Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by notice issued in the name of a deceased assessee were valid; (ii) Whether alleged escaped capital gains from sale of land, with sale proceeds deposited in a bank account, fell within the expression "asset" for the extended reassessment period; (iii) Whether reassessment could be initiated solely on the basis of a valuation report obtained in the case of a co-owner without an independent valuation inquiry for the assessee's land.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by notice issued in the name of a deceased assessee were valid.

Analysis: The notice and the order were issued after the assessee's death, although the petitioner was her legal representative. Proceedings against a deceased person did not conform to the statutory framework governing assessment of a deceased person through the legal representative.

Conclusion: The notice and consequential order issued in the name of the deceased assessee were invalid and were quashed. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged escaped capital gains from sale of land, with sale proceeds deposited in a bank account, fell within the expression "asset" for the extended reassessment period.

Analysis: The inclusive definition of asset covers immovable property and bank deposits. Land sold by the assessee was a capital asset, and its sale proceeds, on deposit in the bank account, retained the statutory character of an asset. Understatement of capital gains directly concerned income represented in that form and allegedly escaping assessment above the prescribed threshold.

Conclusion: The alleged escaped capital gains were capable of falling within the expression "asset" for the extended reassessment period. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reassessment could be initiated solely on the basis of a valuation report obtained in the case of a co-owner without an independent valuation inquiry for the assessee's land.

Analysis: Reassessment was founded exclusively on the co-owner's valuation report, which relied on sale instances from another village. The assessee's registered valuer's report was disregarded without an independent valuation reference, inquiry into the fair market value of the assessee's land, or application of mind to tangible material demonstrating escapement of income.

Conclusion: Reassessment solely on the co-owner's valuation report, without an independent valuation inquiry and formation of belief by the Assessing Officer, was impermissible. The impugned notice and order were quashed. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Reassessment proceedings could not be sustained where initiated against a deceased assessee or where founded only on an unverified valuation report concerning a co-owner.

Ratio Decidendi: A valuation report concerning another person cannot by itself constitute a valid basis for reassessment unless the Assessing Officer independently investigates the assessee's property, applies mind to the material, and forms a belief of escapement of income.

Issues: Whether revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 could be invoked where the Assessing Officer had made enquiries into seized material and accepted the assessee's explanation.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that detailed notices under Section 142(1) were issued, the assessee was confronted with seized documents and statements, explanations were obtained, and the Assessing Officer consciously accepted those explanations. The revision was founded on the same material and reflected a different view regarding the adequacy of the enquiries. Revision under Section 263 is attracted where there is a lack of enquiry rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue; it cannot be invoked merely because the revisional authority prefers another view after an enquiry has been conducted and a plausible view has been adopted.

Conclusion: The assumption of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was unsustainable; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a final assessment order passed against a foreign company without first issuing a draft assessment order under the statutory dispute-resolution procedure is valid.

Analysis: A foreign company falls within the definition of an eligible assessee under Section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Where a prejudicial variation is proposed, Section 144C(1) mandatorily requires the Assessing Officer to first forward a draft assessment order, enabling the assessee to accept the variation or raise objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The final assessment is thereafter required to be completed in conformity with the prescribed procedure under Section 144C(13). Issuance of a final order without a preceding draft order is a breach of a mandatory statutory requirement and vitiates the assessment.

Conclusion: The final assessment order passed without issuing a draft assessment order was invalid; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a claimant receiving restored property could be required to have the surety furnish a solvency certificate.

Analysis: Rule 3A(2) requires the claimant to execute a bond undertaking production of the restored property before the Special Court when required, but does not require a surety to furnish a solvency certificate. Issuance of such certificates had also been discontinued by the State Government, rendering the condition incapable of compliance and unduly onerous.

Conclusion: The condition requiring the surety to produce a solvency certificate was set aside; the claimant and surety must execute the bond determined by the Special Court, and the claimant must furnish an undertaking to refund the amount if required.

Issues: Whether a subsequently recorded charge for State VAT dues could prevail over the prior security interest and the title of purchasers acquiring the mortgaged property through a secured creditor's auction under the SARFAESI regime.

Analysis: Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, effective from 01.09.2016, accords priority to debts due to secured creditors over all other debts, revenues, taxes, cesses and rates payable to governmental authorities. The subject property had been mortgaged to the Bank and was sold in its SARFAESI auction before certification of the VAT Department's charge. The secured creditor's charge and the consequential auction sale therefore had priority over the subsequent VAT charge.

