in the year under consideration. Documentary evidence establishes that the commission and corresponding TDS were offered to tax and TDS credit claimed in the subsequent assessment year. Recognition on cash basis defers taxation until receipt; Form 26AS entry alone does not alter the accounting/tax treatment where the assessee's policy and records show non-receipt in the year.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 3,77,617 on account of commission income is not tenable and is deleted. Conclusion: in favour of assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both contested additions are deleted and the appeal is allowed, resulting in deletion of the disallowance under Section 40(b) and the commission income addition; the assessee succeeds on the decided issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a partnership deed authorises payment of remuneration and expressly adopts the definition of book profit under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an inadvertent clerical error in the deed's tabulated limits does not defeat allowability if the remuneration, as quantified by the firm, falls within the correct statutory limits; similarly, consistent cash basis accounting defers taxation of commission income until actual receipt despite an entry in Form 26AS.

Issues: Whether the disallowance of purchases amounting to Rs. 9,00,63,954/- held to be unexplained expenditure and added as income under Section 69C read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified when the assessee had filed documents and evidences during assessment and appellate proceedings.

Analysis: The appeal examines whether the authorities below rightly concluded that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of purchases. Relevant statutory provisions include Section 69C and Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 concerning unexplained expenditure and deemed income. The record shows extensive documentary material was filed by the assessee during assessment proceedings and before the appellate authority, including purchase invoices, confirmations, creditors ledgers, annual accounts, tax audit reports, bank statements, e-way bills, freight bills and e-proceedings acknowledgements, as indexed in the paper book. The authorities below proceeded on the finding that only confirmations were furnished and that balance sheets, bank statements and transportation evidence were not provided; the appellate record demonstrates these findings to be incorrect. The material filed remained unverified by the revenue despite being on record, and the appellate order failed to apply principles of fair hearing and verification, infringing audi alteram partem and resulting in a mechanical and callous disposal of the issue.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 9,00,63,954/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not justified; the addition is deleted and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 36,15,769/- under the legal regime governing expenditure relating to exempt income (Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962) is sustainable where the assessee made a suo-motu limited disallowance and contended that investments were from interest-free own funds.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the Assessing Officer recorded a reasoned dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo-motu computation as a condition precedent to apply the prescribed method under Rule 8D. The Tribunal applied the settled legal tests requiring a discernible nexus between the accounts examined and the conclusion of dissatisfaction, as articulated by higher courts. It found that the AO had identified that the assessee's suo-motu disallowance omitted common overheads (rent, utilities, senior management time, etc.) despite large investment balances, and had recorded reasons grounded in the financial statements. The Tribunal also analysed the scope of Rule 8D and noted that once a valid dissatisfaction is recorded, the AO must compute disallowance by the prescribed method; the character of funding (own funds versus borrowed funds) was not decisive where the AO limited computation to administrative/indirect expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The Tribunal further considered and distinguished coordinate orders relied upon by the assessee as factually different and not creating a general bar to invoking Rule 8D when indirect costs are unaccounted for. The Tribunal agreed with the appellate authority that the disallowance principleually stood but directed recomputation strictly using the monthly average of investments furnished by the assessee.

Conclusion: The Tribunal holds that the Assessing Officer validly recorded the requisite dissatisfaction and properly invoked Rule 8D; the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is sustained, subject to recomputation using the monthly average of investments as directed by the CIT(A). The appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Assessing Officer, after examination of accounts, records a reasoned dissatisfaction that the assessee's suo-motu apportionment omits common overheads, the prescribed method under Rule 8D must be invoked and applied (using monthly average of investments) to determine the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether an assessment order passed confirming proposals in a show cause notice uploaded on the GST portal without providing an opportunity of personal hearing and without exploring alternate modes of service is valid; and whether the impugned order should be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration when part recovery of the disputed tax has already been effected.

