Issues: (i) Whether interim stay of the suspension of the insolvency professional's registration should be granted pending the appeal; (ii) Whether suspension of registration affects the professional's eligibility to continue in other ongoing insolvency processes and permits intimation to their Committees of Creditors.

Issue (i): Whether interim stay of the suspension of the insolvency professional's registration should be granted pending the appeal.

Analysis: The challenges concerning Form-H disclosure, valuation, recourse under Section 19(2), compliance with the CIRP timeline, and the procedure under Sections 218 to 220 were held to be triable matters requiring examination of the complete record at final hearing. The completion and implementation of the CIRP did not alter the regulatory consequence of suspension, which operates upon the professional's registration. The possible replacement in other assignments was an ordinary consequence of suspension and did not establish irreparable injury. The Appellant failed to show a sufficiently strong prima facie case or that the balance of convenience favoured interim protection.

Conclusion: Interim protection against the suspension was declined, against the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether suspension of registration affects the professional's eligibility to continue in other ongoing insolvency processes and permits intimation to their Committees of Creditors.

Analysis: Registration is the statutory basis for rendering services as an insolvency professional; consequently, suspension affects eligibility to act in every insolvency process and is not confined to the assignment in which misconduct was found. Regulation 13(7) mandatorily requires communication of the suspension order to the Committees of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority. This communication operationalises the suspension and is distinct from the Committee of Creditors' separate power under Section 27 to appoint a replacement in exercise of its commercial wisdom.

Conclusion: The Board is entitled and required to intimate the suspension to the Committees of Creditors in other ongoing processes, and the suspended professional has no right to continue as resolution professional in those assignments, against the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The suspension and the statutory mechanism for communicating it to other ongoing insolvency processes remain operative pending an independent final determination of the main appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Suspension of an insolvency professional's registration operates upon the professional's statutory eligibility across all insolvency assignments, and mandatory intimation under Regulation 13(7) gives effect to that suspension without displacing the Committee of Creditors' separate authority to appoint a replacement.

Issues: Whether the GST Common Portal should disclose the date on which an assessment or adjudication order is uploaded, so as to safeguard limitation and appellate rights.

Analysis: GSTN's instructions stated that the portal permits an order passed on any date to be uploaded through DRC-07 either on the same date or subsequently. Delayed uploading may enable orders to be uploaded after expiry of limitation and may impair the taxpayer's right of appeal. Further instructions were therefore required regarding compliance with the directions governing disclosure of upload dates.

Outcome: Two weeks' time was granted for further instructions and the matter was listed for further hearing; no final adjudication was made.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns should be set aside where the taxpayer had not sought revocation within the prescribed period.

Analysis: Cancellation was initiated under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for admitted non-filing of returns required by Section 39. Although the statutory period for seeking revocation under Section 30 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had expired, the approach applicable to comparable cancellation cases warranted annulment of the cancellation while requiring compliance with outstanding return and payment obligations. The limitation periods under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) were directed to run from the judgment, with the specified treatment for financial year 2025-26 under Section 44.

Conclusion: The registration-cancellation order was quashed; the taxpayer must furnish all outstanding returns within 30 days and remains liable for tax, penalty, interest and late fees.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for continuous non-filing of returns should be set aside and the registration restored subject to compliance.

Analysis: The cancellation rested solely on non-filing of returns, without any allegation of a dubious process for tax evasion. Continued cancellation would prevent issuance of invoices and carrying on business, thereby impairing recovery of tax. Filing of pending returns was necessary for determination of the final tax liability.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration is set aside subject to filing returns for the entire default period and payment of the requisite tax, interest, fine and penalty within four weeks. Upon compliance, the jurisdictional officer must restore the registration.

Issues: (i) Whether interest on refinanced borrowings was deductible under Section 24(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the original borrowing funded construction of the let-out property; (ii) Whether a disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be made where no exempt income was earned; (iii) Whether interest attributable to borrowings used for investment could be capitalised.

Issue (i): Whether interest on refinanced borrowings was deductible under Section 24(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the original borrowing funded construction of the let-out property.

Analysis: Section 24(b) permits deduction of interest attributable to capital borrowed for construction or acquisition of house property. The record showed that an identified portion of the original borrowing had been used for construction and that the corresponding interest allocation had been accepted in earlier assessments. Refinancing of that borrowing retains its character where a direct nexus between the original construction borrowing and the subsequent refinancing is established. Consistency in tax assessments precluded a contrary treatment without any demonstrated change in the nature or use of the funds, though the original utilisation and loan nexus required verification from corroborative evidence.

Conclusion: Interest on refinancing is allowable under Section 24(b) to the extent it is directly linked to the verified original borrowing used for construction; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee subject to factual verification.

Issue (ii): Whether a disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be made where no exempt income was earned.

Analysis: A disallowance in absence of exempt income is not warranted. The application of Rule 8D cannot be sustained merely because investments are capable of generating exempt income when no exempt income was actually earned during the relevant year.

Conclusion: No disallowance under Section 14A is permissible in the absence of exempt income; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest attributable to borrowings used for investment could be capitalised.

Analysis: Capitalisation of interest expenditure attributable to investment depends upon verification of the actual use of the borrowed funds and the corresponding interest allocation.

Conclusion: Interest attributable to borrowings verified as used for investment shall be allowed to be capitalised; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee subject to factual verification.

Final Conclusion: The interest claim must be apportioned according to the proven utilisation of borrowed funds, while Section 14A cannot be invoked without exempt income.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest on a refinancing borrowing retains the character of interest on capital borrowed for construction under Section 24(b) where a direct and verified nexus with the original construction borrowing is established.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice for Assessment Year 2015-16 issued after 1 April 2021 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The applicable limitation framework for reassessment proceedings required notices concerning Assessment Year 2015-16 issued after the cut-off date of 1 April 2021 to be dropped. The first notice was issued on 30 June 2021 and the subsequent order under Section 148A(d) was made on 28 July 2022, both after the prescribed cut-off date.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was time-barred and invalid; the notice was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether imported polyester knitted fabrics covered by a valid Special Advance Authorization remained eligible for customs-duty exemption despite the Minimum Import Price restriction, and whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could consequently be sustained.

Analysis: Paragraph 4.04A of the Foreign Trade Policy permits duty-free import of fabrics under the Special Advance Authorization Scheme for manufacture and export of apparel. Notification No. 27/2023 grants the corresponding customs-duty exemption for imports against a valid authorization. The subsequent DGFT notification extending the Minimum Import Price condition expressly recognised imports by Special Advance Authorization holders, subject to the condition concerning sale of imported inputs in the Domestic Tariff Area. The existence of the Minimum Import Price condition did not, by itself, negate exemption for goods imported under a valid authorization.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the duty exemption. The finding of ineligibility, and the consequential confiscation, redemption fine and penalty, were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 to an assessee who had died before its issuance is valid.

Analysis: A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased assessee is invalid unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without objection. Mere intimation of the assessee's death or registration of the legal representative on the income-tax portal does not amount to submission to jurisdiction. Although the legal heir was subsequently recognised by the Revenue, no notice was issued to that person in the capacity of legal representative. Section 159 permits proceedings against a legal representative in accordance with law but does not validate a notice issued to a deceased person.

Conclusion: The notice issued to the deceased assessee was invalid and was quashed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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