Issues: Whether a CIRP admitted under Section 9 can be closed by the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of a settlement reached after admission, before constitution of the Committee of Creditors.

Analysis: The settlement was executed after commencement of CIRP and expressly recognised that closure was subject to compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The amended Section 12A imposes a non obstante statutory framework for withdrawal of an admitted application and bars withdrawal before constitution of the Committee of Creditors. The authorities relied upon concerned settlements completed before admission of CIRP and predated or did not attract the amended statutory position.

Conclusion: The post-admission settlement could not justify closure of CIRP in the appeal; the IRP may seek withdrawal before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issues: Whether interest on refund of a pre-deposit under Section 35FF is payable for the entire period from the date of deposit until the actual refund, including the period attributable to the appellant's delay in seeking refund.

Analysis: Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates interest on a pre-deposit required to be refunded consequent to an appellate order, running from the date of payment until the date of refund. The provision does not qualify this entitlement by reference to the cause of delay in refund. Although the appellant delayed for over five years in furnishing the High Court judgment and seeking refund, the statutory language governs regardless of hardship, fairness, neglect, or the party responsible for the intervening delay.

Conclusion: Interest under Section 35FF is payable to the appellant for the entire period from the date of pre-deposit until the date of actual refund, including the period of delay attributable to the appellant.

Issues: (i) Whether a statutory welfare board facilitating deployment of ex-servicemen as guards to banks, without profit or commercial activity, provides taxable security agency service; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of service tax.

Issue (i): Whether a statutory welfare board facilitating deployment of ex-servicemen as guards to banks, without profit or commercial activity, provides taxable security agency service.

Analysis: The appellant was constituted under statute to undertake welfare activities for ex-servicemen. It merely facilitated deployment of guards and collected remuneration for onward payment to them, without earning profit or carrying on commercial business. Fees collected by a public authority in discharge of statutory functions were not liable to service tax. The activity did not satisfy either the definition of security agency or the taxable category of security agency service.

Conclusion: The appellant did not render taxable security agency service; the demand was unsustainable on merits, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of service tax.

Analysis: The finding that the appellant acted under a bona fide belief arising from legal interpretation, which justified waiver of penalty, negated the ingredients required for the extended period. Revenue did not establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demands fail both because the activity was outside the taxable security-agency category and because the extended limitation period was unavailable.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory welfare body which merely facilitates deployment of personnel and passes remuneration to them without commercial profit-making activity is not a security agency; a bona fide interpretative belief and absence of suppression preclude invocation of the extended limitation period.

Issues: (i) Whether a municipal corporation was liable to service tax on advertisement tax or licence fee collected for permitting display of advertisements before 1 July 2012; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand.

Issue (i): Whether a municipal corporation was liable to service tax on advertisement tax or licence fee collected for permitting display of advertisements before 1 July 2012.

Analysis: During the relevant period, the taxable entry for selling of space for advertisement required a service to be provided by a person. A sovereign local body was not covered by the term "person" before that expression was defined under the service-tax law. Further, the amount collected under the municipal law for display of advertisements was advertisement tax, a statutory levy authorised by Article 243X of the Constitution of India, and not consideration for a taxable service.

Conclusion: The municipal corporation was not liable to service tax on the advertisement tax or licence fee collected during the relevant period, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand.

Analysis: The dispute concerned interpretation of the charging provisions, and no suppression with intent to evade tax could be attributed to a government local body. The adopted ruling held that the extended limitation period was therefore unavailable.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand was unsustainable; consequently, no interest or penalties could survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Before the relevant statutory definition of "person" took effect, a sovereign municipal corporation collecting advertisement tax as a statutory levy was not providing a taxable service, and extended limitation cannot rest on alleged suppression in such an interpretative dispute.

Issues: Whether collection of adda-fee by a management contractor operating and maintaining State-regulated bus terminals under a concession agreement constitutes taxable Support Services of Business or Commerce.