Analysis: The show cause notice was served by uploading on the GST online portal but the petitioner did not receive or respond to the notice and was not afforded a personal hearing before the impugned order was passed. Sending notices by upload on the portal is a recognised mode of service; however, where there is no response from the taxpayer, the tax officer must apply mind and explore other modes of service prescribed under Section 169(1) of the GST law (for example by RPAD) to ensure effective service and to secure the opportunity of personal hearing. Failure to do so renders any ex parte confirmation in the assessment order susceptible to challenge. The petitioner has already suffered recovery of a portion of the disputed tax, and in light of the absence of an effective opportunity to be heard, a remand for fresh consideration is appropriate to enable filing of objections and to secure a personal hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment order passed without effective service and without a personal hearing is set aside and the matter is remitted to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. The petitioner is permitted to file reply/objections within three weeks of receipt of the order; on filing, the authority shall issue a clear 14 days notice fixing a date for personal hearing and thereafter decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service by electronic portal alone does not elicit a response, the assessing officer must explore alternate prescribed modes of service and afford a personal hearing; failure to ensure effective service and opportunity to be heard renders an ex parte assessment order liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

Issues: Whether the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order should be condoned and the impugned rejection order set aside subject to conditions.

Analysis: The assessment order was dated 23.08.2024 and the appeal was filed on 28.02.2025 with a delay of 69 days beyond the condonnable period. The petitioner attributed the delay to the pendency of a rectification application and offered to pay an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount over and above the statutory pre-deposit. Having examined the factual chronology and the remedial mechanism available to an appellant under the statutory appellate regime, the circumstances relied upon (pendency of rectification application) are found to be a plausible ground for extending condonation. The petitioner's offer to make an additional payment as a term for condoning the delay is a recognised equitable condition to secure the public revenue while permitting adjudication on merits. Accordingly, subject to the agreed payment, procedural relief by setting aside the rejection and permitting the appeal to be admitted is directed, with the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits after affording opportunity to the appellant.

Conclusion: The delay of 69 days is condoned; the appeal rejection order dated 09.04.2025 is set aside subject to payment of an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount (over and above statutory pre-deposit). Upon such payment the appellate authority is directed to admit the appeal on record and decide it on merits after providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition under section 50C based on an original stamp duty valuation which was subsequently revised by the stamp valuation authority is sustainable; (ii) Whether exemption under section 54F is maintainable where the assessee entered into an agreement for an under-construction flat prior to the one-year pre-transfer period but received possession within two years after transfer and whether the proviso regarding ownership of other residential houses is attracted; (iii) Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the quantum additions forming its basis are deleted and the controversy is one of interpretation and bona fide disclosure.

Issue (i): Whether the addition under section 50C based on the original stamp duty valuation was sustainable.

Analysis: The original stamp duty valuation was revised by the competent stamp valuation authority by a Supplementary/Clarification Deed which excluded an approach road wrongly included earlier and reduced the stamp duty value. The revised valuation was lower than the declared consideration. A deeming provision that substitutes declared consideration with stamp duty value operates only where the stamp duty value represents a legally valid and factually correct market value. A valuation which has been rectified by the stamp authority for a fundamental factual error loses its evidentiary and statutory relevance for invoking the deeming fiction.

Conclusion: The addition under section 50C is deleted; decision in favour of the assessee on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54F though the agreement for the new house predates one year before transfer, and whether the proviso barring exemption because of ownership of another residential house applies.

Analysis: For under-construction properties purchased from builders, the relevant consideration is the substance of the transaction - completion, substantial payment, and receipt of possession - rather than the mere date of the initial agreement. The assessee made staged payments over years, took possession within two years of transfer of the original asset, and the investment was restricted to the extent of capital gains. The statutory proviso requires excluding the new asset from the count of residential houses; excluding the new asset, the assessee owned only one other residential house on the date of transfer.

Conclusion: The disallowance of exemption under section 54F is deleted and the exemption is allowed; decision in favour of the assessee on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be sustained.

