Issues: Whether renewal of registration under section 12AB can be rejected solely because a religious-charitable institution, created otherwise than under a formal instrument, cannot furnish a trust deed or memorandum of association.

Analysis: Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 distinguishes between applicants created under an instrument and those created otherwise than under an instrument. For the latter category, Rule 17A(2)(b) requires documents evidencing creation or establishment, while Rule 17A(2)(c) independently recognises registration with the Registrar of Public Trusts. Treating a formal trust deed or memorandum as mandatory in every case would render Rule 17A(2)(b) otiose. Registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 does not by itself establish entitlement to renewal; nevertheless, the available registration and establishment records must be examined along with material concerning objects, activities and statutory compliance for the satisfaction required under section 12AB.

Conclusion: Renewal of registration cannot be denied solely for non-production of a formal trust deed or memorandum where the institution was created otherwise than under an instrument; renewal under section 12AB is to be granted in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether delayed realization of receivables from associated enterprises constitutes a separate international transaction and whether working capital adjustment subsumes such delay; (ii) Whether a notional-interest transfer-pricing adjustment on delayed receivables is warranted where the assessee is debt-free and no interest cost or financing benefit is established.

Issue (i): Whether delayed realization of receivables from associated enterprises constitutes a separate international transaction and whether working capital adjustment subsumes such delay.

Analysis: The Explanation to Section 92B includes deferred payment, receivables, and debts arising in the course of business within an international transaction. Delayed realization of associated-enterprise receivables is therefore capable of separate benchmarking. Working capital adjustment is based on opening and closing receivable and payable balances, whereas delay in realization requires transaction-wise consideration. Consequently, invoice-level delays, including amounts realized within the same financial year after the agreed credit period, may not be fully captured by a working capital adjustment.

Conclusion: Delayed associated-enterprise receivables constitute a separate international transaction, and working capital adjustment does not automatically subsume all invoice-specific delays. Against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a notional-interest transfer-pricing adjustment on delayed receivables is warranted where the assessee is debt-free and no interest cost or financing benefit is established.

Analysis: The assessee was undisputedly debt-free, and no material established that it incurred interest costs or conferred a financing benefit upon its associated enterprises. Mere delay in receipt, without evidence of an impact on profitability or a financing arrangement, does not justify imputing notional interest under the arm's length principle.

Conclusion: No notional-interest adjustment on delayed receivables is warranted, and the addition is to be deleted. In favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although delayed receivables may be separately benchmarked as an international transaction, the notional-interest transfer-pricing addition cannot survive on the established facts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee is debt-free and the Revenue establishes neither interest cost nor a financing benefit to an associated enterprise, delayed realization of receivables alone does not warrant a notional-interest transfer-pricing adjustment.

Issues: Whether an appeal against denial of exemption under section 11 in an intimation under section 143(1) could be treated as infructuous because registration proceedings under section 12AB were pending.

Analysis: The jurisdiction to grant registration under section 12AB and the appellate jurisdiction concerning an intimation under section 143(1) are separate statutory jurisdictions. Pendency of registration proceedings may affect the eventual eligibility for exemption, but does not extinguish the statutory appeal against denial of that claim. Eligibility must be determined with reference to the registration status ultimately obtained and fulfilment of the applicable statutory conditions for the relevant assessment year.

Conclusion: The appeal against denial of exemption under section 11 could not be treated as infructuous merely because registration proceedings under section 12AB were pending; the exemption claim must be adjudicated in accordance with the ultimate registration status and applicable statutory conditions.

Issues: Whether the refund claims based on an alleged inverted duty structure required fresh examination of whether the outward supplies were manufactured cotton yarn or merely traded cotton yarn.

Analysis: The eligibility for refund depended on verification of the nature of the petitioner's activities and the supporting records, including whether cotton fibre, packing material and consumables were used to manufacture cotton yarn, or whether cotton yarn was traded simpliciter.

Outcome: The impugned orders were quashed and the refund claims were remitted for fresh determination.

Issues: Whether rejection of the refund claim under the inverted duty structure was sustainable and whether the claim required fresh determination.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from accumulation of input tax credit where cotton fibre, packing materials and consumables were used for manufacturing cotton yarn. The rejection was founded on Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST dated 30.03.2020, which had previously been quashed in relation to the same refund issue. The Department could not maintain a contrary position where refunds on comparable claims had been sanctioned. Fresh factual verification was nevertheless required to determine the nature of the inputs purchased, manufacture of cotton yarn, payment of output tax, and eligibility for refund under the inverted duty structure.

Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to a fresh determination of refund eligibility, and refund must be granted if the requisite factual basis for the inverted-duty claim is established.

