Issues: Whether reassessment notice could be issued where its premise-that the assessee made a payment during the relevant assessment year-was factually incorrect.

Analysis: The completed scrutiny assessment was reopened on investigation information alleging that the assessee had deposited a specified amount with a concern. The assessee's objection that no payment had been made to that concern during the relevant year, and that the amount represented an opening ledger balance, was undisputed. The factual foundation for reopening was therefore erroneous, and no escapement of income arose from the alleged transaction.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was invalid and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment could be initiated and sustained where, even after the proposed disallowances, the educational trust had applied more than 85% of its income and remained entitled to exemption.

Analysis: The exemption framework permits an approved educational institution to accumulate up to 15% of its income, provided the balance is applied wholly and exclusively to its objects. The undisputed comparative computation showed that the trust's utilisation remained 86.92% even on the Revenue's computation after the proposed disallowances. Consequently, the disputed amounts could not result in taxable escaped income. The reassessment mechanism also permits proceedings to be dropped where inclusion of the alleged escaped income would not increase the assessee's rightful liability. The reassessment order did not address the material utilisation computation or the supporting evidence furnished by the trust.

Conclusion: The reassessment was impermissible because no income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment; the trust remained eligible for exemption notwithstanding the proposed disallowances.

Issues: Whether exemption under section 11 can be denied solely because the audit report in Form No. 10B was filed one day after the prescribed due date.

Analysis: The requirement to furnish Form No. 10B was treated as procedural and directory rather than mandatory. A delay in furnishing the audit report, by itself, does not defeat the exemption where the trust satisfies the substantive statutory conditions for exemption.

Conclusion: Exemption under section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form No. 10B was filed belatedly; the Assessing Officer must grant the claimed exemption upon fulfilment of the other substantive conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether the cash deposit was liable to addition as unexplained money; (ii) Whether the enhanced rate of tax under the amended provision governing unexplained income applied to a cash deposit made before 1 April 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the cash deposit was liable to addition as unexplained money.

Analysis: The assessee was required to furnish a satisfactory and credible explanation of the nature and source of the money. The claim of inherited accumulated savings from agricultural income and earlier remittance withdrawals was unsupported by a cash-flow statement, land or agricultural records, evidence of receipts, or material establishing that earlier withdrawals remained available on the date of deposit. The supporting affidavit, without independent corroboration, did not establish availability of the cash.

Conclusion: The addition as unexplained money was sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the enhanced rate of tax under the amended provision governing unexplained income applied to a cash deposit made before 1 April 2017.

Analysis: The cash deposit was made on 14 July 2016, before the effective date of the enhancement. The enhanced rate was treated as prospective and incapable of application to a transaction occurring before 1 April 2017.

Conclusion: The enhanced rate of tax was held inapplicable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The unexplained-money addition remains chargeable to tax, but the tax liability must be computed under the law applicable on the date of the deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: An explanation of the source of money must be supported by credible corroborative evidence, while an enhanced tax rate operates prospectively unless the governing amendment clearly provides otherwise.

Issues: Whether the addition under section 56(2)(x) based on the difference between the purchase consideration and the value determined by the District Valuation Officer was sustainable where the variation was within the 10% safe-harbour limit.

Analysis: The value determined by the District Valuation Officer replaces the stamp-duty value for applying the safe-harbour rule. The 10% tolerance introduced to alleviate hardship in genuine transactions is curative and beneficial and applies retrospectively. Since the difference between the actual consideration and the District Valuation Officer's valuation was 9.57%, it fell within the permissible tolerance limit.

Conclusion: The addition under section 56(2)(x) was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) In the facts of this case, having taken a position that they were not pressing the appeal on merits, can the appellants deal with the NCDs with the two companies? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is bound by the order passed by the QJA?

Issue (i): In the facts of this case, having taken a position that they were not pressing the appeal on merits, can the appellants deal with the NCDs with the two companies?

Analysis: The appellants had expressly accepted the impugned order and confined their request to additional time for repayment and reduction of interest. Consequently, the finding rendering the NCDs void attained finality. The appellant company was therefore required to repay the amounts from its own resources and could not subsequently transact in the void NCDs through third-party entities. Such conduct was inconsistent with the position accepted before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The appellants could not lawfully deal with the void NCDs through the two companies. The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal is bound by the order passed by the QJA?

Analysis: An order of a SEBI adjudicating authority or whole-time member does not operate as binding authority before the Tribunal. In any event, the other order relied upon was immaterial because the appellants had accepted the impugned order and thereafter acted contrary to that accepted position.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not bound by the QJA order relied upon by the appellants. The issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: Acceptance of an order that invalidates securities precludes a party from subsequently treating those securities as transferable or relying on a contrary course of conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that accepts a regulatory order rendering an instrument void cannot subsequently transact in that instrument or adopt a position inconsistent with the accepted order.

