Issues: Whether adjoining flats acquired under separate sale deeds but used as a single functional dwelling qualify as one residential house for deduction, and whether two existing adjoining flats constitute ownership of more than one residential house under the proviso to Section 54F(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The expression "one residential house" in the beneficial deduction provision requires a practical and purposive assessment of the property's actual character and functional use. Separate sale deeds, flat numbers, tax-deduction entries, or separate database records are not conclusive where adjoining units are acquired and used as one composite residence. The factual findings that both the newly acquired flats and the existing flats were adjoining units used as single residential dwellings remained unrebutted; no evidence established their use as independent houses.

Conclusion: The new adjoining flats constituted one residential house, and the existing adjoining flats did not amount to ownership of more than one residential house. The deduction under Section 54F was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Bank could be held to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) and liable to interest under section 201(1A) for non-deduction of tax on LFC reimbursements involving foreign travel during the operation of an interim judicial direction.

Analysis: Reimbursement of LFC involving a foreign leg did not qualify for exemption under section 10(5) read with rule 2B. That substantive taxability, however, was distinct from the Bank's withholding obligation for payments made while an interim judicial direction was operative. The direction provided that LTC reimbursement would not be treated as income enabling tax deduction at source and placed the eventual tax consequence upon the employees. Compliance with that binding direction could not constitute a default under section 201(1), and a subsequent determination of the substantive exemption issue could not retrospectively alter that position. Periods after the relevant assessment years could not sustain a default in respect of the impugned earlier payments.

Conclusion: The Bank cannot be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1); the consequential interest under section 201(1A) and the related demands are deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether DC-to-DC converters were classifiable as static converters covered by Sl. No. 375 of Schedule III to Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, attracting IGST at 18%.

Analysis: DC-to-DC converters convert direct current from one voltage level to another and are a type of electric power converter falling within the classification of static converters under Customs Tariff Item 8504 40. The notification applicable on the date of import governed the assessment; the subsequent notification harmonising the IGST rate operated prospectively.

Conclusion: DC-to-DC converters are static converters covered by Sl. No. 375 of Schedule III to Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and attract IGST at 18%, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether salary received in India by a Vietnam tax resident for employment exercised in Vietnam was taxable in India despite its payment through an Indian payroll and deduction of tax at source.

Analysis: Article 4(1) of the India-Vietnam Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement established Vietnam tax residence, and Article 16(1), read with Section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, governed remuneration from employment exercised in Vietnam. The salary pertained wholly to services rendered in Vietnam and was taxed there. Under Sections 5(2), 9(1) and 15(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the place where employment services are rendered determines the accrual of salary income. Receipt in an Indian bank account, continuation of an Indian payroll, and tax deduction at source did not make the salary taxable in India.

Conclusion: The salary was not taxable in India, and deletion of the addition was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether brought-forward long-term capital loss can be set off against capital gain deemed to be short-term capital gain under Section 50 on transfer of a depreciable long-term capital asset.

Analysis: Section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 creates a deeming fiction for computation of capital gains arising from depreciable assets. The jurisdictional precedent confines that fiction to computation; after computation, the character of the underlying asset and the set-off provisions under Section 74 govern the treatment of the resulting gain. Since the transferred depreciable asset had been held for more than three years, the brought-forward long-term capital loss remained eligible for set-off against the gain computed under Section 50.

Conclusion: Brought-forward long-term capital loss may be set off against capital gain deemed to be short-term capital gain under Section 50 where the transferred depreciable asset is a long-term capital asset.

Ratio Decidendi: The deeming fiction under Section 50 is confined to computation of capital gains and does not alter the character of a long-term depreciable asset for set-off of brought-forward long-term capital loss under Section 74.

Issues: Whether the Transactional Net Margin Method was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the assessee's international transaction of export of goods to its associated enterprise.

Analysis: The Transactional Net Margin Method had been consistently accepted for the same transaction in the assessee's earlier assessment years. No change in facts or law warranting departure from that approach was shown. Earlier directions adopting that method had also resulted in a nil transfer-pricing adjustment.

Conclusion: The Transactional Net Margin Method is the most appropriate method; the transfer-pricing adjustment based on the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method cannot be sustained. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether depreciation was allowable on a vehicle purchased by the company but registered in the name of its director.

Analysis: The identical question had previously not been entertained where the company had paid for the vehicle although its registration stood in the director's name, and depreciation had been accepted in those circumstances.

Outcome: The appeal was admitted on the remaining substantial questions of law, while the question concerning depreciation on the vehicle was dismissed.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised against customs confiscation and penalty orders despite an available statutory appeal requiring pre-deposit.