Conclusion: The VAT charge could not prevail over the prior secured creditor's charge; the mutation entry recording that charge was liable to be removed. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) could be invoked for the service-tax demand.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended period requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax; mere non-payment of tax is insufficient. The show-cause notice, original order and appellate order did not record facts or findings establishing the required ingredients, including any deliberate intent to evade payment of service tax.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was unavailable and the confirmed demand was time-barred; the consequential interest and penalties were set aside, without affecting amounts already deposited towards tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: An extended limitation period for recovery of service tax cannot be invoked merely on account of non-payment; the Revenue must establish the statutory ingredients of deliberate suppression or other specified conduct with intent to evade tax.

Issues: Whether the manufacture of 10 kg tin containers by the independently registered job worker could be attributed to the assessee for levy of central excise duty.

Analysis: The job worker held central excise registration for manufacture and home clearance of containers and had paid excise duty. Its status as an independent manufacturer had thus been recognised for statutory purposes. In the absence of admissible evidence of financial flow-back, profit sharing, common funding, or other indicia establishing that the job worker was a dummy unit, its manufacturing activity could not be treated as that of the assessee. Where transactions with the job worker are on a principal-to-principal basis, the job worker's manufacturing cost cannot be added to the value of goods manufactured by the assessee.

Conclusion: Manufacture of the tin containers was not attributable to the assessee; the related excise-duty demands were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the ten-percent penalty pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 107(6) applied where the adjudication order imposed tax, interest and penalty, but the tax and interest had already been paid.

Analysis: The proviso applies only where an order demands penalty without involving any demand of tax. The adjudication order had confirmed liabilities towards tax, interest and penalty, while appropriating the tax and interest already paid. The subsequent recovery order being confined to penalty did not alter the character of the adjudication order as one involving a demand of tax.

Conclusion: The penalty pre-deposit proviso was inapplicable; rejection of the statutory appeal on that basis was invalid, and the appeal is to be adjudicated on merits.

Issues: Whether an assessment order passed pursuant to a show-cause notice contemplating an adverse decision is sustainable without affording the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The undisputed absence of such hearing, despite the show-cause notice contemplating an adverse order, constituted non-compliance with the statutory requirement. The taxpayer must be permitted to respond to the notice, and the proper officer must thereafter decide the matter after hearing the taxpayer and by a reasoned order.

Conclusion: The assessment order is unsustainable for breach of the mandatory opportunity-of-hearing requirement; the taxpayer is entitled to fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether an appeal may be filed manually where the rectification order is unavailable on the common portal.

Analysis: The amended appellate procedure permits manual filing of an appeal in FORM GST APL-01 with relevant documents where the order challenged is unavailable on the common portal.

Outcome: The petitioner was permitted to file the appeal within four weeks, without a limitation objection, for decision on merits.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order founded on an analytics report could stand when that relied-upon report was not furnished to the petitioner.

Analysis: The analytics report formed the basis of the classification dispute concerning basic customs duty. Extracting its parameters, entries and core findings in the show-cause notice did not provide an adequate opportunity to meet the case. The relied-upon report and documents were required to be disclosed to comply with the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: Non-supply of the analytics report vitiated the adjudication order; the matter requires fresh adjudication after disclosure of the relied-upon material.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201 for non-deduction of tax on payments to its US parent, despite binding findings that the parent had no permanent establishment in India and the payments were not chargeable to tax in India.

Analysis: The facts for the relevant assessment year were identical to those for prior years in which Section 201 orders against the petitioner had been set aside. The Tribunal's finding, subsequently upheld by the High Court, was that the petitioner was an independent entity and did not constitute a fixed place, service, or agency permanent establishment of the US parent under Article 5 of the India-US DTAA. The Assessing Officer could not disregard those binding decisions merely because the Department intended to challenge them. Section 195 applies only where the payment to a non-resident is chargeable to tax in India; an application under Section 195(2) is required only where the payer accepts that part of the remittance is taxable but requires determination of the taxable portion or tax deductible.

Conclusion: The payments were not subject to tax deduction at source, and the petitioner could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201.

Issues: Whether companies having turnover exceeding ten times that of the assessee may be retained as comparables for determining the arm's length price of software development services.

Analysis: The assessee's turnover was Rs. 33 crores, whereas the turnovers of the four disputed companies ranged from Rs. 2,471 crores to Rs. 1,60,341 crores. Applying the turnover filter, entities with extremely high turnover and brand value were regarded as unsuitable for a fair comparability analysis; companies within a range of up to ten times the assessee's turnover could ordinarily be considered comparable.

