Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to upload a rectified GSTR-1 statement for the relevant tax periods and obtain consequential processing of input tax credit.

Analysis: The writ court had already directed permission to rectify the GSTR-1 statement, relying on earlier decisions that recognised correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in GST returns. The appeal was found to have no merit, and the same issue had been consistently decided against the Department in earlier coordinate bench rulings. Software limitations were not treated as a valid ground to deny rectification.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to upload the rectified GSTR-1 statement, and the Department was to take consequential action regarding input tax credit. The appeal failed.

Issues: Whether the addition towards unexplained investment could be sustained on the basis of the assessee's statement recorded during search under section 132(4), and whether the alleged retraction and absence of independent corroboration disentitled the Revenue from relying upon that admission.

Analysis: The assessee had made a clear and unequivocal admission in the statement recorded during search that Rs. 1.5 crores represented additional income in his individual capacity for the relevant assessment year. The filing of the return of income was held not to amount to a retraction. The subsequent explanation before the Assessing Officer was treated as a belated retraction, made about a year and a half later, without the promptness and supporting material required to displace an admission made during search. The statement under section 132(4) was held to carry evidentiary value, and the Tribunal's finding that the admission stood supported by the existence of the convention hall and the absence of material showing investment by others was accepted.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 1.5 crores as unexplained investment was upheld and the challenge by the assessee failed.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging non-compliance with a prior direction to decide the pending income-tax appeal could be entertained and whether a time-bound direction for disposal was warranted.

Analysis: A prior order had directed the appellate authority to pass a speaking order in the assessee's appeal for assessment year 2015-16, but the appeal remained pending for an extended period. The Court found prima facie that such continued inaction amounted to non-compliance of a binding judicial order and that administrative delay could not deprive the assessee of an effective remedy. The delay was treated as inconsistent with natural justice and the right to speedy justice under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Outcome: The respondent was directed to consider the application for early disposal within six weeks, pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing, and communicate the decision within one week thereafter; the writ petition was disposed of without entering into the merits.

Issues: Whether the order passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were vitiated for non-consideration of the assessee's replies and supporting materials, and whether the matter required fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.

Analysis: The Court found, at least prima facie, that the Assessing Officer did not consider the replies dated 14 April 2025 and 19 June 2025 in their entirety and dealt only with limited aspects such as partial bank statements. It held that a valid formation of opinion under Section 148A requires meaningful consideration of the assessee's response and materials before deciding whether notice under Section 148 should issue. On the facts, the findings on circular movements of funds and lack of commercial substance were treated as insufficiently reasoned for sustaining the impugned order without examining genuineness and creditworthiness more fully.

Conclusion: The impugned order and consequential notice were quashed, and the Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order under Section 148A is unsustainable where the Assessing Officer fails to consider the assessee's reply and supporting material in a meaningful manner before forming the opinion to issue notice under Section 148.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value was sustainable where the difference was within 10%; (ii) Whether deduction under section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be allowed when it was not claimed in the return of income in view of section 80A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value was sustainable where the difference was within 10%.

Analysis: The property was purchased for Rs. 1,26,00,000/- and the stamp duty value was Rs. 1,31,55,556/-, resulting in a difference of less than 5%. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that where the difference between consideration and stamp duty valuation is within the permissible tolerance range, no addition is warranted under section 56(2)(vii)(b).

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 5,55,556/- was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction under section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be allowed when it was not claimed in the return of income in view of section 80A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessee had not claimed the deduction in the return filed for the relevant assessment year. Section 80A(5) operates as a statutory bar against allowing a deduction not claimed in the return of income, and the Tribunal relied on the binding legal position that such a claim cannot be granted contrary to the express mandate of the provision.

Conclusion: The claim for deduction under section 80C was rejected and the disallowance was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the addition relating to stamp duty valuation and failed on the deduction claim, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the difference between consideration and stamp duty valuation falls within the permissible tolerance range, no addition is justified under section 56(2)(vii)(b); and a deduction not claimed in the return of income cannot be granted where section 80A(5) bars such allowance.

