Issues: Whether notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must be actually served upon the assessee within twelve months from the end of the month in which the block return was filed, and whether failure to effect such service within the period vitiates the assessment proceedings arising out of search and seizure.

Analysis: The appeals relate to block assessments where block returns were filed on 09.01.2001. The notice dated 29.01.2002 was issued within the twelve month period but was admittedly served on the assessees on 04.02.2002, after the expiry of the prescribed period. The statutory text of Section 143(2) uses the word "served" and earlier decisions hold that "issued" and "served" are distinct acts. Acceptance of issuance alone as compliance would permit antedating and defeat the legislative time-limit. Prior authoritative decisions have held that service within the period is required for assessments under Section 143(3) read with provisions dealing with undisclosed income arising from search.

Conclusion: The failure to serve the notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed twelve month period vitiates the assessment proceedings. Issue answered in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. All impugned appellate and assessment orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant reversed Rs.55,70,146/- being 5% of the value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and whether demand of interest and penalty could be sustained where such reversal was made on the same day after availment of credit.

Analysis: The issue requires examination of Rule 6(3) and Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the scope of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relevant facts established are that the amount of cenvat credit on common inputs and input services was availed following an audit objection and that on the same date the appellant reversed the 5% amount representing value of exempted clearances in two instalments which were reflected in the cenvat records. No contrary evidence was produced to show that the reversal did not occur contemporaneously. Where credit is reversed in accordance with Rule 6(3) contemporaneously with availment following detection, interest and penalty founded on sustained non-reversal are not maintainable. The appellate determination must therefore focus on whether the statutory reversal requirement was met and whether imposition of interest and penalty remains justified in view of the contemporaneous reversal recorded in the cenvat account.

Conclusion: It is concluded that the appellant reversed Rs.55,70,146/- as required by Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the same day the credit was availed following the audit objection. Consequently, confirmation of demand of interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is not sustainable and is set aside. Appeal disposed accordingly in favour of the appellant on these aspects.

Issues: Whether the impugned demand order dated December 25, 2025 passed without granting a personal hearing and after uploading incorrect documents was in violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 and consequently liable to be quashed and remitted for fresh decision.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates that an opportunity of hearing be granted where a written request is made by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or where an adverse decision is contemplated. The record shows incorrect documents were uploaded by the department and the petitioner requested a personal hearing in writing. Given the statutory requirement, the absence of a personal hearing and the failure to supply correct documents deprived the petitioner of the mandated opportunity to be heard prior to an adverse order being passed.

Conclusion: The impugned order dated December 25, 2025 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Commercial Tax Officer for passing a fresh order after uploading correct documents and affording a personal hearing to the petitioner; decision in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 1,18,69,619/- made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be sustained for Assessment Year 2020-21 on the basis of information from investigation and statements recorded during search when the assessee's books do not show any fresh credit in the relevant previous year.

Analysis: Section 68 is invoked only in respect of sums credited in the books of the assessee during the relevant previous year; proof of actual receipt in that year is a jurisdictional requirement. The ledger accounts produced for the relevant year show repayment of earlier amounts or credit of interest and do not evidence any fresh loan or advance credited in the impugned year. The Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority relied on investigation findings and statements recorded during search, but no material was brought on record to contradict the ledger entries or to demonstrate receipt of the alleged amount in the year under appeal. Applying the legal rule that an addition under section 68 requires correlation with entries in the books for the relevant year, and having regard to the potential impermissibility of taxing the same amount in successive years, the factual foundation for invoking section 68 in the impugned year is absent.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 1,18,69,619/- under section 68 is unsustainable and is deleted; the appeal is allowed on merits in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid; (ii) Whether the books of accounts and evidence could be rejected and income properly estimated by adopting 20% of gross receipts, or whether a different reasonable estimate should be directed.

Issue (i): Validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147/148.

Analysis: The information available to the revenue under category NMS indicating substantial cash deposits and TDS/AIR entries, coupled with the Assessing Officer's recorded reasons and prior approval by the competent authority, were examined in the context of the statutory scheme for reopening assessment.

Conclusion: The notice issued under section 148 dated 30.03.2021 was validly issued. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether books of account and evidence could be rejected and income estimated at 20% of gross receipts or whether a different reasonable estimate should be applied.

