Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns could be revoked on consideration of the petitioner's representation.

Analysis: The Court noted the petitioner's medical explanation for the default, the supporting materials placed on record, and the absence of objection from the respondent to a decision by the competent authority. It found sufficient cause to require the representation to be considered on merits and directed the authority to decide it after affording an opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned order within a fixed time.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of by directing consideration of the representation for revocation of cancellation in accordance with law, without adjudicating the merits.

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent passed on the benefit of reduction in GST rate on cinema tickets by commensurate reduction in prices, or contravened the anti-profiteering mandate. (ii) Whether the profiteered amount computed by the DGAP, as modified on re-investigation, was liable to be accepted and recovered. (iii) Whether penalty could be levied for the period in question.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent passed on the benefit of reduction in GST rate on cinema tickets by commensurate reduction in prices, or contravened the anti-profiteering mandate.

Analysis: The rate reduction on admission to cinematography films required the supplier to reduce prices commensurately. The respondent did not produce cogent evidence showing that the ticket prices were fixed or increased by any competent authority for the relevant period, and its stand was found to be internally inconsistent. The material on record showed that the base price of tickets was increased after the tax reduction instead of being reduced in line with the benefit.

Conclusion: The respondent did not pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction and contravened Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (ii): Whether the profiteered amount computed by the DGAP, as modified on re-investigation, was liable to be accepted and recovered.

Analysis: The methodology and revised computation of the DGAP were not successfully disputed. The re-investigation reconciled the turnover discrepancy and corrected the earlier formula error, resulting in a quantified profiteered amount of Rs. 8,99,273/-. The respondent's objections did not dislodge the revised computation.

Conclusion: The DGAP reports were accepted and the profiteered amount was directed to be deposited with applicable interest and apportionment to the Consumer Welfare Funds.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty could be levied for the period in question.

Analysis: The period involved pre-dated the levy of penalty under the applicable notification, and the recipients were not identifiable for the purpose of direct restitution. On that basis, the matter was treated as falling within the relevant rule governing distribution of the amount, but without retrospective penalty.

Conclusion: No penalty was leviable.

Final Conclusion: The respondent was held liable for anti-profiteering contravention and was directed to deposit the quantified profiteered amount with interest, while penalty was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a supplier retains a tax-rate reduction by increasing the base price instead of passing on the benefit through commensurate price reduction, the supplier violates the anti-profiteering obligation and becomes liable to disgorge the profiteered amount, though penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively absent a valid enabling provision for the relevant period.

Issues: Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustainable when no exempt income was earned during the relevant year.

Analysis: The assessee had not earned any exempt income and had not claimed exemption under section 10(34). Relying on the view that section 14A does not apply where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year, the disallowance was found to be unsustainable. The amendment inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 was treated as prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2022-23 onwards, and therefore did not govern the year under appeal.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 14A disallowance cannot be sustained for a year in which no exempt income is earned, and the Finance Act, 2022 amendment applies prospectively.

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 towards alleged unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property, including the small balance amount, was sustainable when the assessee produced documentary evidence explaining the source and movement of funds.

Analysis: The assessee furnished a source-wise reconciliation of the entire purchase consideration, supported by the sale deed of the earlier property, the seller's bank statement, the husband's affidavit, the gift deed, identity and tax records of the husband, the bank confirmation identifying the remitter, and the pay order for the balance amount. The Revenue did not dispute the genuineness of the purchase transaction, the identity and capacity of the contributor, or the receipt of funds by the seller, and brought no contrary material to show that the money represented undisclosed income of the assessee. The mere non-availability of an exchange bureau remittance record, by itself, was held insufficient to reject the explanation when the transaction stood otherwise fully corroborated.

Conclusion: The assessee had satisfactorily explained the entire investment, and the addition under section 69 was not sustainable; the impugned addition of Rs. 80,10,000/- was directed to be deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee establishes the source of investment through a coherent chain of corroborative evidence and the Revenue brings no rebuttal material, an addition for unexplained investment under section 69 cannot rest on suspicion or on the absence of one collateral document.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of by leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the SEBI order relating to the proposed IPO.