Analysis: The available appellate remedy was not rendered inefficacious merely because filing the appeal required a statutory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty. The factual assertion that the seized article was personal jewellery had been addressed in the adjudication, which found that the article was a gold strip fashioned as a kada rather than jewellery. The precedent relied upon turned on its peculiar facts and did not require writ jurisdiction to be exercised whenever an appellate remedy exists. The period spent pursuing the writ petition may be sought to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The petitioner must pursue the available statutory appellate remedy; the pre-deposit requirement is not, by itself, a ground for writ intervention.

Issues: Whether proceedings against a person other than the searched person under Section 153C could be sustained where the satisfaction note was recorded more than four years after completion of the searched person's assessment.

Analysis: The requirement of recording a satisfaction note applies to Section 153C proceedings. Such satisfaction must be recorded at the initiation of proceedings against the searched person, during those proceedings, or immediately after their completion. The satisfaction note in this case was recorded more than four years after the searched person's assessment, which could not qualify as immediate recording. The stated reasons of the pandemic and faceless assessment scheme did not justify the delay.

Conclusion: The delayed satisfaction note invalidated the Section 153C proceedings; the impugned notice, consequential assessment order and demand notice were quashed and set aside.

Outcome: Matter restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 1540 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was liable to be condoned; (ii) Whether compensation received under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, qualified for full exemption under section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 1540 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The delay arose from incorrect professional advice, the employer's Form No. 16, and the assessee's lack of awareness of the applicable exemption. Comparable delays in materially identical cases of employees covered by the same scheme had been condoned. These circumstances constituted sufficient cause, and the limitation objection could not defeat substantive adjudication.

Conclusion: The delay was liable to be condoned, and the refusal to condone it was reversed.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation received under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, qualified for full exemption under section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The scheme formed part of a Union Cabinet-approved revival and restructuring plan, implemented through the Department of Telecommunications and funded by Central Government budgetary support. Its objects were workforce reduction, cost rationalisation, and sustainability of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. Despite its voluntary-retirement description, the separation had the substantive character of a government-directed retrenchment exercise. The ex gratia amount was consequently retrenchment compensation and was not governed by the monetary restriction in the first proviso to section 10(10B).

Conclusion: The entire compensation of Rs. 12,64,591 qualified for exemption under section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Final Conclusion: The limitation bar was removed and the claimed full statutory exemption was directed to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation paid under a nominally voluntary retirement scheme constitutes exempt retrenchment compensation where the scheme, in substance, is a government-directed workforce-reduction measure.

Issues: Whether Inter-Commissionerate Transfer of Executive Assistants to another Commissionerate was permissible where the applicable recruitment rules maintained separate cadres under each Cadre Controlling Authority.

Analysis: The applicable policy and the Recruitment Rules of Executive Assistant, 2015 did not provide for absorption through Inter-Commissionerate Transfer in the receiving Commissionerate. Each Cadre Controlling Authority maintained a separate cadre unless otherwise directed by the Board. The prohibition on such transfers was applicable to the petitioners, who held Executive Assistant posts, and no distinct rule permitting their transfer was established.

Conclusion: Inter-Commissionerate Transfer of the petitioners as Executive Assistants was impermissible; their treatment as deemed loan cases and repatriation to their parent zones were legally valid.

Issues: (i) Classification of Psyllium seeds (Isabgol) supplied in raw and unprocessed form. (ii) Whether Psyllium seeds stored in dry and ventilated godowns qualify as fresh seeds eligible for the nil-rate exemption.

Issue (i): Classification of Psyllium seeds (Isabgol) supplied in raw and unprocessed form.

Analysis: Sub-heading 1211 90 13 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 specifically identifies Psyllium seeds. The Chapter Notes and HSN Notes to heading 1211 include seeds of plants used primarily in pharmacy, including Plantago psyllium.

Conclusion: Psyllium seeds (Isabgol) are classifiable under sub-heading 1211 90 13 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Issue (ii): Whether Psyllium seeds stored in dry and ventilated godowns qualify as fresh seeds eligible for the nil-rate exemption.

Analysis: Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 exempts heading 1211 goods only when fresh or chilled, whereas Entry 71 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 applies to frozen or dried goods. The distinction turns on the condition of the goods when supplied by the trader, not merely when acquired from farmers. The stated storage in dry and ventilated godowns, coupled with absence of evidence of storage duration or immediate supply after harvest, was treated as drying. The analogy in Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST dated 06.10.2021 supports exclusion of goods dried in any manner from the fresh-produce exemption.

Conclusion: The seeds do not qualify as fresh or chilled and are not exempt under Entry 87; they are taxable at 5% under Entry 71 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Final Conclusion: The proposed supply is treated as a supply of dried Psyllium seeds under heading 1211 and falls outside the nil-rate entry for fresh or chilled seeds.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for the exemption applicable to fresh or chilled plant seeds must be determined by the condition of the goods at the time of supply; goods rendered dried through storage do not retain eligibility for that exemption.