Analysis: The materials on record, including the audited accounts placed before the appellate authority and submissions about typical gross profit rates in milk retailing, were considered to determine a fair estimate where books were held not fully verifiable. The Tribunal evaluated comparative profit-rate material and the totality of facts to fix a reasonable gross profit percentage for computation, directing the Assessing Officer to allow eligible deductions when computing net profit.

Conclusion: The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal on this issue by setting aside the 20% ad hoc estimation and directing computation of gross profit at 5% of the declared gross receipts, with the Assessing Officer to compute net profit after allowing lawful deductions. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee to that limited extent.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment initiation under section 147/148 is sustained while the quantum determination by adopting 20% of gross receipts is revised; the appeal is partly allowed and remitted for computation in accordance with the Tribunal's directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Reopening is valid where independent information gives reason to believe income has escaped assessment; where books or supporting evidence are not fully verifiable, the Tribunal may direct a reasonable estimation of income and remit computation to the Assessing Officer with specific percentage guidance and allowance for lawful deductions.

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustainable where exempt income arose from shares held as stock-in-trade; (ii) whether amortisation of lease premium on leasehold properties was allowable; (iii) whether profits of foreign branches and the related foreign-tax-credit claims were to be excluded or granted in the manner claimed; (iv) whether bad debts written off were allowable under sections 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia) and 36(2)(v); (v) whether section 115JB applied to a bank and, if so, how the book profit adjustments were to be made; (vi) whether broken period interest, premium on HTM securities, interest on perpetual bonds and deferred guarantee commission were allowable or taxable in the year of receipt/accrual; and (vii) whether the penalty levied for regulatory non-compliance was deductible under section 37(1).

Issue (i): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustainable where exempt income arose from shares held as stock-in-trade.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the settled position that, where a bank holds shares and securities as stock-in-trade, dividend income is incidental to the business activity. In such a case, the nexus-based disallowance under section 14A does not survive on the facts, and the earlier year's view in the assessee's own case was applied. Once the disallowance was deleted, the alternative grounds became academic.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether amortisation of lease premium on leasehold properties was allowable.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier order in the assessee's own case for a prior year, where the claim had already been declined. No change in facts or law was shown, and the issue was treated as covered against the assessee.

Conclusion: The claim for amortisation of lease premium was disallowed and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether profits of foreign branches and the related foreign-tax-credit claims were to be excluded or granted in the manner claimed.

Analysis: The Tribunal upheld inclusion of foreign-branch profits in taxable income in India, following the coordinate bench decisions in the assessee's own case and allied banking cases. The alternative plea that foreign branch income should be computed under foreign tax laws was also rejected. On tax credit, the Tribunal distinguished between claims requiring verification and claims arising under section 91 for countries without a treaty, directing the Assessing Officer to examine admissibility and grant credit to the extent permissible.

Conclusion: Exclusion of foreign branch profits was refused, the alternative computation plea failed, and the foreign-tax-credit issues were partly restored for verification or allowed for statistical purposes, as the case may be.

Issue (iv): Whether bad debts written off were allowable under sections 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia) and 36(2)(v).

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the opening credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account was nil or did not justify reducing the entire write-off claim. Reading the relevant provisions with CBDT Instruction No. 17 of 2008 and the principle against double deduction, it concluded that the assessee was entitled to claim the entire bad-debt write-off as written off irrecoverable, subject to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The disallowance of bad debts written off was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether section 115JB applied to a bank and, if so, how the book profit adjustments were to be made.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the Special Bench view that clause (b) to section 115JB(2), as inserted, did not apply to the assessee-bank and that MAT could not be applied to such corresponding new banks. Consequently, the connected book-profit disputes became infructuous and were left open where appropriate.

Conclusion: Section 115JB was held inapplicable to the assessee-bank and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether broken period interest, premium on HTM securities, interest on perpetual bonds and deferred guarantee commission were allowable or taxable in the year of receipt/accrual.

Analysis: The Tribunal upheld the allowance of broken period interest and interest on perpetual bonds, following binding precedent that such expenditure is revenue in nature or that the borrowing character of perpetual instruments is not displaced merely by their nomenclature. It also sustained deletion of the addition on deferred guarantee commission, because the amount attributable to the unexpired period did not accrue fully in the year of receipt. The disallowance of premium on HTM securities was also sustained in the assessee's favour, following the earlier year's view and the treatment adopted in comparable banking cases.

