Issues: Whether stamp duty and registration expenditure incurred for execution of a lease deed in relation to leasehold rights was allowable as depreciation as an intangible asset, required to be amortised over the lease term, or allowable in full as revenue expenditure in the initial assessment year.

Analysis: The dispute was examined with reference to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the assessee's alternative claim under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The expenditure arose from stamp duty paid for execution and registration of a lease deed forming part of a business arrangement for operating the textile undertaking. The assessee had not acquired ownership in the land, but only a right to occupy, use and commercially exploit the leasehold property during the lease tenure. The expenditure was found to be connected with enabling the assessee to carry on its business and not with acquisition of any independent capital asset or enduring ownership right. On that basis, the character of the outlay was held to be revenue in nature. Since the rights and obligations had crystallised in the financial year relevant to A.Y. 2011-12, the expenditure was held allowable in that year itself, making the directions for amortisation unsustainable and rendering later-year depreciation claims on the same amount infructuous.

Conclusion: The stamp duty expenditure on the lease deed was allowable in full as revenue expenditure in A.Y. 2011-12, in favour of the assessee. The direction to amortise the expenditure over the lease period was set aside, and the depreciation claims for the subsequent assessment years on the same amount did not survive and were infructuous.

Issues: (i) Whether separate transfer pricing adjustments could be made for royalty payment and Global Accounts Manager charges after accepting the combined transaction approach under TNMM for the logistics segment; (ii) Whether the assessee's claim for TDS credit and correction of computation of interest and fee payable required restoration for fresh verification.

Issue (i): Whether separate transfer pricing adjustments could be made for royalty payment and Global Accounts Manager charges after accepting the combined transaction approach under TNMM for the logistics segment.

Analysis: The logistics segment had been benchmarked by including royalty and GAM charges in the operating cost under the combined transaction approach using TNMM. While accepting that approach for the segment, the transfer pricing authorities nevertheless segregated royalty and GAM charges for separate benchmarking and determined separate adjustments. The order followed earlier years in the assessee's own case and the binding principle that once TNMM is accepted for aggregated benchmarking of interlinked transactions, one cost element already embedded in the tested segment cannot again be separately benchmarked without distorting the arm's length analysis.

Conclusion: Separate ALP adjustments for royalty and GAM charges were not permissible after acceptance of the combined TNMM approach for the logistics segment; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's claim for TDS credit and correction of computation of interest and fee payable required restoration for fresh verification.

Analysis: The record showed a grievance regarding non-grant of TDS credit and a computation error in arriving at the total interest and fee payable. These matters required correction and fresh examination by the assessing authority in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the assessee.

Conclusion: The issues relating to TDS credit and computation error were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision; this issue was partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing additions on royalty and GAM charges were deleted, while the computation-related grievances were sent back for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where interrelated international transactions are benchmarked on an aggregated basis under TNMM and the relevant royalty or service costs are already included in the operating cost of the tested segment, those very components cannot be separately benchmarked again for independent ALP adjustments.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had a business connection and permanent establishment in India; (ii) whether further income was taxable in India after attribution of profits to the permanent establishment and payment of marketing service fees to the Indian subsidiary; (iii) whether the computation error in the assessment order required re-computation; (iv) whether the claims relating to refund and interest under section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required consequential adjudication; and (v) whether initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee had a business connection and permanent establishment in India.

Analysis: The issue had already been decided in the assessee's own case for earlier years and the assessee also conceded the position before the Tribunal. Following the earlier coordinate bench view, the existence of a business connection and permanent establishment in India was treated as covered against the assessee.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether further income was taxable in India after attribution of profits to the permanent establishment and payment of marketing service fees to the Indian subsidiary.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case, which held that although the assessee had a permanent establishment in India, income attributable to that permanent establishment had to be computed on the settled attribution basis and no further income was chargeable where the marketing service fees paid to the Indian subsidiary exceeded the attributable income. The revenue's attempt to tax the balance on a gross-basis approach was held to be contrary to the binding coordinate bench precedent.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the computation error in the assessment order required re-computation.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the figure adopted in the computation sheet did not match the income figure determined in the assessment order. As the point was not controverted, the matter was sent back only for limited re-computation in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

Issue (iv): Whether the claims relating to refund and interest under section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required consequential adjudication.