Analysis: Service tax is a contract-based levy, requiring examination of the contractual nexus between the service provider and the recipient. The concession arrangement was between the appellant and the State Government/PUNBUS; no contract existed between the appellant and individual bus operators. The bus terminals were public-utility infrastructure developed and operated under State regulation, and the appellant's collection of adda-fee was authorised under the concession arrangement in consideration of its investment, rather than consideration for support provided to bus operators. The applicable precedent had determined that such collection, absent a direct contractual relationship with bus operators, is not Business Support Service.

Conclusion: Collection of adda-fee under the State concession arrangement did not constitute Support Services of Business or Commerce; service tax was not payable by the appellant.

Issues: Whether the notional cost of buyer-supplied drawings and designs, and royalty paid by the buyer to its foreign collaborator, is includible in the assessable value of automobile components under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits adoption of transaction value where the buyer and manufacturer are unrelated and price is the sole consideration. Rule 6 permits addition only of the money value of additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the manufacturer. Buyer-supplied drawings or designs are includible only where they are used in, or necessary for, production and relieve the manufacturer of an expense otherwise required to be incurred by it.

Analysis: The drawings supplied at the vendor-selection stage were only specifications enabling prospective vendors to understand requirements and quote prices. They were not detailed manufacturing drawings used for production; the manufacturer remained responsible for preparing the detailed designs required for manufacture. No consideration in addition to the agreed price flowed from the buyer after selection of the manufacturer. The buyer's royalty payment to its foreign collaborator was not consideration flowing to the manufacturer and had no nexus with the manufacture or clearance of the components.

Conclusion: The notional value of the drawings and designs and the buyer's royalty payment are not includible in the assessable value; the demand, interest and penalty based on such inclusion cannot be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the land sold was agricultural land excluded from the definition of capital asset; (ii) Whether deduction under Section 54B was available for investment in the land purchased; (iii) Whether the validity of the revision order could be challenged in proceedings arising from the consequential assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the land sold was agricultural land excluded from the definition of capital asset.

Analysis: The registered sale deed described the land as industrial-purpose land, the revenue record showed it as uncultivated, and the purchaser acquired it for non-agricultural use. The assessee had also returned the gain from its sale as capital gain. Applying the test concerning the actual and intended use of land, these circumstances established that its character at the time of sale was non-agricultural.

Conclusion: The land was a capital asset and not agricultural land; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction under Section 54B was available for investment in the land purchased.

Analysis: The purchased land was classified in the registered purchase deed as industrial-purpose land. Further, the sold land had not been used for agricultural purposes during the prescribed preceding period, as reflected by the revenue record and its established industrial character. The statutory conditions for the deduction were therefore not met.

Conclusion: Deduction under Section 54B was not allowable; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the validity of the revision order could be challenged in proceedings arising from the consequential assessment.

Analysis: The revision order had not been independently challenged. The appeal arose from the appellate order concerning the consequential assessment, and did not permit a challenge to the unappealed revision order.

Conclusion: The challenge to the revision order was barred in these proceedings; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment treating the transferred land as a taxable capital asset and denying the claimed agricultural-land reinvestment relief remains sustained, and the unchallenged revision order cannot be assailed collaterally.

Ratio Decidendi: Land is not excluded as agricultural land where the cumulative evidence of its recorded status, contractual description, use and intended non-agricultural exploitation establishes its non-agricultural character; deduction for reinvestment in agricultural land requires satisfaction of the prescribed agricultural-use conditions.

Issues: Whether refund arising after an assessment under Section 201 or an appellate order can be made conditional upon filing Form 26B or withheld against outstanding demands without an order under Section 245.

Analysis: Section 201 concerns assessment of tax deducted at source, whereas Section 200A, Rule 31A and Form 26B govern processing and adjustment of TDS statements at the CPC stage before assessment. A refund quantified upon an assessment under Section 201 or pursuant to an appellate order is a vested and crystallised entitlement, with applicable interest. The Form 26B procedure does not govern such refund. Withholding or adjustment of the quantified refund is permissible only through a legally passed order under Section 245; outstanding demands, including demands relating to associated TANs, cannot by themselves justify non-payment.

