Issues: Whether a revenue appeal against an assessee undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process can be continued during the subsistence of the statutory moratorium.

Analysis: Admission into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process triggered the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which bars institution or continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor. By virtue of the overriding effect under Section 238 of that Code, the bar prevails over proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: During the subsistence of the moratorium, the revenue appeal against the corporate debtor is not maintainable and cannot be proceeded with.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with its overriding provision, bars continuation of proceedings against a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency resolution.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order determining GST liability can be sustained where it merely states that the response to the show-cause notice is unsatisfactory without dealing with the specific explanation.

Analysis: Section 73 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires a valid quasi-judicial adjudication. A bare assertion that the written explanation is unsatisfactory, without consideration of the issues raised in the response or reasons for rejecting it, does not constitute a reasoned determination.

Conclusion: An order passed without considering and addressing the taxpayer's response to the show-cause notice is unsustainable.

Issues: Whether a statutory amendment enacted after the Tribunal's original order, though given retrospective effect, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The relevant amendment was not part of the statute when the original order was passed. Rectification jurisdiction under section 254(2) is confined to an apparent error existing in the order as on the date of its pronouncement and does not confer a power to review or recall a concluded decision. A subsequent development in law, including a retrospective legislative amendment, cannot by itself convert the earlier order into a mistake apparent from the record.

Conclusion: A retrospective amendment enacted after the original order does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record for the purposes of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could stand where the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an ACIT lacking pecuniary jurisdiction and no transfer order under Section 127 existed.

Analysis: Under Sections 143(2), 143(3), and 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011, jurisdiction over the assessee, having returned income of less than the prescribed threshold, lay with the ITO. The notice under Section 143(2) was instead issued by the ACIT, who lacked the allocated pecuniary jurisdiction. No order transferring jurisdiction under Section 127 had been made before issuance of the notice. The subsequent assessment by the ITO could not cure the jurisdictional defect in initiation of scrutiny proceedings.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the notice under Section 143(2) was invalid and the consequential assessment lacked legal validity.

Issues: Whether deduction under section 80JJAA could be denied solely because Form 10DA was furnished after the return-filing due date but before processing under section 143(1).

Analysis: The prescribed audit report in Form 10DA had been obtained before the due date and was subsequently uploaded and e-verified before processing of the return. The requirement under Rule 19AB for furnishing the report was directory; its delayed electronic furnishing was a procedural lapse that did not prejudice the Revenue, particularly where the report was available during processing. Precedents recognising that a deduction under section 80JJAA cannot be refused solely for belated filing of the prescribed report were applied.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 80JJAA cannot be denied solely for belated furnishing of Form 10DA where the form was available before processing; the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the claimed deduction in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether unpaid GST and service-tax liabilities, collected from customers and paid after the return-filing date, were disallowable under section 43B notwithstanding that they were not routed through the profit and loss account; (ii) Whether the commission-expense variance required remand for reconciliation and verification; (iii) Whether cash visa-fee payments recorded through consolidated accounting entries warranted disallowance under section 40A(3); (iv) Whether interest on delayed remittance of TDS was deductible as business expenditure; (v) Whether the alleged difference between declared receipts and Form 26AS receipts required verification of reconciliation and additional evidence.

Issue (i): Whether unpaid GST and service-tax liabilities, collected from customers and paid after the return-filing date, were disallowable under section 43B notwithstanding that they were not routed through the profit and loss account.

Analysis: The amended section 145A, applicable to the relevant assessment year, covers goods or services and requires tax, duty, cess or fee incurred to be included for computing business income. The earlier position concerning service tax not routed through the profit and loss account was held inapplicable after the amendment. The indirect taxes had been collected from customers and were admittedly paid after the return-filing date.

Conclusion: The disallowance of unpaid GST and service tax under section 43B was confirmed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the commission-expense variance required remand for reconciliation and verification.

Analysis: The difference between commission expenditure recorded in the accounts and the amount on which tax was deducted required reconciliation, which had not been furnished before the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation and fresh decision in accordance with law, in favour of the assessee to that limited extent.

Issue (iii): Whether cash visa-fee payments recorded through consolidated accounting entries warranted disallowance under section 40A(3).

Analysis: The claim was that each visa-fee payment made to embassies on behalf of individual customers was below the prescribed threshold, although consolidated entries exceeded it. The vouchers and receipts required verification to determine the amount of each individual payment.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the individual payments and decide the applicability of section 40A(3), in favour of the assessee to that limited extent.

Issue (iv): Whether interest on delayed remittance of TDS was deductible as business expenditure.

Analysis: TDS forms part of tax, and interest for delayed payment of that tax was treated as penal in character rather than an allowable business outgo.

Conclusion: The disallowance of interest on delayed TDS payment was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the alleged difference between declared receipts and Form 26AS receipts required verification of reconciliation and additional evidence.