Conclusion: These issues were decided largely in favour of the assessee, with the Revenue's grounds dismissed.

Issue (vii): Whether the penalty levied for regulatory non-compliance was deductible under section 37(1).

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled test under section 37(1) read with Explanation 1, namely whether the impost is compensatory or penal. Penalties for delay in reporting and similar regulatory lapses were treated as compensatory and allowable. However, the penalty imposed on the Singapore branch for breaches relating to anti-money-laundering and counter-terror financing norms was held to be for an offence prohibited by law and therefore not deductible.

Conclusion: The penalty issue was partly allowed for the assessee and partly sustained against it.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained substantial relief on core tax issues, including section 14A, bad debts, MAT applicability, and several banking income adjustments, while the Revenue succeeded only in part on the regulatory penalty issue and the lease-premium claim remained against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For a banking assessee, section 14A does not sustain disallowance on dividend from shares held as stock-in-trade, bad-debt write-offs are governed by the opening credit balance and the anti-double-deduction scheme of sections 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia) and 36(2)(v), MAT under section 115JB does not apply where the statutory banking exclusion operates, and section 37(1) allows only compensatory regulatory levies, not penalties imposed for offences prohibited by law.

Issues: (i) Whether services of horticulture and processing of fly ash bricks rendered by the appellant are exempt from service tax or liable under 'Management, Maintenance or Repair service'; (ii) Whether demands based on entries in NTPC's cost-wise break-up ledger and reconciliation with appellant's books (issues A & B) are sustainable; (iii) Whether differential tax demand due to rate change for receipts of past-billed services (issue C) is sustainable; (iv) Whether demand relating to opening balances and receipt/payment reconciliation (issue D) is sustainable given payment-receipt accounting prior to 01.04.2011; (v) Whether the confirmed demand alleged as double is in fact double (issue E); (vi) Whether the asserted short payment due to a clerical error in ST-3 (issue F) can be rectified; (vii) Whether penalty under proviso to Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules is maintainable in respect of excess CENVAT credit recovered.

Issue (i): Whether horticulture and processing of fly ash bricks services are not liable to service tax.

Analysis: Cleaning activity definition under Clause (24b) of Section 65 excludes services in relation to horticulture; exemption notifications and the Negative List entries and Notification No. 8/2005-ST and related notifications govern processing/job-work where goods produced using client-supplied materials and appropriate excise duty is paid. Evidence required to establish applicability of exclusion/exemption includes agreements, bills, work orders and proof of excise duty payment by recipient.

Conclusion: Horticulture and processing of fly ash bricks claims not finally upheld; both issues require factual/documents verification and are remanded to the adjudicating authority for quantification and verification. Conclusion in favour of Appellant on entitlement not finally made; remand ordered.

Issue (ii): Whether demands founded on NTPC ledger entries and reconciliation (other services) are sustainable.

Analysis: Ledger entries are treated as memorandum and reconciliation with audited trial balances, ST-3 returns, and evidence of ST payments and unbilled services (Rule 6(1) proviso) must be verified by reference to audited books and documentary proof.

Conclusion: The claims of correct declaration require verification; issue remanded to adjudicating authority to examine documentary evidence and determine actual liability. Conclusion provisionally in favour of Appellant subject to verification.

Issue (iii): Whether differential tax demand due to rate change on receipts for past-billed services is sustainable.

Analysis: Determination depends on whether receipts correspond to services for which tax at earlier lower rate was correctly reported and paid at the time of taxable event; relevant judicial precedents and month-wise particulars supplied require verification against invoices and returns.

Conclusion: Differential demand is remanded for verification; if appellant's claim is established, the differential tax will not survive.

Issue (iv): Whether demand attributable to opening balances/unrealized entries is sustainable given payment-receipt accounting prior to 01.04.2011.

Analysis: Service tax liability prior to 01.04.2011 arises on receipt basis; evidence of invoice issuance prior to 01.04.2011 and subsequent receipt must be produced and verified.

Conclusion: Issue remanded for verification; if proof of invoice date and receipt is furnished, the demand will not survive.

Issue (v): Whether the confirmed demand alleged as double is indeed double.

Analysis: Documentary entries shown by appellant indicate amounts already paid/credited; verification against records is necessary to confirm duplication.

Conclusion: Issue remanded; if established as double, the demand will be set aside.