Conclusion: Form 26B cannot be compelled for refund arising from an assessment under Section 201 or an appellate order, and the refund cannot be withheld absent a lawful order under Section 245. The assessee is entitled to payment of the quantified refund with applicable statutory interest.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to challenge the adjudication order despite an efficacious statutory appellate remedy where consideration of the taxpayers' replies and their alleged role requires factual examination.

Analysis: The challenge required examination of disputed factual matters, including whether the replies to the show-cause notice were considered and the precise role of each petitioner in the alleged transactions. Such matters were suitable for adjudication by the Appellate Authority. The reliance on principles requiring consideration of a taxpayer's response to a show-cause notice was distinguishable because the impugned adjudication was a consolidated order concerning numerous firms and individuals.

Conclusion: Writ jurisdiction ought not to be exercised to bypass the efficacious statutory appellate remedy where disputed factual issues require appellate examination.

Issues: Whether the assessee's appeal before the appellate authority was barred by limitation where a physical appeal was filed within time because of technical difficulties in mandatory electronic filing.

Analysis: During the transition to mandatory electronic filing of Form 35, the assessee attempted electronic filing but faced system-related difficulties. It filed a physical appeal within the prescribed period and explained the circumstances to the appellate authority. Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016 acknowledged the technical difficulties and extended the time for electronic filing. The delay was therefore not attributable to the assessee.

Conclusion: The appeal before the appellate authority was not time-barred; the dismissal on limitation was unjustified and is set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an addition for unexplained investment could be sustained solely on WhatsApp chats retrieved from a third party's mobile phone without independent corroboration and compliance with requirements governing electronic evidence.

Analysis: The presumption under Section 132(4A) was confined to the person from whom the material was found and could not bind a third party. The WhatsApp chats constituted the sole material against the assessee, with no independent evidence establishing the alleged investment. Their authenticity was not established through the certificate required for electronic records, and compliance with the requirement concerning extraction of electronic evidence was also not demonstrated.

Conclusion: The WhatsApp data of the third party was insufficient to sustain the addition for unexplained investment; the addition was liable to be deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether licence fees for grant of live broadcasting rights, and the contractual 95:5 allocation between live and non-live broadcasting rights, were taxable as royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether release fees received from IPL franchises for permitting English players to participate in the tournament were taxable under Article 18(2) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Issue (i): Whether licence fees for grant of live broadcasting rights, and the contractual 95:5 allocation between live and non-live broadcasting rights, were taxable as royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Article 13(3) covers consideration for use of, or right to use, copyright or a scientific work. Live transmission of a match is a one-time event that does not confer an enduring benefit. A live feed is neither a scientific work nor a work in which copyright subsists; broadcast rights and copyright are distinct. The consideration attributable to non-live rights had already been offered to tax. The 95:5 allocation of consideration between live and non-live rights was contractually agreed and could not be disturbed without material establishing that it was unjustified; differing allocations adopted on peculiar facts of other cases did not warrant a reallocation.

Conclusion: Licence fees for live broadcasting rights were not royalty, and the 95:5 contractual allocation between live and non-live rights was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether release fees received from IPL franchises for permitting English players to participate in the tournament were taxable under Article 18(2) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Analysis: Article 18 concerns income derived by athletes from their personal activities and income from such activities accruing to another person. The release fee was payable to the assessee for granting consent for a player's participation and was over and above the league fee paid to the player. It was not income accruing from the player's personal activities within the scope of Article 18(2).

Conclusion: Release fees received by the assessee were not taxable under Article 18(2), in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Live broadcasting licence fees were excluded from royalty taxation, the agreed allocation of broadcasting consideration remained undisturbed, and release fees fell outside the taxation scope of Article 18(2).

