Issues: (i) Whether cash allegedly returned by builders was taxable as unexplained money and whether alleged interest on builder-financing was taxable; (ii) Whether the difference between stamp-duty value and purchase consideration was chargeable under section 56(2)(x)(b); (iii) Whether set-off of brought-forward long-term capital loss against current-year long-term capital gain could be denied.

Issue (i): Whether cash allegedly returned by builders was taxable as unexplained money and whether alleged interest on builder-financing was taxable.

Analysis: Section 69A cannot apply to an amount which, on the Revenue's own premise, represents return of the assessee's disclosed funds earlier paid through banking channels, without evidence of a separate unexplained asset, investment or accretion. The material supporting the alleged interest did not establish a separately received cash return where the transactions, rental income and gains on subsequent sale supported the position that returns were embedded in capital appreciation.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: deletion of the section 69A addition is sustained, and the addition for alleged interest income is deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the difference between stamp-duty value and purchase consideration was chargeable under section 56(2)(x)(b).

Analysis: Section 56(2)(x)(b) applies where stamp-duty value of immovable property acquired for consideration exceeds that consideration beyond the statutory threshold; its applicability does not depend on the transaction being characterised as builder financing. Where the stamp-duty value is disputed, the valuation mechanism linked to section 50C requires consideration before determining the taxable differential.

Conclusion: In favour of the Revenue on the legal issue: section 56(2)(x)(b) is applicable in principle; the addition requires fresh determination after valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer.

Issue (iii): Whether set-off of brought-forward long-term capital loss against current-year long-term capital gain could be denied.

Analysis: The basis for denying the set-off-that the declared capital gains represented disguised interest income-does not survive after deletion of the interest addition. The availability, eligibility and utilisation of the brought-forward loss against the declared capital gains require verification from the assessment records.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee to the extent that the denial is set aside; the claim must be verified and allowed in accordance with law if eligible.

Final Conclusion: The alleged cash-return and interest additions fail, while the stamp-value differential and capital-loss set-off require redetermination through statutory valuation and verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Money alleged to have been returned out of a disclosed prior advance cannot be taxed as unexplained money without evidence of an independent unexplained accretion.

Issues: (i) Whether compensation received in May 2015 for compulsory acquisition of land under the National Highways Act was exempt from income tax under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; and (ii) Whether the interest component of compensation was taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether compensation received in May 2015 for compulsory acquisition of land under the National Highways Act was exempt from income tax under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Analysis: Section 96 exempts qualifying compensation awarded under the 2013 land-acquisition framework, and Circular No. 36/2016 clarifies that such exempt compensation is not taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The award was made before 31 December 2014, but compensation remained unpaid on that date and was received during the financial year 2015-16. The applicable authorities and coordinate decisions treated compensation so received as entitled to the statutory exemption.

Conclusion: The compensation was exempt from tax and the long-term capital-gains addition could not be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the interest component of compensation was taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The jurisdictional High Court decision governing taxability of the interest component was binding and required its assessment under the head Income from Other Sources.

Conclusion: The interest addition was rightly taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The statutory exemption applied to the compulsory-acquisition compensation, whereas the separate interest component retained its taxable character.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation for compulsory acquisition that remained unpaid until after 31 December 2014 and was received in the financial year 2015-16 qualifies for income-tax exemption under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by a notice under Section 148 in the name of a dissolved partnership firm were valid where its business had been taken over as a going concern by a successor company.

Analysis: Section 189(1) permits assessment of a dissolved firm where its business has been discontinued by treating the firm as continuing for that limited purpose. It does not apply to a going-concern succession in which the business survives through the successor company; such succession falls within Section 170. A jurisdictional reassessment notice issued to an entity that had ceased to exist is a substantive jurisdictional defect and cannot sustain the resulting assessment.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 issued to the non-existent firm was legally invalid, and the reassessment founded on it was void ab initio, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the impugned GST adjudication should be remitted for fresh consideration because relevant documents were not produced before the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The petitioner's inability to place relevant materials was treated as warranting fresh consideration after an adequate opportunity to submit its reply and documents.

Outcome: The impugned adjudication was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

Issues: Whether interim stay of recovery of the balance outstanding tax demand should be granted pending disposal of the related appeal and the request for Special Bench reference.