Issue (vi): Whether the demand of Rs.10,00,000/- is attributable to a clerical error in ST-3 and can be rectified.

Analysis: Evidence of document-wise CENVAT credit availment, journal vouchers and books of account must be verified; rectification is permissible where clerical error causes no revenue loss as per judicial guidance.

Conclusion: Issue remanded for verification; if found to be clerical error with no revenue loss, the demand will not survive.

Issue (vii): Whether penalty under proviso to Rule 15(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules is maintainable for excess CENVAT credit of Rs.7,940/- which has been repaid with interest.

Analysis: Repayment of excess credit with interest and appropriation in the adjudicating order are relevant; discretion on penalty to be exercised considering recovery and interest paid.

Conclusion: Penalty of Rs.7,940/- set aside. Conclusion in favour of Appellant on penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed by setting aside specific confirmed demands and penalty and remanding multiple factual/accounting issues to the adjudicating authority for documentary verification and quantification of actual service tax liability, if any.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of unutilized CENVAT credit claimed on various input services for the disputed periods (nexus and eligibility of specific services); (ii) Whether refund claimed on general health insurance for employees is admissible; (iii) Whether the method of computation of eligible refund under Notification No.27/2012 (gross CENVAT credit versus net after domestic utilization and reversals) is correct; (iv) Whether certain claims rejected for lack of documents or because invoices addressed to SEZ/STPI require fresh verification.

Issue (i): Entitlement to refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on various input services (Business Support Services, visa fees, personnel baggage, translation, clearing & forwarding, management consultancy, training, cleaning, maintenance, sponsorship, accommodation, GTA, manpower recruitment, etc.).

Analysis: The Tribunal examined prior adjudications and Tribunal orders in the appellant's earlier periods and relevant decisions on the scope of 'input service' under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and related authorities relied upon by the appellant. The record showed that for previous periods similar services had been admitted by authorities or covered by Tribunal orders; however, detailed invoices and correlative documentary evidence for the disputed periods were bulky and required scrutiny by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found that where identical activities were accepted in prior periods and settled by decisions, there was no prima facie reason to deny the benefit for the impugned periods but factual verification remained necessary.

Conclusion: The claims relating to these input services are not finally disallowed by the Tribunal; they are remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication with directions to verify documents and consider earlier accepted claims/decisions. (Outcome: remand in favour of further consideration for the appellant.)

Issue (ii): Eligibility of refund claimed on general health/medical insurance for employees.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered that medical/health insurance is specifically excluded from the definition of 'input service' for the relevant period and distinguished prior decisions where statutory requirements (e.g., ESI) justified allowance. In absence of a statutory mandate in the appellant's case and given the exclusion in Rule 2(1) for the relevant period, the Tribunal found no basis to allow the claimed refund on general health insurance.

Conclusion: Claim for refund of Rs.2,48,27,198 relating to general health insurance is rejected and the impugned order is upheld in this respect (Outcome: against the appellant / in favour of Revenue).

Issue (iii): Correct method of computing eligible refund under Notification No.27/2012 whether refund is to be calculated on gross CENVAT credit availed during the quarter or on net after deducting amounts utilized towards domestic liability and reversals.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted this question had been considered in the appellant's own earlier matters (Final Order No.23114-23130/2017) and that the proper approach is to compute the maximum refund by deducting only ineligible CENVAT credit (if any) from the gross CENVAT credit availed during the quarter, rather than first netting off amounts utilized for domestic liability and reversals as done by the adjudicating authority. Given factual interdependence with documentary verification and overall remand for eligibility of credits, the Tribunal directed reassessment of computation by the Adjudicating Authority in conformity with Tribunal precedent and the prescribed formula under Rule 5/Notification No.27/2012.

Conclusion: The computation issue is remanded for redetermination by the Adjudicating Authority applying the correct method (deduct only ineligible credit from gross CENVAT credit) and reworking the refund as per Rule 5/Notification No.27/2012 (Outcome: remand in favour of appellant's computation principle to be reconsidered).

Issue (iv): Claims denied for lack of documentary support or because invoices were addressed to SEZ/STPI whether these require fresh consideration.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that several claims were rejected for want of documents or because invoices were addressed to SEZ units; the appellant offered to produce or assert exclusive consumption in STPI units. Documentary verification and correlation (including FIRCs / bank realization certificates) are factual matters suitable for the Adjudicating Authority to examine. The Tribunal directed that the appellant be given opportunity to produce documents and that such claims be verified afresh.

