Issues: Whether the assessment order could stand where the assessee was allowed only three days to respond to the show-cause notice and its subsequent grievance seeking a hearing was not considered.

Analysis: The show-cause notice, issued on a Sunday, allowed only three days for a response. The assessee thereafter submitted its reply and grievance requesting a video-conference hearing, but the assessment order was passed without considering them. Such limited time did not constitute a reasonable opportunity, and the grievance concerning inadequate time required consideration before completing the assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment order was vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice; the assessee was entitled to a fresh assessment after an adequate opportunity of hearing, including personal hearing where permissible in law.

Issues: Whether the complaint and process for prosecution for wilful attempt to evade payment of tax under Section 276C(2) were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 276C(2) requires a deliberate, intentional and conscious attempt to evade tax, penalty or interest; mere delay or failure to pay, without mens rea, does not satisfy the penal provision. The assessee had declared its income, repeatedly sought time owing to business closure, made periodic payments with interest, and discharged the entire liability before the complaint proceedings materially progressed. The complaint did not identify any specific wilful act or circumstance demonstrating an attempt to evade payment. The order issuing process also failed to account for these material facts and reflected no proper scrutiny of whether the offence was prima facie made out.

Conclusion: The essential ingredients of a wilful attempt to evade tax were not disclosed; the criminal complaint and the process issued against the petitioners were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether foreign tax credit can be denied solely because Form 67 was furnished after the prescribed due date.

Analysis: The return was filed within time, and Form 67 had been uploaded before the rectification application was considered. The delay in furnishing Form 67 was treated as a procedural, technical and venial lapse. The applicable legal position is that delayed furnishing of Form 67 does not, by itself, justify denial of an otherwise admissible foreign tax credit.

Conclusion: The delay in filing Form 67 was condoned, and the assessee was entitled to verification and grant of admissible foreign tax credit in accordance with law.

Outcome: Revenue appeal dismissed under the Government litigation policy on account of the monetary threshold.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit is admissible on steel, cement, welding electrodes and gases used in fabricating structural works and support structures connected with cement and power plants for the period before 07.07.2009.

Analysis: The materials were used for fabrication of foundations, platforms, supports, conveyor structures, galleries, pipelines, chimneys and related structures required for installation and functioning of capital goods. Their eventual embedding in earth did not negate their use, directly or indirectly, in relation to manufacture. The exclusion introduced with effect from 07.07.2009 was not clarificatory or retrospective; therefore, it could not govern credit taken before that date.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the specified materials used for the stated structural and support works before 07.07.2009 is admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: Delay condoned; Special Leave Petition dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

Issues: Whether delay in releasing the refund determined under Form No. 4 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 warranted further directions concerning payment and systemic refund processing.

Analysis: The stated non-availability of the processing module and engagement in time-barring proceedings did not adequately explain the prolonged non-credit of the refund. Although the Scheme excludes statutory interest under Section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that exclusion does not justify administrative delay. The matter was considered significant in view of recurring refund-delay cases and the need for a functional mechanism following issuance of Form No. 4.

Outcome: Further time was granted and the matter was listed for 06.08.2026; a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the CBDT for verification and appropriate systemic action.

Issues: Whether the addition for purchases from an unverified supplier should be estimated at 12.5 per cent or at a lower profit rate.

Analysis: The corresponding sales, stock records and quantitative movement were accepted, and payments were made through banking channels. However, the supplier could not be verified or produced, its GST registration stood cancelled, and the assessee could not conclusively establish procurement from the named supplier. Therefore, only the profit or saving embedded in purchases from an unverified source was taxable. The rate of such profit depends on the nature of trade, disclosed margins, evidence and facts of the relevant year; an estimate adopted in an earlier year does not mechanically govern a subsequent year without identical material facts. In the low-margin ferrous and non-ferrous metals trade, the disclosed net-profit margin and comparable decisions supported estimation at 2 per cent.

Conclusion: The addition was restricted to 2 per cent of the disputed purchases, and the balance addition was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether delayed furnishing of the audit report in Form 10B disentitled a registered charitable trust from exemption for application of income where the report was available before processing of the return.

Analysis: The trust's charitable status and registration were undisputed, and the audit report had been furnished before processing under section 143(1). The requirement was satisfied where the report was available to the assessing authority while processing the return. The rule concerning a declaration for opting out of an exemption under section 10B was distinguishable, since that declaration directly affected the return and assessment at the outset; the governing principle was that an audit report furnished before completion of assessment sufficiently supports a deduction or exemption claim.

Conclusion: Delayed filing of Form 10B did not bar the trust's claim for exemption of its application of income; the relief granted was sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases was taxable or only the profit element embedded therein; (ii) Whether the difference between contract income reflected in Form 26AS and turnover recorded in the accounts warranted an addition.

Issue (i): Whether the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases was taxable or only the profit element embedded therein.

Analysis: The declared turnover was not disturbed and could not have been generated without corresponding purchases. In the absence of proof that no actual purchases were made or that the recorded sales lacked nexus with materials procured, taxation of the entire alleged purchase amount was unwarranted. Estimation of the profit embedded in such transactions at 12.5% was found justified.