Issues: Whether an assessee is entitled to cross-examine persons whose statements are relied upon to deny input tax credit.

Analysis: The assessing authority extensively relied on the statements of two individuals to conclude that the transactions and input tax credit claim were fictitious. Although cross-examination is not an absolute right in every case, where statements are treated as credible and form the direct basis for an adverse assessment, the requirements of natural justice and fair hearing require that the assessee be afforded an effective opportunity to rebut them through cross-examination.

Conclusion: Denial of cross-examination in circumstances where the statements were materially relied upon vitiated the assessment; the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the concerned individuals before fresh adjudication.

Issues: Whether the addition for unexplained investment in jointly acquired residential property was sustainable under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Additional evidence was admitted under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as it directly established the source and movement of funds. The agreement, developer receipts, bank statements of the three co-owners, TDS certificate and society share certificate showed that the property was jointly acquired and payments were made through identifiable banking channels from the co-owners' respective explained sources. Section 69 applies only where an investment is made by the assessee and its nature and source remain unsatisfactorily explained. The documentary trail neither established that the entire investment was made by the assessee alone nor supported the adopted figure of Rs.55,20,000.

Conclusion: The investment was not unexplained investment of the assessee under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the addition of Rs.55,20,000 was deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether a non-participant prospective bidder could annul a concluded liquidation e-auction, letter of intent and sale certificate based on later stipulations concerning dismantling, export facilitation and costs; (ii) Whether the costs imposed for bringing the challenge were disproportionate.

Issue (i): Whether a non-participant prospective bidder could annul a concluded liquidation e-auction, letter of intent and sale certificate based on later stipulations concerning dismantling, export facilitation and costs.

Analysis: In a liquidation sale under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Liquidation Regulations, the appellant had neither participated in nor shown an actual interest in the e-auction. Its assertion that it might have bid had the later conditions been disclosed was speculative. No substantive basis was established to unsettle the e-auction, letter of intent or sale certificate.

Conclusion: The challenge to the concluded e-auction, letter of intent and sale certificate failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the costs imposed for bringing the challenge were disproportionate.

Analysis: Although a deterrent cost was warranted because the appellant was a stranger to the liquidation process, the record did not show that its application had delayed that process. The cost imposed was therefore disproportionate.

Conclusion: The costs were reduced from Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 1 lakh.

Final Conclusion: A speculative challenge by a non-participant does not justify reopening a concluded liquidation sale, while costs imposed to deter such litigation must remain proportionate.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded liquidation auction cannot be reopened at the instance of a non-participant on a speculative assertion of potential participation without a substantive ground demonstrating grounds for interference.

Issues: Whether the amended pre-deposit requirement, effective from 1 October 2025, applies to an appeal arising from proceedings initiated and adjudicated before that date.

Outcome: Notice issued. Interim permission was granted to file the GSTAT appeal without pre-deposit, subject to the outcome of the petition.

Issues: (i) Whether an appellate confirmation of a MVAT assessment and recovery of tax dues can survive approval of a clean-slate resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) Whether the statutory pre-deposit paid for the MVAT appeal must be refunded after the underlying tax claims stand extinguished under the approved resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether an appellate confirmation of a MVAT assessment and recovery of tax dues can survive approval of a clean-slate resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 makes an approved resolution plan binding upon all stakeholders, including governmental authorities claiming statutory dues. Approval of the plan on a clean-slate basis extinguishes pre-approval claims not forming part of the plan, and pending proceedings for recovery of such claims cannot continue.

Conclusion: The appellate order confirming the MVAT assessment and directing recovery of the pre-resolution tax dues lacked jurisdiction and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory pre-deposit paid for the MVAT appeal must be refunded after the underlying tax claims stand extinguished under the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The pre-deposit paid under Section 26(6A)(c) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 formed part of the tax demands settled and extinguished through the approved resolution plan. Retention of that amount over and above the sum allocated to the tax department under the plan would be inconsistent with the clean-slate resolution.

Conclusion: The statutory pre-deposit was required to be refunded with applicable interest, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plan conclusively governs the pre-resolution statutory liabilities, preventing enforcement of extinguished state tax claims and requiring return of amounts retained outside the plan's settlement.

Ratio Decidendi: An approved clean-slate resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 extinguishes statutory dues not included in the plan and bars continuation or enforcement of proceedings for such pre-approval claims.

Issues: (i) Whether the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 applied to dam-construction services at Aland and Jambaga; (ii) Whether service tax could be demanded on the differential amount reflected in Form 26AS after rectification of the TDS return; (iii) Whether Small-Scale Industry exemption was available for the residual service-tax demands; (iv) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the service receipts had been disclosed in income-tax returns.