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite the rigours of section 45, having regard to the petitioner's custody period, the stage of the investigation, and the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a serious money-laundering case arising out of a large recruitment scam, and the Court was not satisfied on merits that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty or that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Ordinarily, the twin conditions under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 would bar release. However, the Court held that prolonged incarceration without trial can, in an appropriate case, outweigh the statutory rigours of section 45 when tested on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court took note of the petitioner's age, his relative role compared with other accused, the delay in taking him into custody in the PMLA case, the fact that he had already been granted bail in the predicate case, and the circumstance that the trial was not likely to conclude soon.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner notwithstanding the section 45 threshold.

Issues: Whether the show cause notice and the demand of service tax were barred by limitation on the ground that the extended period could not be invoked merely on the basis of Form 26AS and income tax data without corroborative evidence of suppression.

Analysis: The Appellant had furnished documents to the Department prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, and the record showed that the Revenue was already seeking and receiving information regarding the Appellant's activities. The demand was founded substantially on income tax data and Form 26AS, without independent corroboration from service tax records to establish taxable services or deliberate suppression. In such circumstances, mere reliance on 26AS was held to be insufficient for invoking the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable, and the demand was time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS or income tax data, without corroborative evidence of taxable service and suppression, cannot sustain invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Issues: (i) whether the excess quantity of imported goods was liable to confiscation and redemption fine; (ii) whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable against the importer and the custodian; (iii) whether the remand ordered in respect of the custodian was justified.

Issue (i): whether the excess quantity of imported goods was liable to confiscation and redemption fine.

Analysis: The goods were found in excess in the shore tank, but the importer did not attempt to clear them without payment of duty. The record showed that the custodian informed the importer about the excess quantity and the importer instructed that the tanker should not be released until duty on the excess quantity was paid. The goods were ultimately cleared only after duty payment, and no material established collusion or any intention to evade duty.

Conclusion: The excess goods were not liable for confiscation, and the redemption fine was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable against the importer and the custodian.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 114A required a case of duty non-payment brought about by wilful suppression, misstatement, or comparable culpable conduct. The evidence did not show mens rea, nor any attempt by either appellant to remove the goods without payment of duty. In these circumstances, the statutory basis for penalty under Section 114A was absent.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114A was not leviable on either appellant.

Issue (iii): whether the remand ordered in respect of the custodian was justified.

Analysis: Since no penalty was leviable on the custodian on the facts found, there was no basis to remand the matter for fresh adjudication. The remand would have permitted reconsideration of a penalty that was not sustainable on the existing record.

Conclusion: The remand order was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties could not be sustained on the facts found, and both appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not leviable where the evidence does not establish mens rea, suppression, or an attempt to clear goods without payment of duty, and confiscation cannot stand where the excess goods were not intended to be removed clandestinely.

Issues: (i) Whether the six gold bars recovered from the passenger's body cavity were liable to absolute confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed on the passenger under the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the six gold bars recovered from the passenger's body cavity were liable to absolute confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The gold was found concealed in the rectum/body cavity, the passenger failed to produce any lawful document for acquisition or transportation, and the manner of concealment indicated an attempt to evade customs detection. Since gold is a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden to prove bona fide possession lay on the person from whose possession it was seized, and that burden was not discharged. The record supported the finding that the goods were of foreign origin and imported in contravention of customs law.

Conclusion: The gold bars were rightly held liable to absolute confiscation and the confiscation was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed on the passenger under the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: The deliberate concealment of the gold and the failure to prove lawful possession established knowing involvement in the smuggling attempt. The conduct attracted penalty for acts rendering the goods liable to confiscation and for dealing with goods liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed on both confiscation and penalty, and the order of the lower authorities remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where notified gold is found ingeniously concealed and the person from whose possession it is seized fails to prove lawful acquisition or possession, the burden under Section 123 remains undischarged and absolute confiscation with penalty is justified.

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the declared transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 was legally sustainable; (ii) whether re-determination of value followed the mandatory sequential scheme under the Valuation Rules; (iii) whether electronic records and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible and sufficient; (iv) whether the duty demand and invocation of the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable; (v) whether confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 were justified.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the declared transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 3(1) of the Valuation Rules make transaction value the primary basis of valuation, and Rule 12 permits rejection only on objective reasons to doubt the declared value. The evidentiary basis relied upon by the Revenue consisted of unverified electronic data and uncorroborated statements, without proof of extra consideration or reliable contemporaneous comparables. The material showed suspicion, not legally sustainable proof of undervaluation.