Analysis: The reconciliation chart and supporting material produced were material to resolving the receipts difference, but required verification with the books of account. The additional evidence was admitted for that purpose.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh decision in accordance with law, in favour of the assessee to that limited extent.

Final Conclusion: The additions relating to unpaid indirect-tax liabilities and delayed-TDS interest remain sustained, while the three fact-dependent additions require re-determination after verification.

Ratio Decidendi: For an assessment year governed by the amended section 145A, indirect taxes relating to services cannot avoid section 43B merely because they were not routed through the profit and loss account.

Issues: Whether compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 qualifies as retrenchment compensation exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rather than being governed by Section 10(10C).

Analysis: Applying the reasoning consistently adopted by coordinate benches on identical BSNL VRS-2019 payments, the compensation was treated in substance as arising from forced retirement under the BSNL revival scheme. The applicable legal framework distinguishes retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) from the limited voluntary-retirement exemption under Section 10(10C).

Conclusion: The BSNL VRS-2019 compensation is retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and is a capital receipt exempt from tax; Section 10(10C) does not govern the claim.

Issues: Whether the imported pins, bolts, diaphragms, valves, gaskets, seals, bushes, liners and allied items were classifiable as parts of GEHO slurry pumps under the headings declared by the importer, rather than under the residual material-based headings proposed by Revenue.

Analysis: Note 2 to Section XVI requires parts suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine to be classified with that machine, subject to specified exclusions. The evidence established that the imported goods were specially designed and manufactured for use only with GEHO slurry pumps, had no independent function, and could not be used in other machinery. The Revenue did not establish that the goods had dual use or constituted interchangeable parts of general use. Their principal and exclusive use as pump components governed their classification.

Conclusion: The importer's declared classification of the goods as parts of the relevant pumps and valves was upheld; the reclassification, differential-duty demand, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether applications seeking condonation of delay in claiming income-tax refunds could be rejected solely for exceeding the six-year period prescribed in Circular No. 9/2015.

Analysis: Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 confers power to admit delayed claims for refund and grant relief to avoid genuine hardship. The provision contains no specific limitation period and requires the statutory discretion to be exercised with due regard to the assessee's difficulties. Although departmental circulars bind income-tax authorities, the six-year restriction in the circular cannot override or curtail the discretionary power conferred by Section 119(2)(b), particularly in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Rejection of the condonation applications solely on the basis of the six-year restriction in Circular No. 9/2015 was unsustainable; the refund claims must be considered afresh on merits.

Issues: (i) Whether issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory before completing reassessment pursuant to a notice under Section 148; (ii) Whether the reassessment was invalid because the disallowance of business loss was beyond the recorded reasons for reopening.

Issue (i): Whether issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory before completing reassessment pursuant to a notice under Section 148.

Analysis: A return furnished in response to a reopening notice is treated as a return under Section 139. However, a notice under Section 143(2) arises only where the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient to verify understatement of income, excessive loss or underpayment of tax. The statutory period for completing reassessment expired before the outer period for issuing such notice could expire. The assessee had also participated in the reassessment proceedings, attracting the statutory deeming rule concerning service of notice.

Conclusion: Notice under Section 143(2) was not mandatory in the circumstances, and the reassessment was not invalid for want of that notice. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment was invalid because the disallowance of business loss was beyond the recorded reasons for reopening.

Analysis: The reopening was founded on non-disclosure of non-compete fee. During reassessment, the claimed business loss was examined against that income. The disallowance had a direct nexus with the subject of reopening, while the factual justification for the claimed write-off was left for determination on merits in the statutory appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The reassessment was not vitiated on the ground that the disallowance was unrelated to the recorded reasons. This issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional and procedural challenges to reopening and reassessment fail; examination of the claimed business loss remains available through the statutory appellate process.

Ratio Decidendi: In reassessment proceedings, a notice under Section 143(2) is required only where the Assessing Officer considers verification necessary or expedient, and an assessee who participates in the proceedings cannot ordinarily challenge the assessment on a notice-related jurisdictional objection under Section 292BB.

Issues: (i) Whether gains from sale of the three parcels of land were taxable as long-term capital gains or exempt as arising from agricultural land; (ii) Whether agricultural receipts not disclosed in the return were assessable as unexplained income; (iii) Whether profit on sale of shares was taxable as business income rather than long-term capital gain.

Issue (i): Whether gains from sale of the three parcels of land were taxable as long-term capital gains or exempt as arising from agricultural land.

Analysis: Agricultural use of the land was evidenced by the Talati certificate, Form No. 12 records, agricultural income disclosed in earlier years, and supporting agricultural bills for the relevant year. Permission for non-agricultural use was obtained by the purchaser after the transfer; permission under the tenancy law shortly before sale did not itself alter the agricultural character of the land. The Revenue did not controvert these factual findings.