Analysis: Since the main attribution issue was decided in favour of the assessee, the refund and interest claims were treated as consequential and left for appropriate disposal by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for consequential adjudication.

Issue (v): Whether initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The penalty proceedings were considered premature at the stage of the appeal and no independent interference was called for.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the core attribution issue, while the challenge to permanent establishment failed and the remaining matters were either restored for limited consequential action or left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where permanent establishment status is already settled in earlier years, income attributable to that establishment must be computed consistently with binding precedent, and once the attributed income is fully absorbed by commission or marketing service payments, no further taxable income can be brought to tax in India.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the order rejecting the claim on merits ought to be condoned on parity with similarly placed BSNL employees; (ii) whether compensation received under the BSNL VRS Scheme, 2019 is eligible for full exemption as retrenchment compensation under section 10(10B); (iii) whether leave encashment received by BSNL VRS retirees is eligible for full exemption under section 10(10AA).

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the order rejecting the claim on merits ought to be condoned on parity with similarly placed BSNL employees.

Analysis: The delay was examined in the context of repeated condonation in identical BSNL employee matters decided by appellate authorities and Coordinate Benches. The appellate authority's refusal to condone delay was found inconsistent with the parity already extended in substantially similar cases.

Conclusion: The delay was required to be condoned and the appeal was to be admitted.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation received under the BSNL VRS Scheme, 2019 is eligible for full exemption as retrenchment compensation under section 10(10B).

Analysis: The compensation arose from retrenchment under the BSNL VRS Scheme, 2019, which was treated as part of the restructuring and revival plan for BSNL. The issue had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by Coordinate Benches, including on the objection that the recipient was not a workman.

Conclusion: Full exemption under section 10(10B) was allowable on the retrenchment compensation.

Issue (iii): Whether leave encashment received by BSNL VRS retirees is eligible for full exemption under section 10(10AA).

Analysis: The assessee's leave encashment claim was considered in the light of the view that BSNL VRS retirees are to be treated as Central Government employees for this purpose, and the enhanced exemption position was applied at the stage of appellate adjudication for the assessment year in question.

Conclusion: Full exemption on leave encashment was allowable under section 10(10AA).

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in full, with relief granted on condonation of delay, retrenchment compensation, and leave encashment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where BSNL VRS separation is treated as retrenchment and the retirees are regarded as entitled to the corresponding fiscal benefits on parity with similarly placed cases, full exemption under section 10(10B) and the applicable leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA) must be granted.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 in view of the alleged role, the quantum of transactions attributed to him, the absence of prima facie material showing proceeds of crime, parity with a co-accused, and the length of pre-trial custody.

Analysis: The allegations against the petitioner were assessed against the statutory rigour of the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner's association with PFI and SDPI, by itself, and the existence of an email handle or phone contacts reflecting those entities, was held insufficient to deny bail without corroborative material linking those indicators to specific money-laundering acts. The petitioner was also noticed to have been arrayed as an accused only in the 7th supplementary prosecution complaint, while the transactions attributed to him were comparatively small in the context of the alleged overall inflows into SDPI's accounts. The Court further noted that the amount traceable to the petitioner was far below the monetary threshold referred to in the proviso to Section 45 and that, prima facie, the prosecution had not demonstrated how the funds were derived from a scheduled offence so as to constitute proceeds of crime. The protracted custody of the petitioner and the parity principle arising from the bail granted to a co-accused also weighed in favour of release.

Conclusion: The petitioner satisfied the requirements for grant of regular bail and was entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions.

Issues: Whether common area maintenance charges paid under a lease arrangement are liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or form part of rent attracting section 194I of the Act.