Conclusion: Only 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases was liable to be added, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the difference between contract income reflected in Form 26AS and turnover recorded in the accounts warranted an addition.

Analysis: The difference represented advance payments received for contractual work, recorded as a liability and offered to tax in the subsequent assessment year. The related carry-forward of tax deducted at source and subsequent income recognition supported this treatment.

Conclusion: The turnover difference did not constitute taxable income for the relevant year, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions contested by the Revenue were not restored, and the relief based on profit estimation and deferred recognition of contractual advances remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recorded sales are accepted and actual procurement is not disproved, an addition for alleged bogus purchases is confined to the profit element embedded in those purchases; contractual advances taxable in a later year do not create taxable turnover in the year of receipt.

Issues: Whether belated furnishing of Form No. 10, where it was available before processing of the return, disentitles a charitable trust from claiming exemption for accumulated income under Section 11(2).

Analysis: The requirement to furnish Form No. 10 is mandatory, but compliance is sufficient where the prescribed information is available to the Assessing Officer before completion of assessment. Since Form No. 10 was on record when the return was processed, delay beyond the due date under Section 139(1) could not, by itself, justify denial of the exemption. The claim nevertheless required verification on its merits, including the relevant factual conditions for accumulation.

Conclusion: Belated filing of Form No. 10 alone does not bar the claim under Section 11(2) where the form was available before assessment; the claim must be reconsidered on merits.

Issues: Whether the estimated addition for profit allegedly arising from suppressed sales could survive after the GST appellate authority found no evidence of clandestine removal or unrecorded sales.

Analysis: The addition was founded exclusively on information from the GST authorities concerning alleged suppressed sales. The GST appellate order, after verification of seized material against regular books, found no evidence of interstate movement, clandestine removal, unaccounted raw materials, actual removal, sales, sale proceeds, transportation, or other corroborative material. No independent material beyond the GST information supported the income-tax addition.

Conclusion: The estimated addition for alleged undisclosed profit was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) could be denied merely because Form 10B was not furnished with the return, although it was available with the Assessing Officer before processing under section 143(1).

Analysis: Furnishing the audit report in Form 10B is mandatory, but the timing and mode of filing are procedural. Since the report had been uploaded and was available on the record before processing of the return, it ought to have been considered while determining the exemption claim.

Conclusion: The delayed filing of Form 10B did not justify denial of exemption where the report was available before processing; the Assessing Officer was directed to consider it while rectifying the assessment.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessments initiated under Section 153C on the basis of material seized during search were valid; (ii) Whether sales routed through the searched entities were bogus and the appropriate basis for estimating the resulting addition.

Issue (i): Whether the assessments initiated under Section 153C on the basis of material seized during search were valid.

Analysis: The seized material was found to pertain to the assessee and to relate to alleged bogus sales entries obtained through the searched entities. The assessment and appellate findings consistently connected that material with the assessee's transactions, supporting recourse to the search-related assessment jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The initiation of proceedings and assessments under Section 153C was valid, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether sales routed through the searched entities were bogus and the appropriate basis for estimating the resulting addition.

Analysis: Search evidence and subsequent enquiries established that the searched entities functioned as accommodation-entry providers; consequently, the sales sourced through them were rightly treated as bogus in principle. However, the reduced commission rate of 3% lacked support from segmental comparables. Since the sales were treated as bogus only once, estimation at that rate was excessive. A lump-sum gross-profit estimation at 1% or the gross profit disclosed in the books, whichever was higher, was considered appropriate on the facts.

Conclusion: The treatment of the impugned sales as bogus was sustained, but the addition was restricted to gross profit at 1% or the declared book gross-profit rate, whichever was higher, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The search-related assessments remain legally sustainable, while the taxable profit attributable to the impugned bogus sales is confined to the specified gross-profit estimation.

Issues: Whether registration under Section 12AB could be refused solely because the trust deed had not been registered with the Sub-Registrar.

Analysis: Non-registration of a trust deed does not, by itself, justify refusal of registration. The rejection was based on an incorrect premise and required reconsideration of the legal requirements relating to the trust's immovable property and any registration requirement before the Charity Commissioner. The assessee must be given an adequate opportunity to rectify any defects before a fresh decision.

Conclusion: The rejection of the registration application solely on account of non-registration of the trust deed was set aside in favour of the assessee, with the matter restored for fresh adjudication.

Issues: Whether deduction for a political contribution under Section 80GGC was allowable where the recipient political party had failed to file statutory contribution reports and the donation was found to form part of a bogus-donation arrangement.

Analysis: The recipient party had not filed contribution reports from FY 2013-14 and consequently did not fulfil the conditions associated with exemption under Section 13A. Applying the coordinate-bench decision concerning donations to the same party in the same year, the material regarding its sham donation mechanism established that the claimed contribution was not genuine. Banking-mode payment alone did not establish entitlement to the deduction.

Conclusion: The deduction under Section 80GGC for the contribution was not allowable; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether transfer-pricing adjustments for intra-group services and purchase of fixed assets were sustainable; (ii) Whether the assessee could raise an additional claim for treaty-based relief in respect of dividend distribution tax without filing a revised return.