Conclusion: The land retained its agricultural character on the date of transfer and was not a capital asset; the resulting gains were not taxable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether agricultural receipts not disclosed in the return were assessable as unexplained income.

Analysis: The agricultural receipts were supported by bills whose genuineness was not disputed, were recorded in the books, and were consistent with agricultural income reported in earlier years. Non-disclosure in the return alone did not establish that the receipts were unexplained.

Conclusion: The agricultural receipts could not be added as unexplained income. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether profit on sale of shares was taxable as business income rather than long-term capital gain.

Analysis: The factual material established that the controlling stake and management of the company rested with its holding company and its promoter group, not with the assessee. The basis for treating the share sale as disposal of a business venture was therefore absent.

Conclusion: Profit from sale of the shares remained taxable as long-term capital gain and could not be assessed as business income. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletions of all three additions were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Land demonstrably used for agriculture until transfer does not cease to be agricultural merely because permission connected with its prospective non-agricultural use is obtained, and income classification must rest on substantiated facts regarding the nature of the asset and the taxpayer's control over the underlying business.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: A further appeal was available under the statutory framework. The unavailability of the appellate tribunal was not treated as a basis for adjudicating the writ claims when the statutory remedy could be availed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, with exclusion of the intervening period for limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's segmental results for benchmarking software development services to its associated enterprise should be accepted without factual verification of the allocation methodology and supporting evidence; (ii) Whether notional interest adjustment on outstanding associated-enterprise receivables was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's segmental results for benchmarking software development services to its associated enterprise should be accepted without factual verification of the allocation methodology and supporting evidence.

Analysis: The segmental results had been rejected because the segmental financials were not audited and the allocation of costs between associated-enterprise and non-associated-enterprise transactions was not substantiated. The additional audited segmental accounts and supporting allocation records were material to verification of the arm's length price. The same segmentation methodology had also been accepted under the safe-harbour regime in subsequent years. A rejection without examination of the segmentation on merits was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the AO/TPO for factual verification of the additional evidence and recomputation, if required; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether notional interest adjustment on outstanding associated-enterprise receivables was warranted.

Analysis: The assessee did not charge interest on delayed receivables from non-associated enterprises. Further, the weighted average realisation period from the associated enterprise was 26 days, whereas the TPO had allowed a 30-day credit period. Selective imputation of interest on associated-enterprise receivables in these circumstances disregarded commercial realities.

Conclusion: No notional interest adjustment on associated-enterprise receivables was warranted, and the adjustment was directed to be deleted; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustment concerning software-development services requires fresh verification, while the adjustment for interest on receivables cannot survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Notional interest on associated-enterprise receivables cannot be selectively imputed where comparable non-associated-enterprise receivables bear no interest and the average realisation period is within the allowed credit period.

Issues: Whether penalty for misreporting of income could be sustained where a disclosed deduction claim under section 80GGC was disallowed.

Analysis: Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and the assessee's decision not to challenge the quantum disallowance does not establish concealment, false particulars, or misreporting. Misreporting under section 270A requires circumstances such as misrepresentation or suppression of facts, false entries, unsubstantiated expenditure, or failure to report receipts. The deduction was transparently claimed in the return, and no material established that the claim was knowingly founded on false evidence or deliberate misrepresentation.

Conclusion: The penalty for misreporting of income was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the notice for reassessment issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year satisfied the statutory conditions for extended limitation.

Analysis: For a notice issued beyond three years, the requirements of Section 148 and the additional requirements of Section 149(1)(b) must be cumulatively fulfilled. The material in the Assessing Officer's possession must reveal, rather than merely suggest, income escaping assessment of at least the prescribed amount and must identify such income as represented by an asset, expenditure, or entries in books of account. The recorded reasons did not identify the seized books or documents pertaining to the assessee, establish what information therein related to it, or record the requisite satisfaction and prior approval contemplated by Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148. The reasons also did not record satisfaction that the conditions under Section 149(1)(b) were met. Ledger entries in the books of alleged entry providers, without disclosure of their contents or verification of corresponding accounting and tax treatment in the assessee's books, could not by themselves reveal escapement of income.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was barred by limitation; the notice, reassessment proceedings, and consequential reassessment were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking investigation into alleged fraudulent transfer of shares, removal from directorship and breach of industrial-policy lease conditions was maintainable despite remedies under company law.

Analysis: The substance of the grievance concerned alleged fraudulent removal from directorship, transfer of shareholding, misuse of digital signatures, and internal management of a private company. Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides a specialised statutory mechanism through the National Company Law Tribunal for investigation into company affairs where fraud, misconduct or lack of material information is alleged. The asserted industrial-policy and lease-condition violations were dependent upon resolution of the underlying corporate dispute. The claims also involved disputed factual questions concerning consent, share transfer documentation and authenticity of records, requiring evidence and investigation unsuitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. In the absence of a distinct public law element, alleged inaction by official respondents did not transform the private corporate dispute into a writ matter.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable because an equally efficacious statutory remedy was available under the Companies Act, 2013; the petitioner was left free to pursue remedies before the competent company-law authorities.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST assessment and the consequential appellate order could stand where statutory notices and orders were made available only under the "Additional Notices/Orders" tab of the GST portal rather than the designated "Notices/Orders" tab.