Issues: Whether a former director could maintain an appeal in an individual capacity against orders passed in company winding-up proceedings concerning creditors' and buyers' claims.

Analysis: The appellant's locus to challenge such orders had already been determined between the same parties on identical facts in an earlier order that attained finality. That determination precluded reconsideration of the appellant's entitlement to pursue the appeal. The record also disclosed repeated obstructive conduct affecting crystallised rights of bona fide buyers, warranting costs.

Conclusion: The former director lacked locus standi to maintain the appeal; the issue was decided against the appellant.

Issues: Whether the assessee-employer was liable to deduct tax at source on leave travel concession payments where employees' journeys involved a foreign leg.

Analysis: Leave travel concession exemption is confined to travel within India under Section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court decision applied by the Tribunal establishes that a journey involving a foreign leg is not travel within India, irrespective of the domestic starting and destination points or reimbursement being restricted to the shortest domestic route. The employer, having complete travel details while settling claims, was required to estimate taxable income and deduct tax under Section 192(1). The pending proceedings concerning the bank's internal circulars did not displace this binding determination, though the appellate directions concerning recovery were retained pending the final outcome of the related Supreme Court proceeding.

Conclusion: The assessee was liable for tax deduction at source on leave travel concession payments for journeys involving a foreign leg; the appellate order remains subject to the final outcome in the pending Supreme Court proceeding.

Issues: Whether addition for the difference between the purchase consideration and stamp-duty valuation of immovable property could be made where the purchase agreement and cheque payment preceded the coming into force of Section 56(2)(vii)(b).

Analysis: The agreement for purchase was executed on 16.05.2010 for the agreed consideration, and advance payment was made through cheque and supported by receipts and bank records. The provision invoked for taxing the difference in stamp-duty value was held not to operate retrospectively against an agreement entered before its introduction. The conditions concerning adoption of the stamp-duty value on the agreement date were also satisfied because part consideration had been paid through banking channels before the agreement date.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequently introduced charging provision cannot be applied retrospectively to an immovable-property purchase agreement executed before its commencement, particularly where consideration was paid through banking channels under that agreement.

Issues: (i) Whether the project office of an affiliated entity constituted a fixed place permanent establishment or dependent agent permanent establishment of the assessee in India; (ii) Whether receipts from offshore supply of equipment and offshore repair and refurbishment were taxable in India, including whether the offshore and onshore agreements were artificially split.

Issue (i): Whether the project office of an affiliated entity constituted a fixed place permanent establishment or dependent agent permanent establishment of the assessee in India.

Analysis: The Revenue bore the burden of establishing the conditions for a permanent establishment under Article 5. The service agreement relied upon was between the customer and the affiliated entity, was signed by its project director in that entity's capacity, and contained no authority from the assessee or reference showing that the project office was at the assessee's disposal. No evidence established that the office was used for the assessee's business, that it maintained the assessee's goods, or that it habitually exercised authority to conclude contracts or secure orders for the assessee. The facts were materially consistent with earlier years in which no permanent establishment was found.

Conclusion: The assessee had neither a fixed place permanent establishment nor a dependent agent permanent establishment in India. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether receipts from offshore supply of equipment and offshore repair and refurbishment were taxable in India, including whether the offshore and onshore agreements were artificially split.

Analysis: The bid documents and agreements showed separate onshore and offshore arrangements from the bid stage. Under the offshore agreements, supplies and repairs were performed outside India, and title to the equipment passed outside India upon export. The Revenue did not establish that the separation of contracts was artificial. As the offshore transactions were concluded outside India and the assessee had no Indian permanent establishment, the receipts lacked a taxable nexus with India under the treaty.

Conclusion: Receipts from the offshore supplies, repairs and refurbishment were not taxable in India, and no profit could be attributed to an alleged Indian permanent establishment. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessed addition relating to offshore receipts and attribution of profit to an alleged Indian presence cannot be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign enterprise cannot be treated as having a permanent establishment merely because an affiliated entity maintains an Indian office; the Revenue must prove that the treaty conditions for a fixed place or dependent agent permanent establishment are independently satisfied, and offshore receipts from transactions concluded outside India are not taxable absent an Indian taxable nexus.

Issues: Whether the difference between the stamp-duty value and purchase consideration of immovable property was taxable in the hands of the HUF under section 56(2)(vii)(b), and whether the first appellate authority relied on additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A.