Analysis: The payment of CAM charges was found to be a distinct and separately identifiable liability from rent, even though both arose under a single agreement and were paid to the same entity. The Tribunal relied on the factual distinction between rent for use of premises and maintenance charges for common facilities and services, and followed the consistent view that such maintenance payments are covered by the provision governing payments for contractual work. The contrary reliance on broader rent principles and the cited hotel-room decision was treated as distinguishable on facts.

Conclusion: CAM charges are liable to TDS under section 194C and do not form part of rent for section 194I purposes; the Revenue's challenge fails.

Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2015-16 were barred by limitation and therefore invalid.

Analysis: The reassessment related to assessment year 2015-16. The appellate authority had quashed the reassessment on the ground that the notice under section 148 issued on 29.06.2021, and the subsequent proceedings under section 148A and section 148, were time-barred. The Tribunal found no infirmity in that conclusion and accepted the view that the reopening for the relevant assessment year could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The reopening was held to be barred by limitation and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Issues: (i) whether the discount on issue of shares under the Employee Stock Option Plan constituted allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 was sustainable where no exempt income was earned during the relevant year and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 was in issue.

Issue (i): Whether the discount on issue of shares under the Employee Stock Option Plan constituted allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The deduction claimed represented the cost of employee remuneration through stock options and was treated as a business outgoing incurred over the vesting period. The binding jurisdictional precedent held that such discount is not a mere notional or contingent item, but an ascertained liability incurred for business purposes, and that the absence of immediate cash outflow does not deny deductibility under section 37.

Conclusion: The deduction was allowable, and the disallowance was rightly deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 was sustainable where no exempt income was earned during the relevant year and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 was in issue.

Analysis: The assessee had earned no exempt income during the year, and therefore the settled position applied that section 14A could not be invoked in the absence of exempt income. The subsequent amendment by the Finance Act, 2022 was held to operate prospectively from assessment year 2022-23 onwards and could not govern the year under appeal.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was not sustainable, and the deletion was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were rejected in entirety, and the relief granted by the first appellate authority was sustained on both disputed issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Employee stock option discount, when incurred as part of employee remuneration and supported by an accrued business liability, is deductible under section 37; and section 14A cannot be applied in the absence of exempt income, while the 2022 amendment operates prospectively.

Issues: (i) whether the opening balance of Foreign Currency Translation Reserve relating to monetary items of non-integral foreign operations could be brought to tax in the year under consideration; (ii) whether section 115JB applies to a banking company preparing accounts under the governing banking law; (iii) whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made in respect of investments held as stock in trade; (iv) whether the reassessment was valid in the absence of fresh tangible material; (v) whether bad debts written off could be restricted by reference to the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account; (vi) whether interest accrued but not due on securities and interest on perpetual bonds were taxable or deductible; (vii) whether notional unrealised interest on NPAs, amortisation of premium on HTM securities, provision for wage revision, depreciation on investments, and RBI penalty were allowable or taxable; and (viii) whether the assessment framed in the name of an amalgamated entity was void.

Issue (i): Whether the opening balance of Foreign Currency Translation Reserve relating to monetary items of non-integral foreign operations could be brought to tax in the year under consideration.

Analysis: The charging provisions under sections 4 and 5 operate on the total income of the previous year. The transitional framework in ICDS-VI and the CBDT clarification could not be used to tax an opening balance pertaining to earlier years when the amount had not arisen as income of the relevant previous year. Section 43AA and ICDS-VI were read harmoniously with the charging provisions, and the assessee's treatment produced parity between opening and closing balances.

Conclusion: The addition on account of the opening balance of FCTR was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether section 115JB applies to a banking company preparing accounts under the governing banking law.

Analysis: The issue stood covered by the Special Bench decision followed in the assessee's own case. A banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act was held not to fall within the ambit of section 115JB as amended.

Conclusion: The applicability of section 115JB was held against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made in respect of investments held as stock in trade.

Analysis: The securities were held as stock in trade in the course of banking business and the related income was assessed as business income. Following the binding and consistent line of authority, section 14A was held inapplicable to such stock-in-trade investments in the hands of a bank.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the reassessment was valid in the absence of fresh tangible material.