Analysis: The penalty was levied solely on the basis of the quantum additions which have been deleted. Additionally, the dispute involved legal and interpretational questions supported by documentary evidence and precedent, with full disclosure by the assessee. Where the foundational quantum additions are deleted and the controversy is not one warranting penal consequences, penalty cannot survive.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271(1)(c) is deleted; decision in favour of the assessee on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are allowed in part on quantum and in entirety on penalty, resulting in deletion of the section 50C addition, allowance of the section 54F exemption, and deletion of the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A deeming provision substituting declared consideration with stamp duty value cannot be applied where the stamp valuation is shown to be factually erroneous and has been revised by the competent stamp authority; for under-construction purchases from builders, the date for qualifying reinvestment is determined by substantial completion and possession within the statutory period rather than by the initial agreement date, and the new asset is excluded when applying the proviso on ownership for section 54F.

Issues: Whether the statutory pre-deposit mandated by Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 as a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) can be relaxed or permitted to be paid in installments so as to enable the appellant to have its appeal entertained.

Analysis: The Court examined the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 and recognised that the right of appeal is subject to statutory conditions. The Court also recognised that where immediate compliance would render the right of appeal illusory because of genuine financial constraints, the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction may strike a balance by permitting substantial compliance through a structured payment plan while safeguarding revenue interests. Applying these principles to the appellant's proposal filed during hearing, the Court considered the need to enable the statutory remedy to be pursued without wholly nullifying the pre-deposit mandate and framed an instalment schedule which permits the CESTAT to admit and proceed with the appeal upon initial payment while preserving the requirement of full deposit before final disposal.

Conclusion: The Court allowed the appellant relief by setting aside the impugned order and directing that CESTAT shall entertain the appeal upon deposit of Rs.2.00 Crore by the next listed date, followed by Rs.3.00 Crore within three months and the remaining Rs.5.00 Crore within a further three months; CESTAT may proceed pending full payment but shall pronounce final order only after deposit of the entire Rs.10.00 Crore. The decision is in favour of the appellant.

Issues: Whether the delay of 847 days in filing the sales tax revision petition should be condoned.

Analysis: The affidavit filed in support of condonation did not explain a substantial part of the delay. The chronology showed long unexplained gaps, including a period of more than one year after receipt of the impugned order and another long interregnum after the alleged change of Law Officers. Routine movement of files was found to be no satisfactory explanation for such inordinate delay, and the reasons disclosed were held to be insufficient even on a minimal scrutiny.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application for condonation was rejected.

Issues: Whether business auxiliary services rendered by the assessee to an overseas group entity qualify as export of services under the Export of Services Rules, 2005 and therefore are not taxable under Section 65(19) sub-clause (iv) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The services comprised facilitation/commission for overseas suppliers who contracted directly with Indian customers, with consideration received in convertible foreign exchange. Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 and Circular No. 111/5/2009 recognise the location of the service receiver as the relevant criterion for export of services. The question was authoritatively addressed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Service Tax-III v. Vodafone India Limited (2025), which affirmed that where the receiver of the service is located outside India, the activity falls within export of services and is not taxable even if the eventual use or performance has connection with India; the decision in A.T.E. Enterprises was similarly treated as covered by the Supreme Court's disposal. Applying these principles to the facts where the overseas group entity was the contractual recipient and payer, the services meet the export of services criteria under the Export of Services Rules, 2005.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the respondent (assessee): the business auxiliary services rendered to the overseas entity qualify as export of services and are not exigible to service tax under Section 65(19) sub-clause (iv) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the receiver of services is located outside India, the activity qualifies as export of services under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005, and such services are not taxable under Section 65(19) sub-clause (iv) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issues: (i) Whether the batch of review petitions under Section 47 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 satisfy limited grounds for review (mistake apparent on face of record, discovery of new evidence or any other sufficient reason) so as to set aside the Tribunal's earlier order; (ii) Whether the declaration made under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (certified by the Principal Commissioner and tax paid) was nullified by the Assessing Authority such that the certificate can be treated as void; (iii) Whether the statement of Yogendra Raj Singhvi, including his subsequent retraction, constituted admissible and corroborative evidence to establish deposit/rotation of cash and thereby a benami transaction.