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 3,50,108 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable; (ii) Whether receipts aggregating Rs. 26,51,000 constituted deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the addition of Rs. 3,50,108 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable.

Analysis: The ledger and supporting material showed that no fresh loan had been obtained during the relevant year from the concerned lender; the transaction related to interest paid on loans obtained in earlier years. The documentary record did not support the premise of an unexplained cash credit for the year.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 68 was not sustainable and its deletion was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether receipts aggregating Rs. 26,51,000 constituted deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The accounts reflected reciprocal, interest-bearing commercial dealings and a current account involving advances, repayments, and payments made on behalf of the concerned entities. Amounts received from one entity were repayments of prior advances, while transactions with the other entity were current-account payments rather than loans or advances. The deeming provision for dividend was construed strictly and could not be extended to such mutual commercial transactions.

Conclusion: The receipts did not constitute deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e), and deletion of the addition was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate relief removing both disputed additions remains operative.

Issues: (i) Whether the cash deposits were satisfactorily explained and liable to addition as unexplained money; (ii) Whether tax on the sustained addition for the relevant assessment year was chargeable at the pre-amendment rate under Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the cash deposits were satisfactorily explained and liable to addition as unexplained money.

Analysis: Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source of money. The cash was deposited during demonetisation and was claimed to have been received from a partnership firm in which the assessee was a partner. The supporting material was insufficient because the ledger indicated that the alleged sale of chillies occurred after the stated cash receipt, leaving the source of the deposit unsubstantiated.

Conclusion: The addition of the cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rightly sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether tax on the sustained addition for the relevant assessment year was chargeable at the pre-amendment rate under Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The enhanced tax rate introduced by amendment to Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied from the subsequent assessment year. For the assessment year in question, the applicable rate remained 30%.

Conclusion: Tax on the sustained addition must be charged at 30% under Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The unexplained-money addition remains taxable, but the applicable tax rate is confined to the pre-amendment rate.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment enhancing the tax rate on unexplained income applies prospectively from its stated operative assessment year and cannot be applied to an earlier assessment year.

Issues: Whether revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 could be invoked to reopen the allowance of deduction under section 80JJAA on the ground that further verification of the staffing arrangement and employee eligibility was required.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that the deduction was specifically examined through notices, a show-cause proposal for disallowance, Form No. 10DA, employee-wise particulars, salary details and statutory-contribution details. The Assessing Officer had therefore made a conscious assessment after enquiry. A perceived need for more extensive verification of client agreements, operational supervision, salary reimbursement and the employment relationship amounted to a difference regarding the adequacy and manner of enquiry, not a lack of enquiry. Section 80JJAA does not exclude employees merely because they are deployed by a staffing concern at client premises; operational supervision by a client and reimbursement of salary costs do not by themselves negate an employer-employee relationship or additional employee cost. No identified statutory breach, false material, or legally unsustainable assessment view was established.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee: the conditions for exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 were not satisfied.

Issues: (i) Whether the ad hoc disallowance of labour charges was sustainable; (ii) Whether the bad-debt claim was allowable; (iii) Whether the ad hoc disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses was sustainable; (iv) Whether unrefunded input tax credit could be allowed as business loss or expenditure under the Income-tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether the ad hoc disallowance of labour charges was sustainable.

Analysis: The disallowance was based on a comparison between the percentage increase in labour charges and the increase in staff salary. No specific bogus payment or inflation of expenditure was identified. The documentary evidence produced in support of the labour charges required verification.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for verification of evidence and fresh decision in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether the bad-debt claim was allowable.

Analysis: The nature and origin of the receivable, opening balance, adjustment against sale of obsolete stock, correspondence acknowledging dues, liquidation proceedings, and actual write-off required factual examination. These matters had not been fully examined.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after verification of the relevant facts and documents.

Issue (iii): Whether the ad hoc disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses was sustainable.