Conclusion: These claims are remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for verification of documents, correlation of invoices/FIRCs and reconsideration (Outcome: remand to permit appellant to substantiate claims).

Final Conclusion: The appeals are disposed of partly in favour of the appellant by setting aside the impugned orders except as to Rs.2,48,27,198 (general health insurance) and Rs.7,33,415 (amount not appealed), which are upheld; remaining disputed claims and the computation issue are remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication with opportunity for document production and personal hearing; the Adjudicating Authority is directed to complete the de novo adjudication within four months from receipt of this order.

Ratio Decidendi: For refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules and Notification No.27/2012, eligibility requires (a) that the service qualify as an 'input service' under Rule 2(1), (b) a demonstrable nexus between the input and output services, and (c) computation of refund under Rule 5/Notification No.27/2012 must be done by deducting only ineligible credit from gross CENVAT credit availed during the quarter (not by first netting off amounts utilized for domestic liability/reversals); factual documentary verification is decisive and may warrant remand for de novo adjudication.

Issues: (i) Whether the summoning order and continuation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained against Sandhya Gupta on the allegation that she was in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company; (ii) Whether Abhishek Gupta had resigned from the company before the cause of action arose and was therefore entitled to discharge from the complaint proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the summoning order and continuation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained against Sandhya Gupta on the allegation that she was in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company.

Analysis: The material on record, including Form-32 and the company documents, showed Sandhya Gupta as a director and also as a signatory to the cheques and co-signatory to the balance sheets. On that basis, the allegation that she was merely a sleeping director was not borne out from the record at this stage. The defence that she was not actively involved in the business raised a matter for trial and could not displace the summoning order in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The summoning order was upheld against Sandhya Gupta and the proceedings against her were maintained.

Issue (ii): Whether Abhishek Gupta had resigned from the company before the cause of action arose and was therefore entitled to discharge from the complaint proceedings.

Analysis: The Form-32 and the minutes of the board meeting consistently reflected that Abhishek Gupta had resigned from the company on 01.10.2013. The cheques in question were issued later and the alleged dishonour arose thereafter. On the evidence available, his resignation stood corroborated and there was no basis to treat him as concerned with the affairs of the company after resignation.

Conclusion: Abhishek Gupta was entitled to discharge and the summoning order was quashed insofar as he was concerned.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part, with the proceedings continuing against Sandhya Gupta while Abhishek Gupta was relieved from the complaint case.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a director shown by company records to be a signatory/co-signatory and part of the company's functioning may be proceeded against at the summoning stage, while a director whose prior resignation is duly corroborated by record cannot be fastened with liability for subsequent transactions.

Outcome: The special leave petitions were dismissed as the Court found no ground to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appellate remedy, notwithstanding the challenge to the alleged non-service of notice and denial of personal hearing.

Analysis: The dispute arose from an order passed under the GST law, and an appeal lay under the statutory appellate provision. The appellate forum was to examine both facts and law, including the manner of service of notice, compliance with the prescribed mode of communication, and the grievance of denial of personal hearing. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised where an effective alternative remedy is available, unless exceptional grounds are clearly made out.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and the petitioner was required to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available and the appellate authority can adjudicate objections relating to service of notice and personal hearing, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order dated 22.12.2023 passed under Section 63 of the GST Act, 2017 is liable to be quashed on grounds including lack of opportunity of hearing and related jurisdictional/format defects; (ii) Whether the appellate order dated 15.10.2025 dismissing the appeal as time-barred is liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment order dated 22.12.2023 under Section 63 of the GST Act, 2017 is vitiated for want of opportunity of hearing and other procedural defects and requires quashing and remand.

Analysis: The order dated 22.12.2023 was examined on the basis of representations and the parties' agreement that opportunity of hearing was not afforded and that procedural/formatting issues existed in the assessment process. In light of the respondents' concession to afford hearing and to pass a fresh speaking order, the appropriate remedy is quashing of the impugned order and directing fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to respond.

Conclusion: The assessment order dated 22.12.2023 is quashed. The assessee is granted time to respond to the show-cause notice and a fresh speaking order shall be passed after providing opportunity of hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate order dated 15.10.2025 rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation should be quashed and the appeal restored for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was considered in conjunction with the procedural defects in the assessment and the fact that the assessee's appeal could not be uploaded on the portal. Given the consent of parties that respondents will allow hearing and pass fresh order, the appellate order that flows from the impugned assessment is also quashed to enable effective appellate remedy after fresh adjudication at first instance.