Issues: (i) Whether transfer-pricing adjustment for software development services was sustainable where the assessee's margin fell within the interquartile range of comparable margins; (ii) Whether transfer-pricing adjustment for online advertisement support services was sustainable where the variation from the arm's length price was within the statutory tolerance range; (iii) Whether foreign-exchange gains or losses arising on realisation of ITES export invoices constituted operating income; (iv) Whether income from sale of scrips under the Services Export from India Scheme constituted operating income from ITES; (v) Whether Virinchi Limited was functionally comparable for the ITES segment; (vi) Whether the proposed inclusion of Silgate Solutions Limited and Cosmic Global Limited and exclusion of Vitae International Accounting Services Private Limited and Tech Mahindra Business Services Limited required fresh examination; and (vii) Whether the operating margins of specified ITES comparables required verification and correction.

Issue (i): Whether transfer-pricing adjustment for software development services was sustainable where the assessee's margin fell within the interquartile range of comparable margins.

Analysis: The accepted TNMM analysis showed the assessee's PLI at 10.84%, against the 35th to 65th percentile range of 5.70% to 21.62% for eleven comparable companies. Under Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 10CA(4) and Rule 10CA(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the assessee's result fell within the applicable interquartile range.

Conclusion: The software development services adjustment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether transfer-pricing adjustment for online advertisement support services was sustainable where the variation from the arm's length price was within the statutory tolerance range.

Analysis: As only five comparables remained, the arithmetic-mean mechanism and the tolerance under Rule 10CA(7) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 applied. The variation of Rs. 82,94,646 between the actual transaction value and the determined arm's length price was 2.32% of the actual transaction price, which was below the 3% tolerance recognised under Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 10CA(7).

Conclusion: The online advertisement support services adjustment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether foreign-exchange gains or losses arising on realisation of ITES export invoices constituted operating income.

Analysis: Foreign-exchange differences attributable to the interval between raising export invoices for ITES and their realisation may arise on revenue account and be integral to the ITES activity. Verification was required to establish the factual nexus. Corresponding adjustment of comparable-company margins was also necessary to preserve parity and avoid distortion.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the TPO for verification and fresh determination; no final finding was recorded.

Issue (iv): Whether income from sale of scrips under the Services Export from India Scheme constituted operating income from ITES.

Analysis: The income arose from an incentive scheme framed by the Government rather than directly from export of ITES. Its immediate source was the scheme, not the rendering of ITES, and it therefore lacked the requisite operational nexus. To maintain parity, comparable-company margins were also required to exclude such income where relevant.

Conclusion: Income from sale of Services Export from India Scheme scrips was held to be non-operating income, against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether Virinchi Limited was functionally comparable for the ITES segment.

Analysis: Although segmental information for ITES was available, the ITES segment contributed less than 3% of the company's total revenue. Its principal operations were IT products and concentric services, rendering the ITES activity insignificant for a reliable functional comparability analysis.

Conclusion: Virinchi Limited was rightly excluded as a comparable, against the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether the proposed inclusion of Silgate Solutions Limited and Cosmic Global Limited and exclusion of Vitae International Accounting Services Private Limited and Tech Mahindra Business Services Limited required fresh examination.

Analysis: There is no bar against seeking inclusion or exclusion of comparables before the DRP merely because a company was absent from, or included in, the original transfer-pricing study. However, the requested changes required examination under the final search filters and a detailed FAR analysis. The cryptic treatment of the objections did not provide a reasoned basis for accepting or rejecting the proposed comparables. The assessee bears the burden of substantiating the requested changes.

Conclusion: The comparable-selection issues were remitted to the TPO for a speaking order after granting opportunity of hearing; no final determination was recorded.

Issue (vii): Whether the operating margins of specified ITES comparables required verification and correction.

Analysis: The alleged errors in operating-margin computation for CES Limited, Microland Limited, I Services India Private Limited and Sundaram Business Services Limited required factual verification, notwithstanding the earlier direction to apply correct margins.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the TPO to verify and apply correct operating margins after providing opportunity of hearing; no final determination was recorded.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing additions for software development and online advertisement support services do not survive. The remaining ITES benchmarking matters require fresh action to the extent remitted, while the treatment of Services Export from India Scheme income as non-operating and the exclusion of Virinchi Limited remain undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tested party's margin falls within the statutorily prescribed range or tolerance under Rule 10CA, an arm's length price adjustment cannot be made.

Issues: Whether the six-month period for issuance of notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is reckoned from the date on which imported goods were detained or from the subsequent date of the formal seizure memo.

Analysis: Detention of imported goods, once they are under Customs control and cannot be cleared without permission, is synonymous with seizure. A formal seizure memo is only a subsequent procedural step. The six-month period under Section 110(2) therefore commenced on the date of detention. An extension under the proviso to Section 110(2) had to be made and communicated before expiry of that original period.