Analysis: The pending request for reference arising from conflicting coordinate-bench decisions and payment of 30% of the original demand were treated as relevant circumstances for interim protection.

Outcome: Recovery of the balance demand was stayed for six months.

Issues: Whether a transfer-pricing adjustment on purchases of raw materials routed through an associated enterprise was sustainable where the associated enterprise acted only as an intermediary and the assessee applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method.

Analysis: Rule 10B(1)(a) of the Income-tax Rules permits direct comparison with an uncontrolled transaction for applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method. The underlying Chinese supplier was an unrelated party; the identical materials were directly shipped to the assessee; the associated enterprise performed no value addition; and its invoice mark-up was reversed through credit notes, leaving the effective purchase price identical to the price paid by the associated enterprise to the supplier. The application of the Transactional Net Margin Method and retention of comparables were not justified on these facts. Further, inclusion of the omitted operating revenue pursuant to the DRP directions would itself eliminate any adjustment.

Conclusion: No arm's length price adjustment was warranted on the raw-material purchases routed through the associated enterprise, and the transfer-pricing adjustment was directed to be deleted.

Issues: Whether recovery of the outstanding tax demand should be stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: Interim protection was considered on the stated facts. No final adjudication was made on the transfer-pricing additions or the arm's-length-price contention.

Outcome: Stay of the balance demand was granted for six months upon payment of 20% of the demand by the stipulated date.

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of salary payments treated as bogus for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24 should be sustained in full; (ii) Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could survive where the notices did not specify whether the charge was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars; (iii) Whether a penalty under Section 271AAB(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could survive where the notice did not identify the applicable statutory limb.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of salary payments treated as bogus for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24 should be sustained in full.

Analysis: The additions arose from alleged bogus salary payments based on material indicating that amounts paid by cheque were returned in cash. In view of the factual circumstances and the assessee's stated desire to close the dispute, only a limited disallowance was considered sustainable.

Conclusion: The disallowances were restricted to 10% of the respective additions, namely Rs. 36,000 for assessment year 2022-23 and Rs. 30,000 for assessment year 2023-24, in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could survive where the notices did not specify whether the charge was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Analysis: Section 271(1)(c) contemplates distinct charges of concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. A valid penalty notice must clearly communicate the precise charge by excluding the inapplicable limb. The notices retained both charges without specifying the applicable one, rendering the initiation of penalty proceedings defective.

Conclusion: The initiation of penalty proceedings was invalid and the penalty of Rs. 48,005 was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a penalty under Section 271AAB(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could survive where the notice did not identify the applicable statutory limb.

Analysis: Section 271AAB(1A) provides distinct clauses with different rates of penalty and separate conditions for their application. The show-cause notices did not specify whether penalty was proposed under clause (a) or clause (b), despite the material difference between those statutory limbs.

Conclusion: The penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB(1A) were invalid and the penalty was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The alleged bogus-expense disallowances survive only to the extent of 10%, while both penalties fail because the initiating notices did not state the specific statutory charge.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty proceeding is invalid where the statutory notice fails to clearly identify the precise charge or applicable penalty limb, thereby denying the assessee definite notice of the case to be met.

Issues: Whether the assessment order confirming tax and interest liabilities required fresh consideration in view of the asserted inadequate response regarding reverse-charge liability and the disputed input tax credit.

Analysis: The order noted that the liabilities concerning blocked credit and reverse-charge tax had been paid, while interest remained payable, and that the turnover-difference demand had been dropped. A further opportunity for adjudication was considered appropriate. No final determination was made on the tax, interest, or input tax credit liabilities.

Outcome: The impugned assessment order was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh order on merits, conditional upon payment of the admitted interest liability and verification of the stipulated pre-deposit.

Issues: Whether rejection of an application seeking waiver under Section 128A solely for non-filing of Form GST DRC-03A, despite prior payment through Form GST DRC-03, was sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 164(2) requires payment of the tax demanded to be credited against the debit entry created by the order, and its second proviso requires Form GST DRC-03A where payment was made through Form GST DRC-03. Non-filing of Form GST DRC-03A was procedural where the amount already debited had not been utilised towards any other tax liability. Verification was required as to whether the equivalent amount remained available in the electronic credit ledger until the impugned order; upon such verification, post facto filing of Form GST DRC-03A could be permitted.