Analysis: The sale deed and sale agreement had already been furnished during reassessment, and the first appellate authority merely evaluated that existing material; consequently, there was no prohibited admission of fresh additional evidence. The sale agreement, patta and encumbrance certificate established that the property was acquired by the Karta in his individual capacity. The Revenue produced no cogent material showing that the HUF funded the purchase or that the property was an HUF asset. The inadvertent mention of the HUF PAN in the sale deed, without more, could not establish HUF ownership.

Conclusion: Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not attracted in the hands of the HUF, and deletion of the addition was sustained. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the cash deposits during demonetisation were liable to be treated as unexplained investment; (ii) Whether the enhanced rate of tax under the amended provision for unexplained income applied to cash deposits made before the amendment's effective date.

Issue (i): Whether the cash deposits during demonetisation were liable to be treated as unexplained investment.

Analysis: The assessee's explanation that the deposits represented accumulated salary savings was supported only by self-prepared financial statements. There was no contemporaneous evidence of the asserted cash availability, and bank records did not show withdrawals commensurate with the claimed cash balance. The subsequent transfer of the deposited amount to a company connected with the assessee's husband, without supporting documentation, further failed the test of human probabilities. No evidence established that the husband's income had been transferred to the assessee.

Conclusion: The cash deposits were rightly treated as unexplained investment, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the enhanced rate of tax under the amended provision for unexplained income applied to cash deposits made before the amendment's effective date.

Analysis: The deposits were made in November 2016, before 1 April 2017. The enhanced rate introduced by the amendment was prospective and could not govern transactions occurring before its effective date.

Conclusion: The enhanced rate of tax under the amended provision was inapplicable to the impugned addition, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The addition remains sustainable, but tax must be computed under the law applicable on the date of the deposits.

Ratio Decidendi: An enhanced tax rate introduced prospectively cannot be applied to unexplained-income transactions completed before the amendment became effective.

Issues: Whether compensation paid by a co-producer and director to settle litigation arising from a film-production project was deductible as business expenditure despite having been claimed as bad debts in the return.

Analysis: The payment arose from the assessee's professional role as co-producer and director, obligations connected with timely completion of the project, and commercial litigation in which the assessee was personally impleaded. Consent terms and subsequent judicial directions for payment established that the liability had crystallised and was commercially connected with the professional activity. The deduction depended on the true substance of the expenditure, not its erroneous description as bad debt in the return. The absence of direct contractual privity under the later memorandum, the earlier denial of liability, lack of income from the recipient, and relationship with a partner of the production concern did not displace the professional nexus of the payment.

Conclusion: The compensation of Rs. 3 crore was allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the alleged erroneous inclusion of capital receipts while allowing only revenue expenditure in computing taxable income after denial of exemption constitutes a mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under section 154.

Analysis: Rectification is confined to an obvious, patent and self-evident error and cannot be used for a matter requiring verification, examination of facts, interpretation of law, or a process of reasoning on which more than one view is possible. Determining the nature and treatment of receipts, allowability of expenditure, and the proper computation of income after denial of exemption requires substantive adjudication. The same computation controversy was also pending in the quantum appeal and could not be reopened through rectification proceedings.

Conclusion: The alleged computational error is not a mistake apparent from the record and is not rectifiable under section 154; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction cannot be invoked to decide disputed questions concerning income computation that require factual verification, legal interpretation, or detailed reasoning.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued for Assessment Year 2015-16 after 1 April 2021 was barred by limitation and consequently deprived the Assessing Officer of jurisdiction to make the reassessment.

Analysis: The binding position applicable to Assessment Year 2015-16 required all reassessment notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 to be dropped, as they could not be completed within the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The notice under section 148 was issued on 31 March 2022. It was therefore time-barred, without authority of law and incapable of conferring jurisdiction for reassessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was invalid and the assessment founded upon it was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory bar on CESTAT appeals concerning payment of drawback extends to a claim for interest on delayed payment of sanctioned drawback under Section 75A of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether interest on delayed drawback accrues one month after the Let Export Order, or only after adjudicatory proceedings concerning drawback attain finality.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory bar on CESTAT appeals concerning payment of drawback extends to a claim for interest on delayed payment of sanctioned drawback under Section 75A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 129A(1) excludes CESTAT jurisdiction only for disputes relating to payment of drawback under Chapter X of the Customs Act, 1962 and the rules thereunder. A restrictive proviso to a statutory appellate right must be strictly construed and cannot be enlarged by implication. A claim for interest under Section 75A is founded on a separate statutory liability arising from delay in disbursement after drawback becomes payable; it is distinct from adjudication of entitlement to, or quantum of, drawback.

Conclusion: The CESTAT had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal concerning interest on delayed drawback; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on delayed drawback accrues one month after the Let Export Order, or only after adjudicatory proceedings concerning drawback attain finality.