Issues: Whether the appeals concerning service tax on commission earned by distributors from sale and marketing of Amway products were required to be remanded for fresh adjudication in light of the earlier Tribunal decisions.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a common demand treating the commission earned by the distributors as consideration for Business Auxiliary Service. The earlier remand order in a similar matter, along with the Tribunal's prior view in a connected group of cases, was found more apposite for deciding the present appeals. Following that line of reasoning, the impugned order was not sustained on merits at this stage and the matter was sent back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration in accordance with the Tribunal's earlier directions.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained when the complainant failed to establish the source of funds and financial capacity to advance the alleged loan. (ii) Whether the statutory demand notice required by clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was duly served on the drawer of the cheque.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained when the complainant failed to establish the source of funds and financial capacity to advance the alleged loan.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the complainant did not produce bank statements, income-tax returns, or other material to explain the source from which the alleged loan amount was arranged. The Court found that the complainant failed to satisfactorily demonstrate the financial capacity required to advance the money, and that this omission undermined the foundation for invoking the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Conclusion: The finding of guilt could not be sustained on the basis of the evidence relating to source of funds and financial capacity, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory demand notice required by clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was duly served on the drawer of the cheque.

Analysis: The material on record, including the postal correspondence and the complainant's evidence, indicated that the notice was received by another person and not by the petitioner. Applying the governing requirement that notice must be given to the drawer within the prescribed period, the Court found non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement.

Conclusion: The statutory notice was not duly served on the petitioner, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent conviction and sentence were held unsustainable, and the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must establish both compliance with the mandatory notice requirement and a credible basis for the alleged loan, including the financial capacity and source of funds, failing which the presumption in favour of the cheque holder cannot sustain the conviction.

Issues: Whether the addition made by adopting the stamp duty value or the DVO valuation for computation of long-term capital gains under section 50C was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee sold agricultural land for the declared consideration, while the stamp duty value was higher and the DVO valued the property at a figure above the declared consideration but below the stamp duty value. The variation between the declared consideration and the DVO valuation was found to be less than 15%, which was treated as a tolerable difference in valuation matters. The DVO's valuation was also found to rest on a hypothetical development approach rather than valuation of the land on its existing condition, and the direction to adopt the stamp duty value was held to be contrary to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The addition under section 50C was deleted and the declared sale consideration was directed to be accepted for computing long-term capital gains, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment addition and the appellate direction enhancing the sale consideration could not be sustained, and the assessee's appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the valuation difference is marginal and the departmental valuation is founded on an impermissibly hypothetical basis, the declared consideration cannot be substituted under section 50C for computing capital gains.

Issues: (i) whether the addition on account of alleged stock difference based on estimated physical verification during search was sustainable; (ii) whether the addition for alleged unaccounted production could be upheld on the basis of WhatsApp chats and a limited-period search disclosure; (iii) whether the addition under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged cessation of liability was justified; (iv) whether additions made for earlier years under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could rest solely on extrapolation of data found for a later year without incriminating material for those years; and (v) whether the additions under sections 68 and 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the cross-objections were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the addition on account of alleged stock difference based on estimated physical verification during search was sustainable

Analysis: The stock was not found by item-wise scientific weighing during search. The record showed that the department adopted an estimated method using sample weighment and visual approximation. The assessee demonstrated that books and pending entries were incomplete on the date of search and furnished reconciliation supported by records. The Revenue did not place a detailed working or any scientific basis to dislodge that reconciliation.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged stock difference was not sustainable and stood deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the addition for alleged unaccounted production could be upheld on the basis of WhatsApp chats and a limited-period search disclosure

Analysis: The recovered WhatsApp chats and the statements recorded during search indicated some suppression of production, so a complete deletion was not warranted. At the same time, extrapolation of one month's data to the full year was held to be unjustified in the absence of corroboration for the remaining period. The restriction adopted by the first appellate authority to a limited period and only to the profit element embedded in the alleged unaccounted sales was found to be reasonable on the facts.