Issue (i): Whether the review petitions disclose grounds sufficient for review under the limited jurisdiction applicable to review applications.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled tests for review (mistake apparent on the face of the record; discovery of new and important evidence; any other sufficient reason analogous to these grounds) as explained in the Supreme Court authority. The petitioners did not demonstrate a manifest error on the face of the record, nor did they produce new evidence that was previously unavailable despite due diligence. The Tribunal examined the factual basis relied upon by the review applicants and found no foundational factual error needing correction.

Conclusion: Review dismissed; no ground for review is made out.

Issue (ii): Whether the Assessing Authority validly nullified the certificate issued under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 thereby rendering the declaration void and affecting the Tribunal's prior decision.

Analysis: The Tribunal required the review applicants to identify any scheme provision empowering the Assessing Authority to nullify a certificate issued under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. No such provision was shown. The valuation was certified by a registered valuer and not credibly impeached. The Assessing Authority's order purportedly treating the declaration as forged lacked evidence of hearing and did not set out sufficient grounds; thus it suffered from procedural infirmity and could not be relied upon to overturn the certified declaration for purposes of establishing benami transactions.

Conclusion: The contention that the declaration/certificate is void is rejected; no basis shown to treat the declaration as null and void.

Issue (iii): Whether the statement of Yogendra Raj Singhvi, despite retraction, furnished the necessary corroborative evidence of cash deposits/rotation to sustain a finding of benami transaction and provisional attachment.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the allegation of cash deposits and rotation required foundational proof such as bank statements. The review applicants relied principally on the recorded statement of Yogendra Raj Singhvi which was promptly retracted. The respondents had not produced independent corroborative financial records (bank statements or equivalent) establishing deposit of cash by the noticees. The retracted statement, without corroboration, was insufficient to discharge the onus of proof required to sustain provisional attachment or a benami finding.

Conclusion: The statement, being retracted and uncorroborated, does not support a case for benami transaction or warrant review.

Final Conclusion: The review applications do not disclose any manifest error, new material fact, or other sufficient reason warranting interference with the Tribunal's earlier order; accordingly all review petitions are dismissed and the Tribunal's prior decision stands.

Ratio Decidendi: Review under Section 47 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 is permissible only on limited grounds-mistake apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence previously unavailable with due diligence, or other reasons analogous thereto-and absent such grounds (including absence of corroborative foundational evidence for alleged cash deposits), review must be denied.

Issues: (i) Whether delay of 298 days in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC should be condoned; (ii) Whether gratuity of Rs.7,19,063 is exempt from tax under section 10(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) Whether commuted pension of Rs.15,25,689 is exempt from tax under section 10(10A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iv) Whether addition of Rs.3,84,000 made as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 298 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC should be condoned.

Analysis: Affidavit evidence establishes relocation, non-receipt of notices at earlier address, limited digital literacy, and reliance on a tax consultant; precedent principles favour preferring substantial justice over technical disallowance of appeals where sufficient cause exists; the period and reasons were evaluated in context and compared with authorities allowing condonation for longer delays.

Conclusion: Delay of 298 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether gratuity of Rs.7,19,063 is exempt under section 10(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Salary certificate (Form 16) from the employer confirms receipt and nature of the amount as death-cum-retirement gratuity; no additional documentary requirement was shown to be necessary to establish exemption; the disallowance by the assessing authority rested on absence of reply rather than on any substantive dispute regarding entitlement to statutory exemption.