Conclusion: The rejection of transaction value was held to be unsustainable and was decided in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether re-determination of value followed the mandatory sequential scheme under the Valuation Rules.

Analysis: Rule 3(2) requires sequential application of Rules 4 to 9 once declared value is rejected. The adjudicating authority adopted standardized kilogram-based rates without first applying the prescribed sequence or establishing strict comparability of identical or similar goods. The method used was arbitrary, unsupported by authenticated evidence, and inconsistent with the statutory valuation framework.

Conclusion: The re-determination of value was held contrary to the Valuation Rules and was set aside in favour of the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether electronic records and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible and sufficient.

Analysis: Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates compliance for admissibility of electronic evidence, including certification and proof of source, integrity and extraction. No such statutory compliance was shown, the electronic material was not properly authenticated, and complete relied upon records were not supplied. The statements were disputed, uncorroborated, and cross-examination was denied, violating natural justice. The electronic data and statements therefore lacked probative value.

Conclusion: The electronic records and statements were held inadmissible and insufficient to sustain the allegations.

Issue (iv): Whether the duty demand and invocation of the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable.

Analysis: The show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period, so the extended period could survive only on proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade duty. Since the foundational evidence of undervaluation failed and the imports were made through regular Bills of Entry with contemporaneous assessment, the ingredients for extended limitation were not established. The demand was also affected by unexplained delay and absence of evidence of deliberate evasion.

Conclusion: The demand was held barred by limitation and unsustainable.

Issue (v): Whether confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 were justified.

Analysis: Confiscation under Section 111(m) requires a proved misdeclaration, which was not established once the valuation case failed. Redemption fine was consequential to confiscation and could not survive independently. Penalties under Sections 112, 114A and 114AA required proof of culpable conduct, suppression or knowing use of false material, none of which was shown. The separate penalty on the individual noticee also lacked independent evidentiary basis.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were held unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order failed on merits, on admissibility of evidence, on limitation, and on the consequential penal and confiscatory findings; the appellants obtained complete substantive relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared transaction value can be rejected only on objective, admissible and corroborated evidence, and any re-determination must strictly follow the sequential valuation scheme; inadmissible electronic material and uncorroborated statements cannot sustain undervaluation, limitation, confiscation or penalties.

Issues: (i) whether the activity of evacuation of settled ash from ash pond was liable to Service Tax under site formation and clearance, excavation and earth moving and demolition service; (ii) whether the demand under works contract service survived after adjustment of tax payments and appropriation of the deposit made during investigation; (iii) whether the demand under manpower recruitment or supply agency service could be restricted to 25% of the taxable value under the partial reverse charge arrangement; (iv) whether the reverse charge demand on manpower supply services was sustainable in view of revenue neutrality and limitation; and (v) whether penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were liable to be sustained.

Issue (i): whether the activity of evacuation of settled ash from ash pond was liable to Service Tax under site formation and clearance, excavation and earth moving and demolition service.

Analysis: The activity was undertaken by the appellant as a subcontractor for evacuation of settled ash from an ash pond. The issue was already settled by the Tribunal in earlier decisions holding that removal of ash from an ash pond is not a taxable service and is not exigible to Service Tax. The activity was treated as part of the production process and not as a service liable to tax.

Conclusion: The demand under this head, along with interest, was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the demand under works contract service survived after adjustment of tax payments and appropriation of the deposit made during investigation.

Analysis: The appellant produced challan-wise proof of tax payment under works contract service for the relevant financial years. Those payments, together with appropriation of the amount already deposited during investigation, covered the confirmed demand. The remaining differential, if any, stood adjusted from the deposit, and no recoverable demand remained after such set-off.

Conclusion: No further Service Tax demand survived under works contract service.

Issue (iii): whether the demand under manpower recruitment or supply agency service could be restricted to 25% of the taxable value under the partial reverse charge arrangement.

Analysis: The benefit of partial reverse charge under Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 was available only where the statutory conditions specified in the notification were satisfied. No material was produced to establish that the appellant fulfilled those conditions. The claim that liability was confined to 25% of the taxable value was therefore rejected. At the same time, the appellant's challan-wise payments under the same taxable category, read with appropriation of the deposit already made, were held sufficient to extinguish the outstanding demand.