Conclusion: The restricted addition on estimated profit from alleged unaccounted sales was sustained, resulting in partial relief to the assessee and rejection of the Revenue's challenge.

Issue (iii): whether the addition under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged cessation of liability was justified

Analysis: Mere long-standing outstanding creditors do not by themselves establish remission or cessation of liability. The liabilities continued to be reflected in the balance sheet, and the Revenue brought no material to show that the assessee had obtained any benefit by way of remission or cessation during the year under consideration.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition under section 41(1) was upheld in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iv): whether additions made for earlier years under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could rest solely on extrapolation of data found for a later year without incriminating material for those years

Analysis: The additions for the earlier assessment years were founded only on extrapolation of WhatsApp data relating to a limited period in a later year. No incriminating material specific to those earlier years was found during search. For completed or unabated assessments, additions under section 153A cannot be sustained in the absence of incriminating material, and extrapolation alone cannot be the sole basis for addition.

Conclusion: The deletions for the earlier years were affirmed and the Revenue's appeals on this aspect failed.

Issue (v): whether the additions under sections 68 and 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the cross-objections were sustainable

Analysis: For the cash credit issue, the assessee produced confirmations, PAN, Aadhaar, returns, bank statements, ledger accounts, proof of repayment through banking channels, and supporting interest/TDS records; the department did not bring independent corroborative material to rebut this evidence. For the alleged unexplained investment, the impugned ledger image related to a different name and was not shown to represent the assessee's actual transactions, while the assessee's books and bank records showed only an inward RTGS receipt and not a cash outflow. The evidentiary basis was therefore insufficient to sustain either addition.

Conclusion: Both additions under sections 68 and 69 were deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the stock difference, the older-year extrapolated additions, and the cross-objection issues under sections 68 and 69, while the restricted addition on alleged unaccounted production was sustained and the Revenue's challenge to the deletion of the section 41(1) addition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Additions in search-related proceedings must rest on reliable evidence and, for completed assessments, on incriminating material specific to the relevant year; estimated extrapolation or uncorroborated suspicion cannot by itself sustain an addition once the assessee has discharged the primary evidentiary burden.

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure of the areca nuts under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified on the basis of reason to believe and whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the seized goods. (ii) Whether the seized vehicle was liable to be released to its purported owner on suitable conditions.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure of the areca nuts under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified on the basis of reason to believe and whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the seized goods.

Analysis: The statutory power under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 is exercisable when the proper officer has reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. The material before the officer at the time of seizure, including the absence of valid transport documents at interception, the large quantity and value of the goods, the surrounding suspicious circumstances, and the conduct of the driver, was held to be sufficient to support the formation of reasonable belief. The legality of the seizure had to be judged on the basis of the contemporaneous materials and not on documents produced later. The contemplated confiscation proceedings would attract the safeguards of notice and hearing under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The seizure of the areca nuts was upheld and the prayer for their release was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized vehicle was liable to be released to its purported owner on suitable conditions.

Analysis: Although the seizure of the goods was sustained, the vehicle stood on a different footing. The Court found no reason to retain the vehicle indefinitely once appropriate verification and safeguards were provided. Its release was directed in favour of the purported owner upon furnishing of a bond and compliance with suitable conditions.

Conclusion: The vehicle was directed to be released to its purported owner on suitable conditions.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the seizure of the areca nuts failed, but conditional release of the vehicle was permitted, and the writ petition was otherwise dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the relevant test is whether the proper officer had contemporaneous reason to believe, based on objective material at the time of interception, that the goods were liable to confiscation; later-produced documents do not invalidate a seizure otherwise supported by such material.

Issues: Whether the arbitral award, insofar as it treated the value of non-tendered items as exclusive of GST and computed GST thereon, suffered from patent illegality for ignoring material evidence.