Conclusion: Rs.7,19,063 is exempt under section 10(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the addition against salary is deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether commuted pension of Rs.15,25,689 is exempt under section 10(10A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Employer-issued salary documentation supports the characterisation of the receipt as commuted pension; the assessing authority's addition was founded on non-production of documents despite the Form 16 confirmation; no basis was shown for treating the amount as taxable salary rather than exempt commuted pension.

Conclusion: Rs.15,25,689 is exempt under section 10(10A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the corresponding addition is deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the addition of Rs.3,84,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is sustainable.

Analysis: Declared income and accepted pension/retirement receipts provide a legitimate and sufficient source for the time deposit; interest from the deposit was declared; the addition was based on conjecture without evidence disproving the declared source; no books or assets indicating undisclosed wealth were shown.

Conclusion: Addition of Rs.3,84,000 under section 69A is deleted and the addition is disallowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed on merits after condoning delay; exemptions under section 10(10) and section 10(10A) are upheld and the addition under section 69A is deleted, resulting in a decision favourable to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: When statutory exemptions are supported by employer-issued salary certification and the assessee's declared income adequately accounts for an investment, additions as unexplained income under section 69A cannot be sustained on conjecture; condonation of delay is warranted where sufficient cause is shown and substantial justice requires merit adjudication.

Issues: Whether liberty should be granted to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned rectification order insofar as interest and penalty are concerned despite the expiry of the period of limitation, and on what conditions such liberty should be granted.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged a rectification order confirming tax, interest and penalty and did not file an appeal within the limitation period. The petitioner asserts inadvertence, payment of the tax component, availability of input tax credit, and willingness to secure revenue interest by depositing a part of the disputed amount. The respondent sought orders consistent with precedents in similar circumstances. The dispute remaining for adjudication before the Appellate Authority relates only to interest and penalty; the tax amount confirmed by the impugned order has been discharged by the petitioner. The court weighed the petitioner's admission of payment of tax, the narrow scope of the remaining dispute (interest and penalty), and the petitioner's offer to deposit a portion of the liability to protect revenue interest, and directed conditional relief permitting adjudication on merits without being foreclosed by limitation.

Conclusion: Liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order only insofar as interest and penalty are concerned before the Appellate Authority, subject to depositing Rs. 1,50,000 within 30 days from receipt of the order; the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits without reference to limitation.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 30.03.2025 and the consequent bank attachment is maintainable and deserving of relief despite the petitioner's unexplained delay and plea of unawareness of the assessment order.

Analysis: The petitioner had participated in the proceedings by filing a reply and attending personal hearing; subsequently a change of proper officer led to fresh notices for documents and hearing which the petitioner failed to comply with. The assessment order was uploaded on 30.03.2025 and the petitioner filed an application for cancellation of GST registration on 26.03.2025; registration was cancelled on 23.04.2025. The petitioner remained aware of proceedings earlier but did not monitor the GST portal for developments and did not challenge the assessment for a period of 11 months. The quantification of tax liability preceded the cancellation application and was substantial. In these circumstances the plea of ignorance of the uploaded assessment order was held unacceptable; however the petitioner was granted conditional procedural liberty to pursue the appellate remedy on payment terms agreed with the department.

Conclusion: In favour of Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party has participated in statutory adjudicatory proceedings, failed to comply with subsequent notices and unreasonably delayed challenging an assessment that was uploaded on the statutory portal, writ relief is not appropriate and the proper remedy is to approach the statutory appellate forum subject to applicable pre-deposit conditions.

Issues: Whether the appellate order dated 25 September 2024 confirming the adjudication order under Section 73 of the Act of 2017 and drawing adverse inference for non-production of a Chartered Accountant's certificate (without UDIN) should be set aside or remanded for reconsideration in view of the petitioner subsequently producing a proper CA certificate with UDIN and other relevant documents.