Conclusion: The appellate order dated 15.10.2025 is quashed and the matter is remitted to enable fresh adjudication and, if necessary, restoration of the appeal process after the fresh order.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment and appellate orders are quashed and matter remitted for fresh decision, subject to the assessee being granted an opportunity to respond and making an interim deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand; the order is passed on the basis of parties' consent and peculiar facts and is not to be treated as precedent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment or appellate order is rendered without affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing or is affected by procedural defects that impede effective appellate remedy, the appropriate relief is quashing of the impugned orders and remand for fresh speaking adjudication after providing opportunity of hearing, subject to appropriate interim conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether the summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 (challenged summons dated 06.05.2024, 20.05.2024 and 28.05.2024) are illegal and liable to be set aside; (ii) Whether the Court should direct release of papers/documents/goods seized on 23.03.2024 and restrain the respondent from detaining the petitioners in odd hours.

Analysis: The Court analysed statutory scheme and precedents holding that a summons under Section 70 is a tool of inquiry to collect information and is not the initiation of proceedings for recovery; searches under Section 67 may lead to evidence which the Department may thereafter decide to act upon under assessment provisions. The Court noted safeguards in Section 69 concerning arrest and referred to authorities clarifying that anticipatory bail may be considered where apprehension of arrest is clear. The Court examined the facts including alleged procedural deficiencies in the panchnama and the respondents' account of materials seized and statements recorded, and concluded that summons were issued for recording statements and production of documents arising from search and investigation and were within the Department's powers. The petition was held to be premature to seek reliefs amounting to anticipatory bail or stay of investigative steps, and the petitioners were granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies at the appropriate stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the summons and seeking release of seized papers/goods and restraint on detention is dismissed. The Court found no illegality in issuance of the summons and declined to grant interim protection; the decision is against the petitioners and in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether the reduction in GST rate on admission to cinematograph exhibitions was passed on to recipients by way of commensurate reduction in ticket prices and whether profiteering under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017 stood established; (ii) If profiteering is established, the quantum of profiteered amount and the remedial directions to be issued.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent failed to pass on the benefit of reduction in GST rate on specified admission services and thereby profiteered under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Price data for pre- and post-rate-reduction periods for ticket categories (MRP Rs. 80, Rs. 60 and Rs. 30) and submitted documents were considered; respondent's written confirmation of non-reduction for those slabs was relied upon as admission; calculations comparing expected post-rate-reduction cum-tax prices with actual charged prices show maintenance of pre-reduction cum-tax prices by increasing base price.

Conclusion: The respondent did not pass on the benefit of the GST rate reduction and profiteering under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017 is established.

Issue (ii): What is the amount of profiteering and what directions should be issued for its recovery and utilisation.

Analysis: DGAP's computed profiteered amount for the investigation period (01.01.2019 to 30.09.2019) was examined and accepted; calculations result in a quantified profiteering figure; interest and allocation to Consumer Welfare Funds were considered as appropriate remedial measures under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Profiteered amount quantified at Rs. 2,50,148.39; respondent directed to deposit 50% of the amount with interest at 18% p.a. into the Centre's Consumer Welfare Fund and 50% with interest into the State of Telangana Consumer Welfare Fund (or into Centre's Fund if State Fund is not constituted) within one month.

Final Conclusion: The DGAP report is accepted, profiteering under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017 is established for the specified period and the quantified amount with interest is directed to be deposited into designated Consumer Welfare Fund(s), resulting in a decision favourable to the revenue authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory reduction in GST rate occurs, the benefit must be passed to recipients by commensurate reduction in prices; failure to do so, including maintenance of pre-reduction cum-tax prices by inflating base prices, constitutes profiteering under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017.

Issues: Whether the penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) (and consequentially under Section 270A) in respect of unexplained investment assessed under Section 69 and additional tax consequences under Section 115BBE(1) is sustainable where the assessee failed to substantiate the nature and source of investments and remained non-compliant during assessment, penalty and appellate proceedings.