Analysis: The reasons recorded showed reliance only on materials already available on the original assessment record, including the return, tax audit report, annual report and assessment records. Reopening on the same material amounted to a mere change of opinion and was impermissible.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held invalid and quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether bad debts written off could be restricted by reference to the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account.

Analysis: Sections 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia) and 36(2)(v) were read together with the CBDT instruction and the governing case law. Where the provision account did not carry a credit balance sufficient to absorb the write-off, the excess bad debt written off was allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii).

Conclusion: The disallowance was deleted and the deduction was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether interest accrued but not due on securities and interest on perpetual bonds were taxable or deductible.

Analysis: Interest on securities did not accrue merely by book entries where the contractual accrual had not occurred, and the entries were reversed immediately thereafter. Interest on perpetual bonds was treated as an allowable business outgo in line with the earlier binding decisions applicable to banks.

Conclusion: The disallowance of interest accrued but not due and the disallowance of interest on perpetual bonds were both rejected in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vii): Whether notional unrealised interest on NPAs, amortisation of premium on HTM securities, provision for wage revision, depreciation on investments, and RBI penalty were allowable or taxable.

Analysis: Unrealised interest on NPAs was not recognised as income in accordance with the RBI framework and the settled law on accrual. Amortisation of premium on HTM securities was allowed as per RBI-guided valuation reflected in ICDS. Provision for wage revision was treated as an accrued business liability. Depreciation/provision on investments was allowed following the banking valuation principle and prior authority. RBI penalty for non-compliance with internal regulatory guidelines was treated as an allowable business expenditure and not as a disallowed offence-related payment.

Conclusion: The additions/disallowances on these issues were deleted or rejected in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): Whether the assessment framed in the name of an amalgamated entity was void.

Analysis: The assessment order itself recorded that the entity had amalgamated into the assessee before the order was passed. An assessment framed in the name of a non-existent amalgamated entity is a jurisdictional defect and is void.

Conclusion: The assessment was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were dismissed on all substantive issues, and the assessee succeeded in the appeal concerning the amalgamated entity, resulting in an overall outcome substantially in favour of the assessee, with the jurisdictional challenge additionally rendering one assessment void.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment or reassessment cannot be sustained when it is founded on no fresh tangible material, or when it is framed in the name of a non-existent amalgamated entity, and book-tax adjustments under banking and foreign-exchange regimes must yield to the charging provisions and settled income-recognition principles applicable to the relevant previous year.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be sustained when copies of relied upon documents were not supplied before confirmation of demand, and whether the matter required remand with further opportunity of hearing and cross-examination.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged confirmation of demand on the ground that the noticee had sought copies of the relied upon documents, but those documents were not supplied and the objection was not addressed. The Court held that where a demand is proposed and confirmed on the strength of relied upon documents, the noticee's reply and defence may remain incomplete unless such documents are furnished, and the right to object to the proposed demand may be impaired. In the absence of any satisfactory material from the revenue showing prior supply of the documents, the Court inferred that the petitioner had not been provided those documents before confirmation of demand. The Court also directed that, on remand, the petitioner be given an opportunity to seek other documents, cross-examine witnesses if relied upon, and receive reasons if any request is declined.

Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after supplying the relied upon documents and granting due opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) whether the adjudication order confirming penalty could stand when the show-cause notice and DRC-01 did not specify the proposed penalty and the confirmed demand exceeded the notice; (ii) whether proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be sustained for the period after the introduction of Section 74-A with effect from 01.11.2024.

Issue (i): whether the adjudication order confirming penalty could stand when the show-cause notice and DRC-01 did not specify the proposed penalty and the confirmed demand exceeded the notice.

Analysis: The notice-based foundation for demand under Section 74 required the proposed penalty to be set out in the prescribed form, and confirmation of a penalty not proposed in the notice was treated as a defect. The absence of penalty specification in DRC-01 was therefore material to the validity of the adjudication.