Analysis: The 50% disallowance of labour repair charges was made primarily by comparing the expenditure with the preceding year and with spare-parts expenditure. The ledger accounts, invoices, and supporting material relating to the claimed repairs had not been verified.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for verification of supporting evidence and fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Issue (iv): Whether unrefunded input tax credit could be allowed as business loss or expenditure under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: Rejection or non-refund of input tax credit under the GST mechanism does not by itself establish that the amount is non-deductible for income-tax purposes. The claim concerned business-related input tax credit that was allegedly irrecoverable, not GST collected from customers, and required examination of the real nature of the loss and its business connection.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the CIT(A) to verify the claim and determine its allowability in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The disputed claims require evidence-based reconsideration by the appellate authority, with their ultimate allowability remaining open for determination on verification.

Issues: Whether tax deducted at source and subsequently remitted to the Government Treasury can continue to be recovered as principal liability, and the period for which interest is chargeable on delayed remittance.

Analysis: Tax deposited into the Government Treasury cannot remain recoverable as principal liability after verification of the relevant challans and their correlation with the corresponding payments. However, remittance of the principal tax does not extinguish interest liability for the period of statutory default. Verification was required regarding the correctness of the tax amount, date of deduction, date of deposit, and correlation of the challans with the relevant transactions.

Conclusion: Upon verification of remittances, the corresponding principal liability must be deleted, while interest is chargeable only up to the actual date of deposit of the tax into the Government Treasury.

Issues: (i) Whether sustenance of 10% of cash deposits as an estimated addition was justified; (ii) Whether the estimated addition sustained on account of unreconciled cash deposits was taxable at the special rate under section 115BBE.

Issue (i): Whether sustenance of 10% of cash deposits as an estimated addition was justified.

Analysis: The cash deposits were in bank accounts disclosed in the audited financial statements, and the recorded business sales had been accepted. No material established that the deposits represented receipts from a source other than the disclosed business. However, complete item-wise reconciliation between each cash deposit and the corresponding recorded sales realisation was not furnished. This incomplete reconciliation justified a reasonable estimate of the portion not satisfactorily linked to disclosed business receipts.

Conclusion: The estimated addition of 10% of the cash deposits, amounting to Rs. 14,68,176, was sustained; the conclusion is against the assessee on the quantum addition and against the Revenue on restoration of the entire addition.

Issue (ii): Whether the estimated addition sustained on account of unreconciled cash deposits was taxable at the special rate under section 115BBE.

Analysis: Section 115BBE applies to income of the nature referred to in section 68. An estimated addition arising solely from incomplete reconciliation of deposits with accepted business sales does not, without an independent finding or material showing an undisclosed source, establish that the estimated amount is income contemplated by section 68.

Conclusion: The sustained addition of Rs. 14,68,176 is not liable to the special rate of tax under section 115BBE; this conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The unreconciled portion of the deposits remains assessable as an estimated addition, but is to be taxed otherwise than under the special-rate regime.

Ratio Decidendi: An estimated addition for unreconciled cash deposits connected with disclosed business receipts cannot be treated as section 68 income for special-rate taxation unless material or a finding establishes an independent unexplained source.

Issues: Whether the imported lead-bearing powder was classifiable as lead waste and scrap under tariff item 78020090 rather than as lead ores and concentrates under heading 2607.

Analysis: Classification had to rest on reliable scientific evidence of the goods' composition. The laboratory reports were materially conflicting; several reports supported lead concentrate, while reports relied upon by Revenue described the material as electrode paste but did not identify it as lead scrap. The test results principally showed lead oxide and lead sulphate, with only minuscule metallic lead. Under the tariff and HSN explanatory notes, lead oxides and sulphates fall within Chapter 28, whereas heading 7802 concerns lead waste and scrap under Section Note 8 of Section XV. Documentary descriptions, the importers' processing capacity, and technical literature could not displace the inconclusive scientific evidence. Revenue did not discharge the burden of establishing classification under heading 7802.

Conclusion: The goods could not be classified under tariff item 78020090; the declared classification under heading 2607 remained undisturbed, in favour of the assessee.