Conclusion: The plea for limitation of liability to 25% was rejected, but no further recoverable demand survived after adjustment and appropriation.

Issue (iv): whether the reverse charge demand on manpower supply services was sustainable in view of revenue neutrality and limitation.

Analysis: The reverse charge demand related to manpower recruitment or supply agency services received from unregistered parties. Since any tax paid would have been available as CENVAT credit, the matter was revenue neutral. In such a situation, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked absent proof of suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax. The demand was therefore unsustainable both on merits and on limitation.

Conclusion: The reverse charge demand, along with interest, was set aside.

Issue (v): whether penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were liable to be sustained.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 78 required proof of suppression or wilful misstatement, which was not established. Penalty under Section 77 was based on admitted procedural defaults relating to registration, returns, and disclosure of services.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 78 was set aside, while penalty under Section 77 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in substantial part by deleting the main tax demands and the penalty under Section 78, while leaving the procedural penalty under Section 77 intact and directing interest, if any, on delayed tax payments to be dealt with in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether an excise-duty demand for alleged undervaluation of goods cleared to a sister unit is sustainable where the recipient unit avails full CENVAT credit of the duty paid; and (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation may be invoked where the relevant valuation particulars were disclosed in ER-1 returns.

Issue (i): Whether an excise-duty demand for alleged undervaluation of goods cleared to a sister unit is sustainable where the recipient unit avails full CENVAT credit of the duty paid.

Analysis: The goods cleared by the assessee were used as raw material by its sister unit, which availed CENVAT credit of the entire excise duty paid on such clearances. Consequently, irrespective of the assessable value adopted, there was no net loss of revenue and the transaction was revenue-neutral.

Conclusion: The demand based on alleged undervaluation is unsustainable on merits, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation may be invoked where the relevant valuation particulars were disclosed in ER-1 returns.

Analysis: The material facts relating to the clearances and valuation were reflected in the regularly filed ER-1 returns. Such disclosure excluded any basis for alleging suppression of facts.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation is not invocable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed excise-duty demand cannot be sustained either on merits because of revenue neutrality or on limitation because the relevant facts were disclosed.

Outcome: Petition disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether suspension of the administrative classification of the borrower account as fraud under the RBI framework barred the CBI from registering an FIR, continuing criminal investigation, and conducting searches pursuant to judicial warrants.

Analysis: The interim order concerning fraud classification was confined to its regulatory and administrative consequences. A criminal investigation into cognizable offences proceeds under an independent statutory regime; overlap between the factual basis of bank action and the FIR does not make the investigation a merely consequential administrative action. No express restraint against the investigating agency or criminal proceedings had been issued. The searches were conducted pursuant to warrants issued by the competent criminal court, and disputed allegations concerning their execution were not suitable for adjudication under Article 226 on competing affidavits. In the absence of patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest mala fides, or clear abuse of process, extraordinary writ jurisdiction could not be used to halt an investigation into serious allegations involving diversion of public funds.

Conclusion: Suspension of the fraud classification did not prohibit the FIR, criminal investigation, or search and seizure operations; no ground for interference with the ongoing investigation was established.

Issues: Whether net profit from the assessee's newspaper and magazine publication business could reasonably be estimated at 15% of turnover.

Analysis: The publication business was found to operate on wafer-thin margins despite high turnover. A 15% net-profit estimate lacked justification in the circumstances. A profit rate of 0.5% of turnover was considered a reasonable estimate.

Conclusion: Net profit shall be computed at 0.5% of turnover, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a reassessment notice issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year on approval of the Principal Commissioner, rather than the authority specified under Section 151(ii), was valid; (ii) Whether deduction under Section 80P, including deduction for interest earned from a co-operative bank, was available after condonation of delay in filing the return.

Issue (i): Whether a reassessment notice issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year on approval of the Principal Commissioner, rather than the authority specified under Section 151(ii), was valid.

Analysis: The notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year, with approval of the Principal Commissioner. Section 151(ii) required approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Director General in such circumstances. The subsequently introduced proviso to Section 151 could not be applied retrospectively to exclude the period allowed for responding to the notice under Section 148A(b).