Conclusion: The confirmed penalty could not be sustained on this ground and the adjudication order was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be sustained for the period after the introduction of Section 74-A with effect from 01.11.2024.

Analysis: The initiation of proceedings for the later period required consideration of the effect of Section 74-A, which had not been examined at the stage of issuance of notice. That omission warranted reopening at the show-cause stage rather than sustaining the existing order.

Conclusion: Proceedings under the impugned order could not continue as framed for the later period and the matter was remitted for issuance of a revised notice and fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in part, the impugned adjudication was set aside, and the dispute was sent back to the departmental authority for reconsideration from the notice stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand under Section 74 must be founded on a show-cause notice and prescribed notice form that clearly specifies the proposed penalty, and proceedings for the post-01.11.2024 period must account for the regime introduced by Section 74-A.

Issues: Whether Common Area Maintenance charges paid by the assessee were contractual service payments liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not rent within section 194I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to justify the demand raised under section 201(1) and section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier co-ordinate bench decisions on identical facts and held that CAM charges are separate from rent and are paid for maintenance of common areas and related services such as cleanliness, utilities and upkeep. Such payments do not represent consideration for use of land, building or premises and therefore do not fall within the statutory concept of rent. The Tribunal accepted that these charges are in the nature of a contractual payment for work and services, attracting deduction under section 194C rather than section 194I.

Conclusion: The demand for short deduction of tax at source was not sustainable, and the assessee was not liable to be treated as in default on that basis.

Issues: (i) whether the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the unsecured loan was sustainable; (ii) whether the transfer pricing adjustment on import of coal was correctly computed; (iii) whether the transfer pricing adjustment on interest on receivables from associated enterprises was sustainable; and (iv) whether the penalty initiation relating to disallowance of education cess survived.

Issue (i): whether the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the unsecured loan was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee produced material to establish the lender, the immediate source of funds, and the source of source, together with banking and assessment records. The addition had been made largely on suspicion, while the record also showed assessments of the relevant persons without adverse findings on these transactions. The assessee was therefore found to have discharged the burden of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the transfer pricing adjustment on import of coal was correctly computed.

Analysis: The margin comparison made by the transfer pricing officer was found to have been carried out without making comparable adjustments for sales commission and freight or port clearance charges. Since the computation of the arm's length margin was not made on a like-for-like basis, the matter required fresh working by the assessing authority and the transfer pricing officer after applying the proper adjustments and re-determining the arm's length price.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment on import of coal was set aside for fresh determination and the issue was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (iii): whether the transfer pricing adjustment on interest on receivables from associated enterprises was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee's case was that no interest was charged from unrelated customers and, therefore, no notional interest should be imputed on receivables from associated enterprises. As that factual foundation had not been verified, the matter was remitted for limited verification on whether interest was in fact charged from other customers, with the consequence that no interest would be charged from the associated enterprises if the factual assertion was confirmed.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded for verification and was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (iv): whether the penalty initiation relating to disallowance of education cess survived.

Analysis: The penalty initiation was dependent on the disallowance made on the education cess issue and did not call for an independent adjudication at that stage.

Conclusion: The penalty issue was consequential.

Final Conclusion: The unsecured loan addition was deleted, the transfer pricing issues were remitted for fresh consideration or limited verification, and the penalty aspect followed the fate of the underlying disallowance; accordingly, the assessee obtained substantial but not complete relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A cash credit addition cannot be sustained when the assessee substantiates the lender and source chain with credible documentary evidence and the revenue does not make contrary enquiry, and transfer pricing comparability must be based on like-for-like adjustments and verified facts before imputing an arm's length variance.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition sustained under section 68 on account of cash deposits received during demonetisation should be reduced and whether tax on the balance, if any, should be computed under section 115BBE; (ii) Whether interest income relating to substandard assets recognised on accrual basis should be added in the year under appeal; (iii) Whether expenditure treated as CSR outgo and disallowed under section 37(1) can still qualify for deduction under section 80G; (iv) Whether penalty under section 271DA for receipt of EMIs in cash in alleged violation of section 269ST is sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the addition sustained under section 68 on account of cash deposits received during demonetisation should be reduced and whether tax on the balance, if any, should be computed under section 115BBE.