Analysis: The appeal was confined to the narrow question whether the figure attributed to non-tendered items included GST. The Court noted that interference under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited and that an award based on no evidence or by ignoring vital evidence may be set aside for patent illegality. The arbitral tribunal had relied mainly on the final bill to conclude that the amount was exclusive of GST, but the record also contained RA bills and tabulated statements showing that at least some of the non-tendered item values expressly included GST. The tribunal did not consider this material and instead proceeded on the basis that the opposite party had not proved inclusion of GST. The Court held that such omission rendered the finding vulnerable, though the exact quantum of GST embedded in the figure was not finally determined on the record before it.

Conclusion: The finding that the value of non-tendered items was Rs. 9,65,91,596/- exclusive of GST was set aside, and the GST and interest components were required to be recomputed.

Outcome: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy by filing an appeal within two weeks along with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit.

Issues: Whether the garnishee notice issued for recovery of interest and penalty could be sustained when the summary of the adjudication order in Form GST DRC-07 did not reflect the interest and penalty confirmed in the order-in-original, and whether the discrepancy warranted setting aside the recovery notice with liberty to rectify the summary order.

Analysis: The adjudication order under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 confirmed tax, interest and penalty, but the summary in Form GST DRC-07 reflected only the tax component already deposited by the petitioner. In view of this mismatch, the recovery notice based on the alleged balance demand towards interest and penalty could not be supported on the existing record. The respondents were permitted to rectify Form GST DRC-07 so that it would conform to the adjudication order, and the petitioner was left free to pursue lawful remedies thereafter.

Conclusion: The garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of invalidating the impugned recovery notice, while leaving the revenue authorities free to correct the summary order and proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A recovery notice cannot be sustained where it is founded on a demand that is not reflected in the operative summary order, and the recovery process must conform to the adjudication record before coercive action is taken.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order setting aside the continuation of suspension of the CFS approval was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, since the contention pressed before the Court had not been urged before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Court noted that the respondent's submission before it, namely that Regulation 11(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 could be invoked only as a preventive measure and not as a punitive action, had not been canvassed before the Tribunal. As that proposition had not been considered below, the Tribunal had recorded no finding on it. In these circumstances, and with the parties agreeing to a fresh examination, the appropriate course was to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal before the Tribunal. The Court expressly refrained from entering into the merits and kept all contentions open.

Conclusion: The impugned Tribunal order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration, with the suspension order revived pending disposal of the appeal.

Issues: (i) whether the balance refund claim of Rs. 35,44,329/- was admissible despite deposit being reflected under a different assessee code and registration; (ii) whether the refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): whether the balance refund claim of Rs. 35,44,329/- was admissible despite deposit being reflected under a different assessee code and registration.

Analysis: The amount in dispute was found to have been deposited into the Government exchequer during investigation, and the difference in registration or assessee code was treated as an internal accounting or clerical matter. The Tribunal held that the Department had itself proceeded against the unit as a consolidated entity in the demand proceedings, and it could not, at the refund stage, split the same factual unit into two separate entities to deny refund on technical grounds. Reliance was placed on the principle that substantive refund cannot be defeated by wrong accounting particulars when the revenue has already received the money.

Conclusion: The balance refund claim was held admissible and the rejection of Rs. 35,44,329/- was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that an amount deposited during investigation and retained after the underlying demand had been set aside does not retain the character of tax for the purpose of unjust enrichment. Since the levy itself was found unsustainable on the principle of mutuality, there was no passing on of tax incidence to members. The Tribunal further held that Article 265 forbids retention of money without authority of law, and the bar of unjust enrichment was inapplicable to the facts.

Conclusion: The refund was held not to be hit by unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and refund of the entire deposited amount, together with applicable interest, was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Money deposited with the Government during investigation cannot be denied refund on technical objections such as a wrong assessee code or registration when the Department has already treated the matter as a single liability and the levy itself is unsustainable; in such circumstances, the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply.

Issues: (i) Whether amounts received by the assessee from Indian entities towards seconded employees constituted fees for technical services under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA and section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether receipts from Indian clients for services rendered in and from the USA fell within the exclusion for professional services under Article 12(5)(e) read with Article 15 of the India-USA DTAA.