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and consequential reassessment were invalid and were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction under Section 80P, including deduction for interest earned from a co-operative bank, was available after condonation of delay in filing the return.

Analysis: The delay in filing the return had subsequently been condoned by the competent authority, removing the basis on which the deduction had been denied. Interest derived by a co-operative society from investments with a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), since such bank remains a co-operative society for that purpose.

Conclusion: The claim for deduction under Section 80P, including eligible interest from a co-operative bank, required fresh consideration in light of the condonation order, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment for the earlier assessment year lacked valid jurisdiction, while the deduction claim for the later assessment year must be reconsidered consistently with the condonation of delay and the availability of deduction for eligible co-operative bank interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval for reassessment must be obtained from the authority specifically designated under Section 151(ii); approval by an inferior authority invalidates the reassessment.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge from the prosecution for money laundering; (ii) Whether an expert should be appointed to conduct a fresh inspection and valuation of granite waste.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge from the prosecution for money laundering.

Analysis: For prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the relevant inquiry is whether a scheduled predicate offence exists and whether proceeds of crime arising from it are involved. Challenges to the legality or adequacy of the predicate-offence investigation cannot be adjudicated in the money-laundering prosecution. At discharge, the test is whether the materials disclose a prima facie case or strong suspicion; factual defences cannot be assessed through a mini-trial. The materials indicating that the petitioner held a 10.5% share, was a working partner, and had an interest in the business during the alleged illegal quarrying justified trial. The confirmation of attachment and the claim that the properties were acquired from independent income were matters requiring evidence at trial.

Conclusion: Discharge was rightly refused; the issue is against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether an expert should be appointed to conduct a fresh inspection and valuation of granite waste.

Analysis: The valuation and loss quantification had been prepared by authorized Geology and Mining Department officials. Any defect in that report is a matter of evidence, and the prosecution must establish its case on the report it relies upon. A fresh expert report was not warranted, particularly as loss quantification principally concerns the predicate offence.

Conclusion: Appointment of a further expert was rightly declined; the issue is against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The money-laundering prosecution may proceed to trial on the available materials, with the petitioner's factual defences to be tested through evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: At the discharge stage in a money-laundering prosecution, the existence of a scheduled offence and prima facie material connecting the accused with proceeds of crime suffice; factual defences and challenges requiring evidentiary evaluation must await trial.

Issues: (i) Whether the assertion that the mother was merely a name lender and the father held absolute title to the property was barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; (ii) whether the father had absolute title to the property and it was consequently available for partition; (iii) whether the will created a life interest in favour of the defendant over the office portion; and (iv) whether a suit for mandatory injunction seeking vacant possession was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the assertion that the mother was merely a name lender and the father held absolute title to the property was barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: Property held in the name of a spouse is expressly excluded from the statutory definition of a benami transaction. The transaction was therefore outside the prohibition invoked against the claim of the father's exclusive ownership.

Conclusion: The plea of the father's exclusive title was not barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Issue (ii): Whether the father had absolute title to the property and it was consequently available for partition.

Analysis: The mother's attestation of the will, her omission to include the property in her subsequent will, and the resolution acknowledging and accepting the contents of the father's will established her knowledge and acceptance that she was only a name lender. Further, having accepted a benefit under the will while it disposed of the property as belonging exclusively to the father, she could not assert an inconsistent proprietary claim under the doctrine of election. Her legal representative could not raise a claim unavailable to her.

Conclusion: The father was the exclusive owner of the property, which was not partible among the children.

Issue (iii): Whether the will created a life interest in favour of the defendant over the office portion.

Analysis: The will only permitted the defendant to maintain his office for as long as he wished and required removal of the office articles thereafter to the separate property bequeathed to him. The office portion was absolutely bequeathed to the plaintiffs, subject only to the mother's life interest. The office had ceased functioning and was abandoned.

Conclusion: No life interest or other proprietary interest in the office portion was created in favour of the defendant.

Issue (iv): Whether a suit for mandatory injunction seeking vacant possession was maintainable.

Analysis: The defendant's occupation remained permissive under the will, the plaintiffs' title was not disputed, and termination notice was followed by institution of the suit within a reasonable period. A claim effectively seeking possession is not to be denied merely because it is framed as one for mandatory injunction, particularly where no independent right accrued to the permissive occupant.