Issue (i): Whether the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 applied to dam-construction services at Aland and Jambaga.

Analysis: The subsequently produced work orders established that the services at Aland and Jambaga concerned construction of dams. Comparable dam and bridge works had already received the exemption notification benefit.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 applies to the Aland and Jambaga works, and the related demand does not survive.

Issue (ii): Whether service tax could be demanded on the differential amount reflected in Form 26AS after rectification of the TDS return.

Analysis: The revised Form 26AS corrected the reported receipt from Rs. 2,70,91,427 to Rs. 2,41,98,173, which matched the amount for which service details had been furnished. No differential taxable value remained.

Conclusion: No service-tax demand can be sustained on the alleged differential value of Rs. 28,93,254.

Issue (iii): Whether Small-Scale Industry exemption was available for the residual service-tax demands.

Analysis: The residual demand relating to Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Niyamit fell within the available Small-Scale Industry exemption. The same exemption was also available to reduce the liability relating to the educational institution premises.

Conclusion: Small-Scale Industry exemption is available for the residual demands; it extinguishes the demand for 2015-16 and reduces the otherwise payable amount for 2016-17.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the service receipts had been disclosed in income-tax returns.

Analysis: The demand was computed entirely from receipts disclosed in income-tax returns, which were public documents. Non-registration with the service-tax authorities, without material showing misstatement or a conscious intent to suppress facts, did not establish suppression of facts. The 2016-17 demand was beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the remaining demand for 2016-17 is time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax liabilities were eliminated through the applicable exemption notification, correction of the Form 26AS discrepancy, Small-Scale Industry exemption, and the bar of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Disclosure of service receipts in income-tax returns, absent proof of conscious misstatement or intent to suppress, cannot by itself support invocation of the extended limitation period merely because service-tax registration was not obtained.

Issues: Whether reassessment for the assessment year 2019-20 could be initiated under Sections 147, 148 and 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of a verification report under Section 131(1A) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 148A requires that the show-cause notice be founded on information suggesting escapement of income and that the order determining whether to issue a reassessment notice be made after actual consideration of the material on record and the assessee's reply. Information suggesting escapement cannot be a mere suspicion or a desire for verification; it must have a live link and rational nexus with the conclusion that income has escaped assessment. Although Section 131(1A) permits investigation, the verification report extended adverse inferences from a confined inquiry into specified funds to the entirety of expenditure without independent verification. The order neither addressed the audited accounts, bank records, utilisation details and vouchers furnished nor found any identified amount to be unaccounted for. Its sole basis that transactions required further in-depth scrutiny disclosed a roving or fishing inquiry, rather than the requisite application of mind and a speaking determination under Section 148A(3).

Conclusion: The jurisdictional threshold for reassessment was not met; the order under Section 148A(3) and the consequential notice under Section 148 were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether information reflected against the assessee's PAN despite disclosure and taxation in the demerged entity's hands constituted information suggesting escapement under Explanation 1 to Section 148; and (ii) Whether the extended limitation period under Section 149(1)(b) was available.

Issue (i): Whether information reflected against the assessee's PAN despite disclosure and taxation in the demerged entity's hands constituted information suggesting escapement under Explanation 1 to Section 148.

Analysis: Section 148 permits reassessment only on information suggesting Income Escaping Assessment, while Section 148A requires objective satisfaction and application of mind before issuance of a notice. Income disclosed and taxed by the entity to which the business stood transferred does not become escaped income merely because departmental data reflected the transactions against another PAN for transitional reasons. An order acknowledging such disclosure but seeking reassessment solely for further verification, without dealing with the supporting material or verifying the connected assessee's records, amounts to a roving or fishing inquiry.

Conclusion: The material did not constitute valid information suggesting income escaping assessment under Explanation 1 to Section 148. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period under Section 149(1)(b) was available.

Analysis: Section 149(1)(a) prescribes a three-year period, and the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) requires books, documents, or evidence revealing previously undisclosed income of at least the stipulated threshold. Material showing transactions already recorded and offered to tax does not reveal undisclosed income; it only calls for correlation of disclosed information. The notice was issued after expiry of the ordinary limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) was unavailable, and the reassessment notice was time-barred. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment action for the relevant assessment year lacked the statutory basis of information suggesting escapement and was also barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Information for reassessment must indicate actual escapement of undisclosed income; material showing only a technical attribution mismatch concerning income already disclosed and taxed cannot satisfy that threshold or invoke extended limitation.

Issues: Whether tax was required to be deducted at source on transferable development rights issued to a developer under a slum rehabilitation scheme and on transferable development rights issued as compensation for land acquired for public purposes.