Conclusion: Tata Consultancy Services, LTIMindtree Ltd., Mindtree Ltd. and Tata Elxsi Ltd. shall be excluded from the comparable set, and the arm's length price shall be recomputed in accordance with law after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether profit embedded in unaccounted on-money receipts recorded in seized material should be estimated at 15% or at a lower rate.

Analysis: The unaccounted receipts and corresponding cash expenditure constituted an integrated stream of business transactions; therefore, while only the profit element in the receipts was assessable, the expenditure reflected in the same seized material could not be ignored. The 15% rate rested only on a general industry premise, without historical margins, comparable projects, or other tangible support. The fluctuating yearly position, aggregate excess of recorded expenditure over net receipts, the nature and location of the projects, and absence of comparable material rendered a uniform 15% margin excessive. The aggregate deficit was nevertheless not conclusive of absence of taxable income because receipts and expenditure across years and projects were not precisely correlated and the cash expenditure was not independently established.

Conclusion: Profit shall be estimated at 5% of the respective net on-money receipts after adjustment of booking cancellations, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether interest earned on EMI-based loan transactions routed through credit card accounts, including penal interest, is liable to service tax; (ii) Whether the demand of service tax is sustainable on the ground of limitation and whether penalties are imposable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Issue (i): Whether interest earned on EMI-based loan transactions routed through credit card accounts, including penal interest, is liable to service tax.

Analysis: The EMI facilities involved quantified advances repayable over stipulated tenures with interest; use of the credit-card account for disbursal, accounting or recovery did not alter their substantive character as bilateral loan transactions. Interest was consideration for the use of money, rather than consideration for an independent credit-card service. The statutory scheme excluded interest on loans from taxable value before 1 July 2012 and placed lending by way of loans or advances, where consideration is interest, in the negative list thereafter. Transactions in money were also excluded from service. Additional or penal interest on delayed EMIs was compensatory for continued retention of money and could not be re-characterised as consideration for tolerating an act.

Conclusion: Interest and additional or penal interest on the EMI loan facilities are not liable to service tax. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of service tax is sustainable on the ground of limitation and whether penalties are imposable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Analysis: The dispute was interpretational, and the transactions were recorded in financial and statutory records, subjected to departmental audits, and known to the Department through earlier proceedings. No evidence established fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax. Mere non-payment under self-assessment could not satisfy the requirements for invoking the extended limitation period or imposing penalty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation is not invocable and penalty is not imposable. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Interest arising from genuine EMI loans, including compensatory interest for delayed instalments, remains outside the service-tax levy, and the absence of wilful suppression also defeats the extended demand and associated penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest on a genuine loan or advance is consideration for the use of money and remains excluded from service tax, including where the loan is administered through a credit-card account or the interest is charged for delayed repayment.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail in alleged GST-evasion offences.

Analysis: The investigation had concluded; the petitioners had remained in custody for about four months; and the alleged offences carried a maximum sentence of five years and were triable by a Magistrate. The proposed evidence was documentary and the witnesses were official, making the likelihood of witness influence or evidence tampering negligible. As the trial had not commenced and was unlikely to conclude shortly, continued pre-trial detention was not warranted.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to regular bail, subject to appropriate safeguards.

Issues: Whether discretionary relief under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be refused where the assessee had offered and paid tax on the same interest income in two assessment years because of revision of Form 26AS by the deductor.

Analysis: Special circumstances for exercising discretion cannot be confined to a predetermined formula and must be assessed from the contextual facts. The same interest income was taxed in both assessment years after the deductor shifted its reporting through a revised Form 26AS. The assessee acted promptly by pursuing rectification and revision remedies from 2019; the eventual delay resulted substantially from the pending and rejected proceedings. Payment of tax twice on the same income constituted genuine hardship, and refusal of relief would result in unjust enrichment of the Revenue.

Conclusion: The rejection of condonation relief under Section 119(2)(b) was unsustainable; the assessee was entitled to submit a revised return for the relevant assessment year, subject to verification in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether reassessment could be initiated where the oil and gas exploration expenses and preliminary expenses had been examined during the original scrutiny assessment and accepted without additions.

Analysis: The reassessment reasons merely reflected a different view from that taken in the original scrutiny assessment. The assessee had replied to the relevant queries concerning all matters forming the basis of reassessment, and the Assessing Officer had accepted those replies without making additions. The absence of reproduction of the corresponding queries in the appellate order did not establish that the matters had not been examined. Reopening on the same material after such examination constituted a mere change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid as being founded on a mere change of opinion, in favour of the assessee.