Conclusion: The suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable, and the plaintiffs were entitled to vacant possession of the office portion.

Final Conclusion: The partition claim failed because the property formed part of the father's exclusive estate, while the permissive occupant was bound to vacate the office portion.

Ratio Decidendi: A beneficiary who accepts a benefit under a will must elect to affirm the will and cannot assert a proprietary right inconsistent with the testator's disposition; permissive occupation under such will does not create a life interest absent clear dispositive language.

Issues: (i) Whether estimation of business income at 2% of the disclosed turnover was sustainable and whether credit was required for income already returned; (ii) Whether cash deposits forming part of disclosed business turnover could separately be assessed as unexplained money under section 69A.

Issue (i): Whether estimation of business income at 2% of the disclosed turnover was sustainable and whether credit was required for income already returned.

Analysis: The assessee did not produce books of account or supporting evidence despite statutory notices. Estimation of profits was therefore justified. For hardware trading, the 2% net-profit rate on the disclosed turnover was neither arbitrary nor excessive. Estimated business income substitutes the business income originally declared; consequently, credit for the returned income had to be allowed in computing taxable income.

Conclusion: Estimation at 2% of the disclosed turnover is sustained, with direction to grant credit for the income already returned. This issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cash deposits forming part of disclosed business turnover could separately be assessed as unexplained money under section 69A.

Analysis: The disputed deposits were treated as part of the disclosed turnover while business income was estimated on that turnover. Receipts embedded in business turnover cannot again be taxed in gross as unexplained money; only the profit element in such receipts is assessable. A separate addition would result in impermissible double taxation.

Conclusion: The separate addition under section 69A is deleted. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Taxable business income is to be computed on the estimated turnover basis after adjusting the income already returned, without a separate addition for the turnover-linked cash deposits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where cash deposits are accepted as part of disclosed business turnover and profits are estimated on that turnover, the gross deposits cannot additionally be assessed as unexplained money; only the embedded profit may be brought to tax.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer of the immovable property and the resulting long-term capital gains were taxable in Assessment Year 2016-17 despite substantial sale consideration and delivery of possession occurring in the succeeding year; and (ii) whether the assessee's taxable share of the sale consideration was limited to 25.65% by a subsequent family settlement.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer of the immovable property and the resulting long-term capital gains were taxable in Assessment Year 2016-17 despite substantial sale consideration and delivery of possession occurring in the succeeding year.

Analysis: Under Section 45(1) read with Section 2(47)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the registered agreement to sell executed on 28 March 2016 concluded the transfer during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2016-17. Receipt of the substantial balance consideration and delivery of possession in Assessment Year 2017-18 did not defer the date of transfer or the year of taxability. Section 2(47)(v), concerning possession in part performance, did not alter the result because the registered sale agreement had already brought the transaction within the statutory meaning of transfer. Taxes paid, collected, or deducted in Assessment Year 2017-18 in relation to the same transaction were directed to be given credit while computing the liability for Assessment Year 2016-17.

Conclusion: The capital gains were taxable in Assessment Year 2016-17, with corresponding credit allowed for taxes paid, collected, or deducted in Assessment Year 2017-18.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's taxable share of the sale consideration was limited to 25.65% by a subsequent family settlement.

Analysis: The registered agreement described the assessee as the vendor and absolute owner entitled to transfer the property, while the other family members were only confirming parties without right, title, or interest. The Memorandum of Family Settlement was executed after the sale and was unsupported by prior legal title, relinquishment, partition, or contemporaneous evidence establishing an earlier division of ownership. Subsequent distribution of sale proceeds therefore constituted an internal post-sale arrangement and did not reduce the capital gains assessable in the assessee's hands.

Conclusion: The assessee was liable to be assessed on the entire capital gain and not merely on 25.65% of the sale consideration.

Final Conclusion: The transfer and the entire resulting capital gain were retained in Assessment Year 2016-17 in the assessee's hands, while the related tax credit from Assessment Year 2017-18 was preserved.

Ratio Decidendi: For capital-gains purposes, a registered agreement that conclusively transfers rights in immovable property determines the year of transfer notwithstanding deferred receipt of consideration or possession, and a subsequent family arrangement cannot displace the recorded owner's liability absent pre-existing legal title in the other claimants.