Issue (i): Whether amounts received by the assessee from Indian entities towards seconded employees constituted fees for technical services under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA and section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The deputation arrangement showed that the seconded personnel continued to retain their lien with the overseas employer, were repatriated after the assignment, and were subject to the contractual control framework that preserved the overseas entity's overarching relationship with them. The services were not mere reimbursement entries in substance, because the secondees were deployed to assist the Indian entities in implementing group policies, processes, and quality standards, and the arrangement involved training and transfer of technical knowledge, skill, experience, and know-how. On those facts, the "make available" requirement was satisfied and the earlier factual findings of the Tribunal could not stand against the detailed findings recorded by the assessing authority and the DRP.

Conclusion: The secondment receipts were held taxable as fees for technical services, and the Tribunal's contrary view was set aside in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether receipts from Indian clients for services rendered in and from the USA fell within the exclusion for professional services under Article 12(5)(e) read with Article 15 of the India-USA DTAA.

Analysis: Article 15(2) was treated as an inclusive definition and not as one confined only to persons governed by a statutory professional body. At the same time, the assessing authority had already segregated the receipts and granted treaty benefit to those services that truly answered the description of professional services, while taxing only the balance as technical or consultancy services. The Tribunal did not analyse that segregation or the nature of the retained receipts with sufficient specificity. For the receipts finally disputed in some appeals, the matter required fresh examination on the full record.

Conclusion: The Revenue succeeded on the question for AY 2020-21, while the remaining receipts-related issues in the connected appeals were remanded for reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The batch was disposed of by upholding taxability of the secondment reimbursements as fees for technical services and by sending the remaining receipts-related controversy back for fresh adjudication where required.

Ratio Decidendi: Where secondees continue to remain linked to the foreign employer and the arrangement results in transmission of technical knowledge, skill, know-how, or training to the Indian recipient, the payment is not insulated as a mere reimbursement and satisfies the treaty's "make available" threshold for fees for technical services.

Issues: Whether the assessee, engaged in sewage and water-treatment infrastructure projects under government and municipal contracts, was a developer eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or merely a works contractor hit by the Explanation to section 80IA(13).

Analysis: The projects were not confined to mere civil execution. The agreements covered designing, engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning, operation and maintenance, with the assessee bearing earnest money obligations, performance/security deposits, defect-liability obligations, liquidated damages, cost-overrun exposure, and responsibility for mobilising funds, machinery and qualified manpower. The factual matrix showed that the assessee undertook the development activity with financial, technical and execution risks, while the contracting authorities only prescribed the broad project parameters. The Tribunal applied the settled distinction between a developer and a works contractor and followed the jurisdictional precedent that receipt of periodic payments or the existence of a government contract does not by itself convert a developer into a mere contractor.

Conclusion: The assessee was held to be a developer and not a works contractor, and the deduction under section 80IA(4) was allowable.

Issues: Whether deduction under section 80P could be denied for assessment year 2018-19 on the ground that the return was not furnished within the due date under section 139(1), in view of section 80AC as amended with effect from 01.04.2018.

Analysis: The return claiming deduction under section 80P was filed only in response to notice under section 148 and not within the due date prescribed under section 139(1). For assessment year 2018-19, section 80AC required that no deduction under Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes" be allowed unless the return was furnished on or before the due date under section 139(1). The assessee did not produce any basis for condonation of delay. The claim under section 80P was therefore barred by the statutory condition.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 80P was rightly disallowed and the issue was decided against the assessee. The penalty under section 270A, being consequential to the quantum addition, also stood sustained.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to full TDS credit and deletion of the resulting demand where tax was deducted from salary by the employer but not deposited with the Revenue.

Analysis: The assessee produced salary slips, Form 16, bank statements and related material to show deduction of tax from salary payments. The full credit was not reflected in Form 26AS because the employer had deducted tax but failed to remit it to the Revenue. In such circumstances, the bar under section 205 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as recognized in the cited CBDT Instruction, prevents recovery of the same tax from the assessee when tax has already been deducted at source.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to full TDS credit, and the Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and grant the credit.