Conclusion: The extension granted after six months from the date of detention was without jurisdiction and invalid; the assessee was entitled to return of the seized goods under Section 110(2).

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging measures under the SARFAESI framework should be entertained despite the statutory alternative remedy.

Analysis: The statutory remedy before the competent forum is efficacious for challenges to bank-recovery measures. Exercise of writ jurisdiction in such financial recovery matters, particularly where disputed factual questions may arise, would bypass the legislative scheme creating the specialised remedial mechanism.

Conclusion: A direct writ challenge to SARFAESI proceedings is not maintainable where the petitioner has an efficacious statutory alternative remedy.

Issues: (i) Classification of services for upkeep and maintenance of burial grounds involving sweeping, cleaning and garbage collection; (ii) Eligibility of such services for exemption under Serial No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Issue (i): Classification of services for upkeep and maintenance of burial grounds involving sweeping, cleaning and garbage collection.

Analysis: The predominant contractual activity comprised daily sweeping and cleaning of burial-ground areas and collection of waste and garbage. Heading 999424 specifically covers general waste collection services, other than elsewhere specified, and was more appropriate than the residuary category for other services not elsewhere specified.

Conclusion: The services are classifiable under SAC 999424 as general waste collection services, other not elsewhere specified.

Issue (ii): Eligibility of such services for exemption under Serial No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: Entry 3A requires a composite supply of goods and services. The bins, cleaning tools, consumables and welfare items were required to enable performance of the cleaning work, were procured at the supplier's cost, and did not involve transfer of ownership or possession to the recipient. The contract therefore did not contain a supply of goods to the recipient and could not qualify as a composite supply of goods and services. Since the foundational condition was not met, examination of the remaining conditions was unnecessary.

Conclusion: The exemption under Serial No. 3A is unavailable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The contracted activity attracts classification as waste collection service, but does not receive the claimed GST exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: A service contract requiring the supplier to use consumables, equipment and personnel-safety items without supplying those goods to the recipient is not a composite supply of goods and services for an exemption contingent upon such composite supply.

Issues: (i) Classification of the upkeeping and maintenance services for housing units; (ii) Eligibility of the supply for exemption under Serial No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Issue (i): Classification of the upkeeping and maintenance services for housing units.

Analysis: The contracted activities comprise sweeping and cleaning common areas, collecting, segregating and storing residential garbage in specified bins. These activities are specifically covered by SAC 999423 under Heading 9994 for general waste collection services from residential locations, rather than the residuary category for services not elsewhere specified.

Conclusion: The services are classifiable under SAC 999423 as general waste collection services-residential. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Eligibility of the supply for exemption under Serial No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: The exemption requires a composite supply of goods and services. The bins, cleaning tools, consumables and welfare equipment were required for performance of the cleaning service at the supplier's cost, with no transfer of their ownership or possession to the recipient. The arrangement therefore involved no supply of goods to the recipient and did not satisfy the threshold requirement of a composite supply of goods and services. As that condition was not met, examination of the remaining exemption conditions was unnecessary.

Conclusion: The supply is not eligible for the Serial No. 3A exemption. This issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The contracted residential waste-management activity attracts the specified waste-collection classification, but remains taxable because the statutory exemption for qualifying composite supplies is unavailable.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods, consumables and equipment used by a supplier solely to perform a service, without their supply to the recipient, do not make the transaction a composite supply of goods and services for exemption purposes.

Issues: Whether the 570-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal restored for adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The explanation that the assessment order was not served and became known only upon recovery proceedings had not been adequately addressed. The record also disclosed a prima facie jurisdictional challenge to reassessment, since the notice under Section 148 was issued on 29.04.2022 although it was asserted to have been required by 31.03.2022; no satisfactory response to this contention was available at that stage. The contention that tax was computed on total turnover rather than taxable income further warranted an opportunity for merits adjudication. In view of the substantial delay, restoration was made conditional upon payment of costs.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned conditionally, and the appeal before the CIT(A) was restored for independent decision on all available grounds without rejection on limitation.

Issues: Whether uploading a show-cause notice and order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the Common Portal constitutes valid service under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 do not treat mere uploading of a show-cause notice or order-in-original on the Common Portal as sufficient service. The retrospective amendment invoked under Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, enabling functions under the Rules to be performed through the Common Portal, does not enlarge the portal's specified functions to substitute formal service of notices or orders. Rule 142 concerns electronic communication but does not validate portal-only service where the notice or order itself is not duly communicated. The precedent governing portal-only service therefore applied.

Conclusion: Mere portal upload, without acknowledgement or a reply demonstrating knowledge, is not valid service of a show-cause notice or order-in-original; the assessee is entitled to the consequential relief available under the governing precedent.