Analysis: The assessee's business activity as a housing finance company and the existence of customer-linked cash deposits were not disputed in principle. In the surrounding factual setting, the entire addition was found excessive, but the assessee's explanation was accepted only in part. The Tribunal considered a lump sum addition to be appropriate on the facts, and also directed that taxation should not be under section 115BBE.

Conclusion: The issue was partly decided in favour of the assessee by restricting the addition to a lump sum amount and directing assessment under the normal provisions.

Issue (ii): Whether interest income relating to substandard assets recognised on accrual basis should be added in the year under appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the assessee had raised a verification and reconciliation issue regarding the relevant substandard accounts, but also noted that complete particulars had not been placed at the earlier stages. Instead of finally sustaining the addition, the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to establish the relevant facts.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision, subject to the assessee furnishing the necessary facts.

Issue (iii): Whether expenditure treated as CSR outgo and disallowed under section 37(1) can still qualify for deduction under section 80G.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier coordinate-bench view that CSR-related expenditure disallowed as business expenditure does not, by that reason alone, cease to be eligible for deduction under section 80G, provided the other statutory conditions are met. It held that the bar under section 37(1) and the claim under Chapter VI-A operate in different fields, and that mandatory CSR character does not by itself negate deductibility under section 80G.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the deduction under section 80G was allowed.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty under section 271DA for receipt of EMIs in cash in alleged violation of section 269ST is sustainable.

Analysis: The receipts were linked to existing loan accounts and were shown to be repayments by regular customers. The Tribunal treated these facts, together with the explanatory material to the Finance Act, 2017 and the CBDT circular, as sufficient to constitute a justifiable explanation against penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The common order grants only partial relief overall: the CSR deduction and penalty issues were decided for the assessee, the demonetisation cash-credit addition was restricted, the interest-income issue was sent back for reconsideration, and the connected appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A disallowance under section 37(1) on account of CSR expenditure does not, by itself, bar a claim under section 80G where the statutory conditions for that deduction are otherwise satisfied; and penalty for cash receipt violations may be deleted where the receipts are explained as bona fide repayments supported by surrounding circumstances and the governing circulars.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the seized imported goods on the same terms as granted in an earlier Division Bench order.

Analysis: The goods had been seized for want of DGFT authorization or licence. The petitioner sought release on the footing that the matter was covered by an earlier order of the Court. The respondents did not dispute that submission. The Court followed the earlier order and applied the same conditions for release, without disturbing the liberty of the customs authorities to continue adjudication in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to relief on the same terms as the earlier order, and the writ petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later writ petition is covered by an earlier coordinate order, the Court may grant the same relief of provisional release on identical conditions while leaving the customs adjudication proceedings unaffected.

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be invoked where the Assessing Officer had examined the reassessment issue and adopted a permissible view; (ii) Whether the Principal Commissioner could treat the mutual fund investment as a sham transaction, deny exemption on dividend income and capital loss relief, and issue directions beyond the relevant assessment year.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be invoked where the Assessing Officer had examined the reassessment issue and adopted a permissible view.

Analysis: The reassessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had issued notices, called for details, examined the investment and dividend transactions, and thereafter concluded that the transaction was genuine and not a sham. The power under section 263 requires the order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Where the Assessing Officer has made enquiries and taken one of the permissible views, revisional interference is not warranted merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion.

Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 on this issue was unsustainable and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Principal Commissioner could treat the mutual fund investment as a sham transaction, deny exemption on dividend income and capital loss relief, and issue directions beyond the relevant assessment year.