Analysis: Rule 13 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 deems the shipping bill to be the drawback claim on the date of the order permitting export. Section 75A links interest to non-payment within one month from filing of the claim and does not defer accrual until completion of adjudication. Pending proceedings challenging the claim do not displace the statutory deeming of the claim date. Where the proceedings ultimately establish the exporter's entitlement, subsequent sanction gives effect to that entitlement rather than creating a fresh entitlement. Construing the provisions otherwise would permit indefinite postponement of compensatory interest through prolonged proceedings.

Conclusion: Interest under Section 75A accrued after expiry of one month from the Let Export Order dated 13.03.2003 until actual payment of the sanctioned drawback; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory appellate remedy remains available for a delayed-drawback interest claim, and the exporter receives interest calculated from the deemed date of filing under the drawback rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdictional exclusion concerning payment of drawback cannot be extended to a distinct statutory claim for interest on delayed disbursement, and statutory interest accrues from the deemed filing date fixed by the drawback rules unless the legislation expressly provides otherwise.

Issues: (i) Whether service of the injunction application with the plaint annexed, but without separate service of the plaint and its annexures, complied with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the plaintiff had and disclosed a cause of action concerning the alleged provident-fund deficit or defalcation; (iii) Whether the Provident Fund statutory regime barred the civil suit; (iv) Whether the suit was liable to fail for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties; (v) Whether the ex parte injunction was obtained by material suppression; and (vi) Whether the SFIO investigation could continue.

Analysis: The Court found substantial compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 because the application served upon the contesting defendants included the plaint, while the plaint annexures were separately included with corresponding pleadings in the application. The defendants were able to contest the matter fully and had not sought a complete set before advancing their objections. Delay in service did not warrant vacating the injunction where service was effected before the returnable date.

Analysis: The plaint prima facie disclosed a cause of action. The plaintiff, as the exempted establishment responsible for statutory provident-fund contributions, could be required to account for any deficit notwithstanding that the trust was separately constituted. The defendants had not produced cogent material concerning the trust accounts for the relevant later financial years to dislodge the prima facie allegation of defalcation. The exclusion of provident-fund dues from the resolution plan also did not preclude the plaintiff from pursuing the alleged deficit.

Analysis: The powers of the Provident Fund authorities under the statutory scheme did not oust the civil court's jurisdiction over the alleged defalcation. Nor did the absence of every trustee as a party justify, at the interim stage, treating the suit as barred, where specific allegations were pleaded against the impleaded trustees.

Analysis: There was no material suppression concerning the police complaint or FIR, as the complaint was lodged after verification and filing of the plaint and the FIR was registered after the initial injunction. In any event, parallel civil recovery proceedings and criminal investigation could continue because criminal proceedings would not by themselves secure recovery of the allegedly misappropriated funds.

Analysis: Given the pan-India operations, multiple regional provident-fund jurisdictions, and allegations involving statutory employee contributions reflected in the company's accounts, SFIO was considered an appropriate agency for investigation. The Court's power to direct such investigation was not curtailed by Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the alleged defalcation was sufficiently connected with the affairs of the exempted establishment.

Outcome: The applications seeking vacation of the ad interim order were dismissed; the interim protection and SFIO investigation were continued pending adjudication of the injunction application on affidavits.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on outward transportation services received before 01.04.2008 for delivery of final products to customers under FOR destination contracts.

Analysis: Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as applicable before 01.04.2008, covered services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and clearance of final products from the place of removal, and included activities relating to business. The pre-amendment definition was not to be construed restrictively as confined to the factory or depot. Under FOR destination contracts, the supplier remained responsible for delivery and retained ownership until the goods reached the buyer's premises. Admissibility of credit on outward transportation did not depend upon freight forming part of the transaction value for excise-duty purposes.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on goods transport agency service for outward transportation up to the buyers' premises was admissible to the assessee for the period before 01.04.2008.

Issues: Whether a consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice covering multiple financial years may be issued under Sections 73 or 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: There is no statutory bar against issuance of a consolidated show cause notice for different financial years under either Section 73 or Section 74. Whether the proceedings should factually fall under Section 73 or Section 74 depends on the existence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, requiring adjudication by the Proper Officer and, thereafter, the statutory appellate forums.

Conclusion: A consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years under Sections 73 or 74 is valid; the objection to such jurisdiction fails.

Issues: Whether the petitioner may seek payment of its admitted tax liability in instalments.

Analysis: The petitioner did not dispute the liability and sought time to pay it in instalments. The statutory power to permit instalment payment lies with the Commissioner of State Tax. As no application seeking such relief was placed before the competent authority, the petitioner was directed to make an application for consideration in accordance with law.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to apply to the competent authority for instalment payment.