Outcome: Rule was issued; the impugned orders, demand notice and consequential proceedings were stayed pending final hearing, and the petition was directed to be tagged with the connected petition.

Issues: Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition challenging an investigation directed under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction depends on whether material and integral facts constituting a part of the cause of action arise within the State. The Central Government's direction for investigation into the company's affairs under Sections 210 and 212 necessarily involved examination of the company's registered/head office at Ranchi, which constituted a repository and fulcrum of the investigation. Its location therefore gave rise to a part of the cause of action within the High Court's territorial limits.

Conclusion: The High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, and the preliminary objection to its maintainability is rejected.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit could be denied despite the departmental verification report and records establishing receipt and use of duty-paid inputs; and (ii) Whether incomplete supplier addresses on invoices justified denial of Cenvat credit.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit could be denied despite the departmental verification report and records establishing receipt and use of duty-paid inputs.

Analysis: The departmental verification report recorded party-wise receipt of goods and payment of duty under the relevant invoices. The appellant's purchase and clearance records further corroborated receipt and consumption of inputs. No contrary departmental evidence was produced. The evidentiary burden was discharged, demonstrating substantive compliance with the requirements for Cenvat credit.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; Cenvat credit could not be denied where receipt and use of duty-paid inputs stood established.

Issue (ii): Whether incomplete supplier addresses on invoices justified denial of Cenvat credit.

Analysis: Incomplete address particulars on invoices constituted a procedural lapse. Since duty payment, receipt of inputs, and their use in manufacture were established, the deficiency did not impair the assessee's substantive entitlement to credit under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; incomplete supplier addresses on otherwise accepted invoices did not justify denial of Cenvat credit.

Final Conclusion: The evidentiary record established eligibility for the disputed Cenvat credit, and the invoice defect did not defeat that entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied for procedural deficiencies in invoices where reliable verification and contemporaneous records establish actual receipt and use of duty-paid inputs.

Issues: Whether failure to issue the notice under Section 129(3) within seven days of detention and seizure of goods and conveyance vitiates the consequential penalty proceedings.

Analysis: Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes mandatory timelines governing detention, seizure and penalty proceedings. The prescribed period protects against arbitrary or prolonged exercise of coercive powers and requires strict compliance. The goods and conveyance were detained on 02.09.2024, whereas the notice was issued only on 11.09.2024 and uploaded thereafter, beyond the stipulated seven-day period.

Conclusion: The delay in issuing the notice breached the mandatory requirement of Section 129(3) and vitiated the detention-and-penalty proceedings; the appellate and proper-officer orders could not stand.

Issues: Whether the assessee remained eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) after excluding part of the land initially earmarked for the housing project and constructing a personal residential house thereon.

Analysis: Section 80-IB(10) grants deduction for qualifying housing projects subject to conditions, including the minimum plot-area requirement and the prescribed maximum built-up area for residential units. Although the project was initially proposed over 117.5 cents in two phases, the assessee later withdrew 46.93 cents from the project and used it for a 4000 sq. ft. personal residence. That construction could not form part of an affordable housing project because it exceeded the stipulated residential-unit area. The effective project area was consequently reduced to 70.57 cents, below the statutory minimum.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for either assessment year; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the discrepancy between Form 26AS receipts and ST-3 returns, including the asserted payment through the corrected challan and advances subsequently invoiced, required verification.

Analysis: The record indicated that the cited challan number was stated to contain a clerical error and that the correct challan was available. The differential receipts were also asserted to comprise customer advances on which service tax was discharged in the succeeding period. Verification of the challan, payments and supporting reconciliation was therefore required after affording an opportunity to produce documents and to be heard.

Outcome: The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verification and fresh adjudication.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 148A(1), 148A(3) and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid where the underlying dissemination reports and material connecting the assessee with the alleged escapement of income were not supplied at the notice stage.

Analysis: Section 148A(1) requires disclosure of sufficient material particulars and incriminating material that prima facie connect the assessee with the alleged fictitious or accommodation transactions, so as to afford an effective opportunity to respond. Screenshots containing transaction values and entity details, without the underlying dissemination reports relied upon, did not satisfy that requirement. The Assessing Officer also did not meaningfully address the assessee's documentary response or independently identify material establishing the assessee's role in the alleged transactions. Supply of the reports during the writ proceedings could not cure the foundational defect in the statutory notice.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Sections 148A(1), 148A(3) and 148 were invalid for want of disclosure of the relied-upon material and a meaningful statutory opportunity to respond.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice founded on alleged accommodation or fictitious transactions must disclose the material particulars and relied-upon incriminating material linking the assessee to those transactions; subsequent disclosure cannot cure the denial of an effective opportunity under Section 148A(1).