Analysis: No independent material established that the assessee knowingly participated in any colourable device or had prior knowledge of the alleged dividend declaration methodology. The alleged violation of market regulations, if any, was attributable to the fund and not to the investor. The transaction also fell outside the mischief of section 94(7), and the dividend had already suffered dividend distribution tax in the hands of the mutual fund under section 115R. The further direction relating to Assessment Year 2019-20 travelled beyond the scope of revisional proceedings for Assessment Year 2018-19.

Conclusion: The sham-transaction characterization, the consequential denial of exemption and loss relief, and the direction for the subsequent assessment year were all rejected.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment order was restored and the revisional order was quashed, leaving the assessee with full relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Revision under section 263 cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer has enquired into the issue and adopted a lawful plausible view, and a transaction cannot be treated as sham or denied statutory reliefs in the absence of cogent material showing the assessee's conscious participation in avoidance.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and no interference was made with the impugned judgment or order.

Issues: (i) Whether the FIR discloses the ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust, or criminal conspiracy so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings; (ii) Whether the PMLA investigation and ECIR can survive when the predicate allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence and no substantive material shows money laundering or proceeds of crime.

Issue (i): Whether the FIR discloses the ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust, or criminal conspiracy so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings

Analysis: The allegations rested on receipt of foreign investment, valuation of shares, and expenditure of company funds. The Court found that the foreign investor was not shown to be an aggrieved person who had been deceived, and no entrustment of property was shown to sustain criminal breach of trust. The investment transaction was treated as a commercial arrangement, supported by valuation material and regulatory correspondence, and the mere allegation of a high share premium did not establish dishonesty, inducement, or an unlawful agreement. The allegation of conspiracy was held to be unsupported by any material showing an illegal objective or illegal means.

Conclusion: No offence under Sections 406, 420, or 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out, and the FIR was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the PMLA investigation and ECIR can survive when the predicate allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence and no substantive material shows money laundering or proceeds of crime

Analysis: The PMLA proceedings were founded on the same factual basis as the FIR. Once the predicate allegations were found not to disclose a cognizable offence, the substratum for money laundering proceedings fell away. The Court also noted the absence of any concrete material showing proceeds of crime, and held that the investigation had not yielded incriminating material sufficient to sustain action under the PMLA. In view of the quashing of the predicate FIR, the ECIR and proceedings emanating from it could not stand independently. The request for supply of the ECIR consequently became unnecessary.

Conclusion: The ECIR and the PMLA proceedings were quashed, and the prayer for supply of the ECIR became infructuous.

Final Conclusion: The criminal and money-laundering proceedings were held unsustainable on the facts and law, and the connected writ petitions were finally allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A money-laundering prosecution cannot survive without a legally sustainable predicate offence, and a commercial investment transaction does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust in the absence of dishonest inducement, entrustment, or material showing an illegal conspiracy.

Issues: Whether the transfer pricing adjustment required fresh benchmarking analysis and consequent remand for de novo assessment.

Analysis: The assessee had characterised its services as information technology enabled services, whereas the transfer pricing adjustment was made by adopting comparables engaged in software development services. The mismatch in functional characterisation and comparables warranted a fresh examination of the benchmarking exercise and the arm's length determination.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer for de novo assessment after granting opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessment order and DRP directions, passed in the name of an amalgamated company that had ceased to exist pursuant to merger, were valid in law.

Analysis: The record showed that the original assessee had merged with another company with effect from 01.04.2024, and the subsequent change of name was also intimated to the departmental authorities. Despite these intimation, the DRP directions and the final assessment order were passed in the name of the erstwhile entity, which was no longer in existence on the date of the impugned orders. Applying the settled principle that proceedings against a non-existent amalgamating company are without jurisdiction, the defect was held to go to the root of the matter. Once this legal issue was accepted, the other transfer pricing and penalty-related grounds were rendered academic.

Conclusion: The assessment order and DRP directions passed in the name of the non-existent amalgamated entity were invalid and were set aside; the additional ground was allowed, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment or related adjudicatory direction issued in the name of a company that had ceased to exist on account of amalgamation is void for want of jurisdiction.