Analysis: The assessee had investments/purchases of securities assessed as unexplained to the extent of Rs.11,63,000 and additions were made under Section 69. Penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1) were initiated on account of non-compliance with show-cause notices and failure to pay tax under Section 115BBE(1) as applicable. The assessee did not substantiate the nature or source of the investments before the Assessing Officer, did not comply in the penalty proceedings, and did not appear or file submissions before the Appellate Tribunal. The appellate authority upheld the penalty after an ex parte hearing. The statutory scheme permits levy of penalty under Section 271AAC where income is determined under Sections 68 to 69D and tax payable under Section 115BBE(1) has not been paid by the end of the relevant previous year; non-compliance and lack of cogent explanation permits sustaining the penalty. The Tribunal applied these legal propositions to the factual record and affirmed the penalty in absence of contrary evidence or explanation.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 271AAC(1) (and related penalty consequences) is upheld against the assessee; the appeal is dismissed and the penalty sustained in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of differential consideration of immovable property.

Analysis: The issue concerns application of the tolerance limit for variation between stamp duty value and stated sale consideration. The proviso prescribing a 10% tolerance band in the scheme relevant to valuation (reflected in Section 56(2)(x) and analogous to the proviso in Section 50C(1)) governs whether a differential consideration falls to be treated as income under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). The proviso providing the 10% tolerance band, though introduced later, is to be construed as effective for the comparable valuation provisions from their inception on the principle that Sections 50C and 56(2)(vii)(b) are pari materia. Applying that tolerance band to the facts, the differential of Rs. 3,32,960 is within 10% of the stated consideration and therefore does not attract addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).

Conclusion: The addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) confirmed by the CIT(A) is deleted; the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the processing stage under section 143(1) on the ground that Form No.10B was not filed within the due date is justified where Form No.10B had been e-filed and was available on the Departmental records before issuance of the intimation; and whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal in limine.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the chronology showing Form No.10B and the return were e-filed on 30-03-2021 while the CPC processed the return under section 143(1) only on 30-11-2021, meaning the audit report was on record at the time of processing. The Tribunal considered binding decisions of the Gujarat High Court and coordinate benches of the Tribunal holding that furnishing Form No.10B is procedural and directory in nature, that delay in filing is a curable defect, and that processing-stage adjustments under section 143(1) are limited to prima facie issues and should not deny substantive exemptions on mere technical grounds. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) treated the inaction as negligence and laches and relied on limitation principles without addressing that the underlying adjustment was contrary to settled precedent and that Form No.10B was available when the return was processed.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 solely because Form No.10B was belatedly filed was not justified where Form No.10B had been furnished and was available with the CPC at the time the return was processed; the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay and in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the merits. The exemption under Sections 11 and 12 is to be allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Filing of Form No.10B is a procedural, directory requirement and a curable defect; where the audit report is on departmental record prior to issuance of intimation under section 143(1), exemption under Sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied at the processing stage on grounds of belated filing.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was valid where the prior approval under Section 151 was accorded by an authority other than the competent authority prescribed by the statute, thereby vitiating the reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18.

Analysis: The question examined whether prior approval required by Section 151 for issuance of notice under Section 148 and for passing order under Section 148A(d) was obtained from the statutory competent authority. The record shows approval dated 23.07.2022 / 27.07.2022 from a Principal Commissioner (or Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1) rather than from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or, where those posts are absent, the Chief Commissioner or Director General as required. The appellate decision relied on the legal principle that compliance with Section 148A and the requirement of prior approval under Section 151 cannot be dispensed with when orders under Section 148A(d) are passed or notices under Section 148 are issued beyond the prescribed period; a defective approval by an authority not competent under Section 151 vitiates the subsequent notice and reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The defective prior approval under Section 151 rendered the notice under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment proceedings invalid; appeal allowed and impugned assessment quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessment was invalid for want of jurisdiction because the notice under section 143(2) was issued by one Assessing Officer and the assessment was completed by another officer without any valid transfer order.

Analysis: The notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-1, Karnal, whereas the assessment was completed by ACIT (OSD), Ward-5, Karnal. The record did not contain any order transferring jurisdiction from the former officer to the latter under section 127(1). In the absence of a valid transfer of jurisdiction, the officer who completed the assessment could not assume lawful authority over the case. The defect went to the root of the assessment and could not be cured merely by participation in proceedings.

Conclusion: The assessment was held to be bad in law for want of jurisdiction and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.