Conclusion: The rejection was set aside for fresh determination after verification of the availability of the tax amount and after permitting the petitioner to respond to the notice in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the maximum penalty for delayed filing of quarterly TDS statements was justified despite deposit of the deducted tax and absence of revenue loss.

Analysis: Delayed filing of the quarterly TDS statements attracted Section 271H(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, Section 271H(2) provides a discretionary range between the statutory minimum and maximum penalty; the maximum cannot be imposed mechanically. The deducted tax had been deposited in the Government treasury, the deductees' credits were regularised upon filing of the statements, and the delay arose in the circumstances of a Government educational institution without causing loss to the revenue. These circumstances rendered the maximum penalty disproportionate.

Conclusion: The maximum penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 for each quarter was unsustainable and was reduced to the statutory minimum of Rs. 10,000 for each quarter, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for misdeclaration and offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 warranted interference in criminal revision; (ii) Whether the sentence required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for misdeclaration and offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 warranted interference in criminal revision.

Analysis: Although the container was certified at the factory as containing granite cobble stones, Customs interception disclosed red sander logs. The untraceable transport vehicle, fictitious intermediaries identified for the export transaction, and absence of a complaint regarding the alleged theft of the declared goods supported the concurrent factual findings. Those findings were not perverse and therefore did not warrant revisional interference.

Conclusion: The convictions for the offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 are affirmed; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence required modification.

Analysis: Section 132 permits imprisonment, fine, or both. As the prohibited goods were not shown to be goods covered by Section 123, the applicable punishment for the Section 135 offences was under Section 135(1)(ii), carrying a maximum imprisonment of three years. The period already spent in custody and the substantial lapse of time since the occurrence justified modification of the custodial sentence.

Conclusion: Imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone, while fines totalling Rs. 3,50,000 are imposed with the stipulated default imprisonment; the issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The conviction remains operative, with the custodial punishment substituted by the period already undergone and the monetary sanction recalibrated.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings in criminal revision are not disturbed unless shown to be perverse.

Issues: (i) Whether rehabilitation-policy and agreement-based benefits could be enforced against the corporate debtor or its successor after approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) Whether the rejection of rehabilitation benefits on the ground that the petitioner was not a displaced person under the Madhya Pradesh Ki Adarsh Punarvas Niti, 2002 warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether rehabilitation-policy and agreement-based benefits could be enforced against the corporate debtor or its successor after approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 binds all stakeholders, including government authorities, to an approved resolution plan. Claims not forming part of that plan stand extinguished upon its approval. Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent policies, agreements and prior arrangements. The claimed rehabilitation liability was not included in the approved resolution plan.

Conclusion: The rehabilitation-policy and agreement-based claim is not enforceable against the corporate debtor or its successor.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of rehabilitation benefits on the ground that the petitioner was not a displaced person under the Madhya Pradesh Ki Adarsh Punarvas Niti, 2002 warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Under Clause 2.1(a) of Madhya Pradesh Ki Adarsh Punarvas Niti, 2002, eligibility depended on the claimant qualifying as a displaced person. The administrative finding, reached after inquiry, inspection, consideration of witness material and a hearing, was that the petitioner had not resided in the acquired area for the required period and was residing with his family elsewhere. Article 226 review does not permit appellate reappreciation of such material absent an apparent or jurisdictional error.

Conclusion: The rejection of rehabilitation benefits disclosed no apparent or jurisdictional error warranting writ interference.

Final Conclusion: The approved insolvency resolution plan extinguished the unprovided corporate liability, and the administrative determination of ineligibility under the rehabilitation policy remains legally undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim not incorporated in an approved resolution plan is extinguished under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a fact-based administrative determination is not open to reappreciation in writ jurisdiction absent jurisdictional or apparent error.

Issues: Whether the impugned service-tax demand required fresh adjudication because another order appeared to confirm an identical demand for the same period.

Analysis: Two show-cause notices issued on the same date resulted in separate demand orders for the same tax period. The related order was already under statutory appeal, requiring verification of whether both demands concerned the same liability.

Outcome: The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to file a reply and to be heard.

Issues: Whether a declarant who made payment under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme within time and sought withdrawal of the pending appeal during the Scheme's currency could be denied a discharge certificate because proof of withdrawal was furnished after closure of the Scheme.