Analysis: The GST portal manual and FAQs indicated that notices should be available under the "Notices/Orders" tab. The Revenue admitted that notices and orders issued by tax officers were displayed under the separate "Additional Notices/Orders" tab and that the portal issue was subsequently resolved. The petitioner's failure to participate in the adjudication was therefore attributable to a bona fide belief that no notice or assessment order had been issued.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment and appellate order were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee; the Revenue may initiate fresh adjudication by issuing a fresh notice within the prescribed period.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued on information received under the statutory scheme was without jurisdiction because an appeal concerning adjustments in return processing was pending, and whether the writ court should interfere at the notice stage.

Analysis: Proceedings arising from return processing and rectification are confined to adjustments made while processing the return, whereas reassessment was initiated on information received under the statutory scheme. The records did not establish that the issues or amounts in the two proceedings were identical. The information's adequacy or correctness, and objections regarding the reassessment, could be raised in the statutory reassessment and appellate process. Threshold writ interference is warranted only where the notice discloses patent want of jurisdiction, a legal bar, breach of natural justice, or mala fides; none was established.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and sanction were not shown to be without jurisdiction, and no ground for writ interference at the preliminary stage was made out.

Issues: (i) Whether the arm's length price of commission paid to associated enterprises for export-order procurement and market-support services could be determined at nil; (ii) Whether advances written off and bad debts written off were operating expenses for computing the assessee's margin under TNMM in relation to sales to associated enterprises; (iii) Whether the corporate-guarantee adjustment required verification of the assessee's claim that bank charges for standby letters of credit had been fully recovered from associated enterprises; (iv) Whether a separate transfer-pricing adjustment for notional interest on outstanding trade receivables from associated enterprises was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the arm's length price of commission paid to associated enterprises for export-order procurement and market-support services could be determined at nil.

Analysis: The documentary record established that the associated enterprises performed order procurement, marketing, customer coordination, supply facilitation and post-sale support functions, resulting in export sales. The commission was benchmarked with closely linked sales and purchase transactions under TNMM. Rule 10A(d) permits aggregation of closely linked transactions, and no material established that the aggregation or the arm's length outcome under TNMM was inappropriate. Transfer-pricing authorities cannot disallow the payment by questioning the commercial necessity of services once their receipt and arm's length character are established.

Conclusion: The commission payment was at arm's length; the adjustment determined at nil was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether advances written off and bad debts written off were operating expenses for computing the assessee's margin under TNMM in relation to sales to associated enterprises.

Analysis: The write-offs were exceptional and non-recurring items arising from pandemic-related business disruption and did not reflect ordinary operational performance. Although the DRP recognised their non-operating character, the TPO had included them in operating costs. Their exclusion increased the assessee's margin above the margin of the selected comparables; consequently, the sales transactions satisfied the arm's length standard under TNMM.

Conclusion: Advances written off and bad debts written off were non-operating items, and the adjustment on sales to associated enterprises was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the corporate-guarantee adjustment required verification of the assessee's claim that bank charges for standby letters of credit had been fully recovered from associated enterprises.

Analysis: The amount used by the TPO for applying guarantee commission was asserted to be reimbursement of bank charges rather than the value of the guarantees. The claim that the entire bank charges for the standby letters of credit were cross-charged to the beneficiary associated enterprises required verification from supporting documents and accounting records.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the AO/TPO for verification and recomputation of the consequential adjustment in accordance with law.

Issue (iv): Whether a separate transfer-pricing adjustment for notional interest on outstanding trade receivables from associated enterprises was warranted.

Analysis: The receivables arose from principal international transactions already accepted as arm's length under TNMM. The assessee consistently did not charge interest from either associated enterprises or non-associated customers, supporting a uniform commercial policy. In the relevant pandemic-affected period, the TPO's assumptions of a 30-day credit period, monthly distribution of receivables and interest rate lacked adequate support and did not appropriately reflect commercial realities. Closely linked receivables were appropriately considered with the principal transactions.

Conclusion: No separate adjustment for notional interest on outstanding trade receivables was warranted; the adjustment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The commission, sales and receivables adjustments do not survive, while the corporate-guarantee matter requires fresh factual verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where closely linked international transactions are validly benchmarked under TNMM and the tested party's margin is at arm's length, a constituent transaction cannot be separately adjusted without evidence displacing that benchmarking or demonstrating that its consideration is not at arm's length.