Analysis: The Court examined whether the absence of a properly formatted Chartered Accountant's certificate before the Appellate Authority justified dismissal of the petitioner's appeal and whether subsequent production of a proper certificate with UDIN warrants post-decisional consideration. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority considered the absence of the proper certificate significant for its conclusion. The petitioner has now placed before the Court a fresh certificate containing UDIN and asserted that discrepancies between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B were corrected in GSTR-3B and in the annual return GSTR-9. The Court balanced the procedural sufficiency of documents before the Appellate Authority at the time of decision against the petitioner's entitlement to have the merits reconsidered in the light of newly produced decisive documents, directing a limited remedial process while expressly leaving substantive points open for the Appellate Authority to decide in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Appellate Authority within two weeks with all relevant documents including the Chartered Accountant's certificate with UDIN and kept the appellate order dated 25 September 2024 in abeyance for eight weeks. The Appellate Authority is directed to reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned decision; if it finds merit, the appellate order will be set aside, otherwise it will remain intact with reasons recorded.

Issues: (i) Whether salary earned by a non-resident for services rendered outside India and credited to his NRE bank account in India is taxable in India under Section 5(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether additions made on account of unexplained investment by purchase of foreign currency and unexplained bank credits should stand where the primary addition of foreign-sourced salary is deleted.

Issue (i): Whether salary earned by a non-resident for services rendered outside India and credited to his NRE bank account in India is taxable in India under Section 5(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The dispute concerns whether 'income received in India' under Section 5(2)(a) refers to the first occasion when the assessee obtains the money in his control (real or constructive) or to subsequent remittance/credit into an Indian account. The tribunal examined precedent treating constructive receipt at place of employment as decisive and distinguishing subsequent remittance/application in India. The tribunal found that when salary accrues and is received (real or constructive) outside India for services rendered outside India to a non-resident, subsequent credit to an NRE account in India constitutes mere application/remittance and not a fresh receipt of income in India.

Conclusion: The salary of Rs. 44,24,000 credited to the assessee's NRE account is not taxable in India under Section 5(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; conclusion in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether additions for unexplained investment by purchase of foreign currency (Rs. 42,81,762) and unexplained bank credits (Rs. 1,00,34,419) should be sustained once the salary addition is removed.

Analysis: The additions were primarily founded on the allegation that salary credited to India was unexplained. Having concluded that the salary credited to the NRE account was not taxable (i.e., was explained as foreign-sourced and not a receipt in India), the factual basis for treating the investments and bank credits as unexplained no longer subsists.

Conclusion: The additions of Rs. 42,81,762 and Rs. 1,00,34,419 are directed to be deleted; conclusion in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the salary credit to the NRE account is not taxable in India and consequential additions based on that salary finding are deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: For a non-resident, 'income received in India' under Section 5(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 means receipt on the first occasion (real or constructive) when the assessee obtains the income in his control; subsequent remittance or credit into an Indian account is an application of pre-existing foreign receipt and does not constitute fresh receipt in India.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be validly initiated by the Assessing Officer on the basis of an audit party's objection/opinion.

Analysis: The question requires examination of the distinction between an audit objection that points out a new fact and an audit objection which merely expresses an opinion on the tax treatment of facts already considered in assessment proceedings. The statutory test for reopening under Section 147/148 requires a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, and that satisfaction must be that of the Assessing Officer himself and based on sound reasoning. Jurisprudence establishes that where the audit party discovers or points out a factual omission overlooked by the AO, reopening may be permissible if the AO forms his own independent belief. Conversely, where the audit party's objection only reflects a different view or opinion on the same material already examined by the AO, such objection does not constitute new information entitling reassessment.

Conclusion: Reassessment proceedings initiated solely on the basis of an audit party's opinion or objection that does not disclose a new fact but only a different view on already-considered material amount to a mere change of opinion and are impermissible. The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, leaving the Tribunal's allowance of the assessee's appeals intact.

Issues: (i) Whether the notice issued under Section 148 (and related proceedings) by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer after 29 March 2022 was invalid as a jurisdictional defect in view of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and whether the DRP was bound to follow that jurisdictional High Court precedent.