Analysis: Section 127(7) and Section 127(8), read with Rule 9, require payment of the determined amount and withdrawal of the pending appeal, with production of proof of withdrawal for issuance of Form SVLDRS-4. Payment and withdrawal are substantive conditions, whereas intimation or production of proof to the designated committee is procedural. The Scheme prescribed a timeline for payment but none for withdrawal. The payment was timely made and the withdrawal request was filed while the Scheme remained operative; delayed listing and withdrawal resulted from the COVID-19 disruption and lay within the Court's domain. The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit prevents prejudice from an act or delay of the Court. Satisfaction of essential conditions cannot be defeated by procedural or electronic-processing formalities.

Conclusion: Denial of Form SVLDRS-4 was invalid. The designated committee must manually process the request and issue the discharge certificate; the subsequent adjudication reviving the settled demand was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether a District Magistrate may require a secured creditor to deposit or bear police-assistance expenses for taking possession of a secured asset under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Analysis: Section 14 requires the Magistrate to assist a secured creditor in taking possession of secured assets and permits such steps and force as may be necessary to secure compliance. Police assistance, where necessary, forms part of that statutory mechanism. The provision contains no express authority permitting recovery of police-assistance expenses from the secured creditor or imposing such payment as a condition for implementation.

Conclusion: A condition requiring the secured creditor to deposit police-assistance charges under Section 14 is unauthorised and invalid; the condition was set aside and necessary police assistance was directed.

Issues: Whether the impugned assessment disclosed a procedural irregularity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The impugned assessment was found free from procedural irregularity. Although the period for statutory appeal had expired, liberty to invoke the appellate remedy was granted upon verification of the stated recovery of the requisite disputed tax amount, with a direction for disposal on merits without reference to limitation.

Conclusion: No procedural irregularity in the assessment was established, and writ interference was declined.

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the order confirming the GST demand where liability for blocked input tax credit and reverse-charge tax had been admitted, and where alleged unreported turnover was identified through comparison with Form 26AS.

Analysis: Tax liability on the first two discrepancies had been admitted and paid, leaving interest and penalty payable. The remaining discrepancy concerned turnover allegedly omitted from GST returns despite its reflection in Form 26AS. No detailed merits adjudication of that discrepancy was undertaken in the writ proceedings, for which the statutory appellate remedy remained available.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy for the turnover discrepancy.

Issues: (i) Whether an oral agreement between companies is legally barred under the Companies Act, 2013; (ii) Whether the pleaded authority of a company representative can be rejected for want of an authority letter at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

Issue (i): Whether an oral agreement between companies is legally barred under the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: Section 46 of the Companies Act, 1956, which had been relied upon to require written execution, stood repealed and was not preserved by the savings provision. The Companies Act, 2013 contains no corresponding prohibition. Section 21 regulates authorization for signing written documents and does not impose a mandatory writing requirement for every corporate agreement. General contract law recognizes concluded reciprocal promises without requiring every agreement for sale to be written.

Conclusion: An oral agreement between companies is not barred by the Companies Act, 2013 and may be governed by general contract law.

Issue (ii): Whether the pleaded authority of a company representative can be rejected for want of an authority letter at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

Analysis: The plaint specifically pleaded that the representative had been authorized to execute the agreement for the company. The correctness and validity of that pleaded authority require evidentiary determination and cannot be decided at the plaint-rejection stage.

Conclusion: Absence of an authority letter cannot defeat a specific pleading of authorization under Order VII Rule 11; the issue must be determined on evidence.

Final Conclusion: The objections based on an alleged mandatory writing requirement and lack of documentary proof of authority did not warrant rejection of the plaint, with the authority question remaining for evidentiary adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory bar or mandatory writing requirement, repeal of an earlier corporate-execution provision leaves oral agreements between companies governed by general contract law.

Issues: Whether the impugned assessment required fresh adjudication in light of the asserted overlap with an earlier assessment concerning three demand heads.

Analysis: The petitioner had asserted that substantially identical demands relating to blocked input tax credit, commission income and reverse-charge freight had already been confirmed by the jurisdictional officer, and that the tax liability had been discharged. Fresh adjudication was directed after deposit of the interest and penalty imposed in the earlier assessment, with notice to the petitioner.

Outcome: The impugned assessment was quashed and remitted for fresh determination on merits upon compliance with the stipulated deposit.