Issue (i): Whether transfer-pricing adjustments for intra-group services and purchase of fixed assets were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee had benchmarked closely linked international transactions by an aggregated Transactional Net Margin Method approach, which had been accepted for the other transactions. The earlier co-ordinate decision on identical facts found that selective segregation of intra-group services was unsustainable, that documentary evidence established receipt of services and tangible benefits, and that an arm's length price could not be determined at nil under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method without a comparable uncontrolled transaction. The preceding decision also covered the fixed-assets adjustment.

Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustments concerning intra-group services and purchase of fixed assets were deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could raise an additional claim for treaty-based relief in respect of dividend distribution tax without filing a revised return.

Analysis: A revised return is not mandatory for entertaining a new claim in first or second appellate proceedings. The appellate authorities retain jurisdiction to admit an additional ground necessary for determining the correct tax liability. The substantive treaty question concerning dividend distribution tax was subject to pending consideration by the Supreme Court and was therefore not finally determined.

Conclusion: The additional treaty-relief claim was admitted in favour of the assessee and was directed to be adjudicated afresh after the final determination of the pending legal issue.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained deletion of the transfer-pricing additions, while its claim for treaty-based dividend distribution tax relief remains for fresh adjudication in accordance with the final ruling on that legal question.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an aggregated transfer-pricing methodology for closely linked transactions is accepted, a particular transaction cannot be selectively assigned a nil arm's length price under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method without reliable comparable data; an additional claim may be raised before appellate authorities without a revised return to determine correct tax liability.

Issues: (i) Whether the same receipt can be assessed substantively and protectively in the hands of the same assessee; (ii) Whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India so as to tax the receipts as business income; (iii) Whether the receipts for services rendered under the post-1 January 2020 agreement qualify as fees for technical services under Article 13(4) of the India-UK DTAA.

Issue (i): Whether the same receipt can be assessed substantively and protectively in the hands of the same assessee.

Analysis: Protective assessment is confined to cases of uncertainty regarding the person in whose hands an income is taxable. Characterising an identical receipt alternatively as business income and fees for technical services does not justify substantive and protective assessments against the same taxpayer.

Conclusion: The same receipt cannot be assessed both substantively and protectively in the hands of the assessee. The Revenue must adopt one method of assessment.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India so as to tax the receipts as business income.

Analysis: The directions treating a permanent establishment as existing rested on facts and agreements pertaining to earlier years, whereas the governing agreement had changed with effect from 1 January 2020. The services were rendered remotely from outside India and no employee of the assessee visited India under the new arrangement. No adequate current-year factual examination supported a permanent establishment.

Conclusion: The assessee had no permanent establishment in India; the receipts cannot be taxed as business income under Section 44DA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the receipts for services rendered under the post-1 January 2020 agreement qualify as fees for technical services under Article 13(4) of the India-UK DTAA.

Analysis: Fees for technical services under the treaty require that technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, process, or a technical plan or design be made available so that the recipient can independently use it in future. The authorities had not adequately examined the current service agreement, the corresponding project agreement, the complete scope of services, or whether BECI was enabled to perform the services independently on a continuing basis. The tax treatment of the receipts in the United Kingdom also required factual verification.

Conclusion: The question whether the receipts are taxable as fees for technical services is remanded to the Assessing Officer/DRP for fresh examination after affording opportunity to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The substantive assessment as business income is unsustainable, and the alternative treaty characterisation requires a fresh fact-based determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Protective and substantive assessments cannot be imposed on the same receipt in the hands of the same taxpayer; treaty taxation of technical-service receipts depends upon a factual finding that the recipient is enabled to independently use the technical knowledge or skills provided.

Issues: (i) Whether receipts from Indian legal engagements attributable to partners resident outside the United Kingdom could be taxed as fees for technical services; (ii) Whether credit of claimed advance tax and tax deducted at source was to be granted.

Issue (i): Whether receipts from Indian legal engagements attributable to partners resident outside the United Kingdom could be taxed as fees for technical services.

Analysis: A United Kingdom partnership is tax transparent, and treaty eligibility for its income depends upon the residence and taxability of each partner. Legal and other professional services are statutorily distinct from managerial, technical or consultancy services constituting fees for technical services. The India-United Kingdom treaty also excludes professional services of lawyers and similar professionals from fees for technical services. Taxability of the profit shares of non-United Kingdom resident partners must therefore be examined under the applicable treaty with their respective countries of residence.

Conclusion: Receipts for legal services attributable to non-United Kingdom resident partners cannot be assessed as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii); the addition was deleted and the partners' treaty taxability was restored for examination by the Assessing Officer. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether credit of claimed advance tax and tax deducted at source was to be granted.

Analysis: The claimed advance-tax and tax-deducted-at-source credits require verification against the records.

Conclusion: The credit claims were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowance in accordance with law. This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment cannot sustain taxation of the legal-service receipts as fees for technical services, and the tax-credit claims require fresh verification and consequential allowance.

Ratio Decidendi: In a tax-transparent partnership, income attributable to partners is subject to treaty analysis by reference to each partner's residence, and legal professional services do not constitute fees for technical services.