Analysis: The Court examined the procedural history including prior orders remitting objections to the DRP and the subsequent DRP order which declined to follow the jurisdictional High Court decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court analysed Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices under Section 148 issued after 29 March 2022 must be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer and that issuance by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional defect. The Court further considered the DRP's reasons, including reliance on decisions of the Gujarat High Court and a coordinate Bench decision purportedly deviating from Hexaware, and assessed the binding effect of a decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the DRP.

Analysis: The Court found that the DRP misconstrued the law by treating issuance by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer as merely a procedural irregularity and by relying on out-of-jurisdiction High Court decisions rather than following the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court. The Court concluded that where a jurisdictional High Court has decided the question, the DRP and authorities are bound to follow that decision and cannot ignore it or prefer decisions of other High Courts on the same issue.

Conclusion: The notice dated 29.03.2023 under Section 148A(b), the order dated 04.05.2023 under Section 148A(d), the notice dated 04.05.2023 under Section 148, the order dated 30.12.2025 under Section 144C(5), the reassessment order dated 23.01.2026 under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13), and the Notice of Demand dated 23.01.2026 under Section 156 are quashed and set aside. The decision is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessment order dated 08.12.2019 passed by ITO, Ward-2, Tiruvannamalai under section 144 is valid where jurisdiction over the assessee's PAN had vested with ITO, Ward-2, Vellore and no transfer order under section 127 had been placed on record.

Analysis: The PAN jurisdiction history and the chronology of proceedings show transfers and proceedings predominantly within the territorial jurisdiction of Vellore, including original return filing and subsequent rectification proceedings. The assessment was, however, passed by the officer at Tiruvannamalai without any recorded order under section 127 transferring jurisdiction prior to the assessment. Established legal principles require that an assessing officer must have jurisdiction to pass an assessment; absence of jurisdiction renders the order a nullity. Participation by the assessee in proceedings does not confer jurisdiction or cure absence of a valid transfer. The issue engages provisions governing assessment, transfer of proceedings, rectification, and statutory curability, and is governed by settled precedents holding that orders passed by non-jurisdictional authorities are void ab initio.

Conclusion: The assessment order dated 08.12.2019 passed under section 144 by ITO, Ward-2, Tiruvannamalai is void for lack of jurisdiction and the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) sustaining that assessment is not maintainable. The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the suo moto disallowance of expenses made by the assessee in the return can be withdrawn during assessment proceedings; (ii) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible where the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

Issue (i): Whether the suo motu disallowance of expenses made by the assessee in the return can be withdrawn during assessment proceedings.

Analysis: The Bench examined whether an assessee who had made a suo motu disallowance in the return may subsequently retract that disallowance during assessment and before appellate authorities, having regard to precedent of the Coordinate Bench permitting such withdrawal where appropriate. The Court considered the submissions and prior decisions addressing the ability of an assessee to rectify an incorrect self-disallowance in the assessment process.

Conclusion: The suo motu disallowance of Rs. 18,28,62,017/- made by the assessee in the return is deleted; the assessee is permitted to withdraw the suo motu disallowance during the assessment proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible where the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

Analysis: The Bench analysed applicability of section 14A and Rule 8D in the absence of exempt income and considered Coordinate Bench precedents holding that, where no exempt income is earned in the year, disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is not called for. The Court applied those precedents to the undisputed fact that the assessee did not earn exempt income in the relevant year.

Conclusion: The additional disallowance of Rs. 24,94,58,174/- made under section 14A read with Rule 8D is deleted; disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is not applicable in the assessee's case where no exempt income was earned.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed with deletions of the additions made under section 14A read with Rule 8D; consequential relief follows and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of exempt income for the relevant assessment year, disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is not warranted; additionally, a suo motu disallowance made in the return may be withdrawn during assessment proceedings.