Issues: (i) whether cash deposits made during the demonetisation period, claimed to be out of recorded cash sales, could be assessed as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether the surrounding materials, including audited books, stock records, VAT returns and Form-F declarations, supported the genuineness of the sales and the source of the deposits.

Issue (i): whether cash deposits made during the demonetisation period, claimed to be out of recorded cash sales, could be assessed as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Analysis: The cash deposits were supported by cash book entries and sale records. The books of account were not rejected, and no specific defect in the sales, purchases, or stock position was established. A mere increase in cash sales during the demonetisation window, or the fact that many invoices were below the PAN threshold, was held insufficient by itself to dislodge the explanation where the receipts were already recorded as business turnover.

Conclusion: The deposits could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68.

Issue (ii): whether the surrounding materials, including audited books, stock records, VAT returns and Form-F declarations, supported the genuineness of the sales and the source of the deposits

Analysis: The assessee produced audited accounts, cash books, stock movement records and VAT returns showing corresponding turnover. The inter-branch stock transfers were supported by Form-F declarations and the VAT assessments had accepted the returns. In the absence of contrary material or any demonstrated mismatch in stock flow, the contemporaneous documentary record supported the assessee's explanation of the source of cash.

Conclusion: The documentary evidence was accepted as sufficient to explain the deposits and to establish the genuineness of the sales.

Final Conclusion: The addition sustained on account of demonetisation-period cash deposits was deleted, and the assessee succeeded on the merits of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where cash deposits are traced to recorded sales supported by audited books, stock records and accepted tax returns, and the revenue fails to show a defect or contrary material, such deposits cannot be brought to tax as unexplained income merely on suspicion or on the basis of sales-pattern anomalies.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to interest on refund under section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 up to the date on which the refund was actually granted, and not merely up to the date of determination of refund in the intimation under section 143(1).

Analysis: The return was processed under section 143(1), but the subsequent scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) accepted the assessee's position in substance and the refund was in fact issued much later than the date adopted for computing interest. Since section 244A grants interest on excess tax refunded for the period during which the Revenue retained the money, the relevant terminal point for interest is the actual payment of refund where the refund is delayed beyond the date of determination.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to interest under section 244A up to the month in which the refund was actually issued, and the direction to the Assessing Officer to grant such interest was in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) whether the deletion of additions made towards unexplained unsecured loans under section 68 was justified; (ii) whether the consequential disallowance of interest expenditure relating to such loans was sustainable; (iii) whether the deletion of additions towards sundry creditors under section 68 was justified; (iv) whether the disallowance under section 14A could exceed the exempt income earned during the year; and (v) whether the addition of Rs. 35,00,000 sustained in respect of one unsecured loan creditor was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the deletion of additions made towards unexplained unsecured loans under section 68 was justified.

Analysis: The assessee produced confirmations, PAN, bank statements, ITR acknowledgements and financial statements, and the matter was also examined in remand proceedings after notices under section 133(6). The records showed that the loans were routed through banking channels, repaid, and interest was paid with TDS deduction. The adverse view taken by the assessing authority on some lenders did not displace the documentary evidence for the remaining creditors.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans was upheld and the ground of the Revenue failed.

Issue (ii): whether the consequential disallowance of interest expenditure relating to such loans was sustainable.

Analysis: The disallowance of interest was made only as a proportionate consequence of the loan addition under section 68. Since the principal addition was largely deleted, the corresponding interest disallowance had no independent basis. The record also showed that no interest was paid on the only loan ultimately sustained.

Conclusion: The deletion of the interest disallowance was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Issue (iii): whether the deletion of additions towards sundry creditors under section 68 was justified.

Analysis: The assessee furnished additional evidence including confirmations, ITRs, bank statements and audited financial statements, which were examined in remand proceedings. The creditors were identifiable and the transactions were reflected in regular books and banking records. Low returned income by itself was held insufficient to negate creditworthiness where the financial and banking material supported the transactions.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition towards sundry creditors was upheld and the Revenue's ground was rejected.

Issue (iv): whether the disallowance under section 14A could exceed the exempt income earned during the year.

Analysis: The assessee had earned exempt dividend income and had already made a suo motu disallowance. The appellate authority applied the line of authority holding that disallowance under section 14A must bear a reasonable nexus to exempt income and cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The later Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 was treated as prospective.

Conclusion: The restriction of the disallowance to the amount of exempt income was upheld and the Revenue's ground failed.

Issue (v): whether the addition of Rs. 35,00,000 sustained in respect of one unsecured loan creditor was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee showed that the creditor was under liquidation and its records were in the custody of the Official Liquidator, which explained the non-response to notices. The assessee had nevertheless produced the available primary evidence, including confirmation, ledger, PAN, bank entries and financial statements, thereby discharging the initial burden under section 68. No contrary material or adverse finding rebutted that evidence, and the addition rested only on suspicion.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 35,00,000 was deleted and the assessee's ground succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed in full, while the assessee obtained relief on the sustained loan addition, leaving the appellate order substantially in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an assessee produces credible documentary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of a transaction, the burden shifts to the Revenue to rebut it with material evidence; in addition, a disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned where the judicially accepted nexus is absent.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on account of management support service fees was sustainable when the assessee had produced documentary evidence of actual receipt of services and the TPO determined the arm's length price at nil by treating the services as stewardship activities. (ii) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment in the manufacturing segment survived when the assessee's margin, after consideration of abnormal costs and corrected comparable analysis, exceeded the comparable margin under TNMM.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on account of management support service fees was sustainable when the assessee had produced documentary evidence of actual receipt of services and the TPO determined the arm's length price at nil by treating the services as stewardship activities.

Analysis: The assessee had furnished service agreements, invoices, allocation workings, time sheets, e-mails, presentations and other records to show actual rendition of business support services relating to procurement, supply chain management, finance, human resources, operations and business development. The TPO disregarded this material and treated the payment as shareholder or stewardship expenditure, while also determining the arm's length price at nil without applying a recognized transfer pricing method. The same arrangement had already been accepted in the assessee's group cases, where similar services were held to be normal business services and not stewardship activities, and the payment at actual cost plus markup was treated as at arm's length.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment for management support service fees was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment in the manufacturing segment survived when the assessee's margin, after consideration of abnormal costs and corrected comparable analysis, exceeded the comparable margin under TNMM.

Analysis: The assessee benchmarked the manufacturing segment under TNMM and sought normalization of extraordinary costs arising from exceptional business circumstances relating to supply of clutch parts. The TPO rejected the adjustment, modified the comparable set and computed a higher comparable margin, but the remand proceedings and appellate scrutiny revealed errors in the computation of comparables. After correction, the comparable margin was found to be lower than the assessee's margin even on the TPO's revised basis, showing that the tested party's transactions were already at arm's length. Under TNMM, no transfer pricing addition survives where the tested party margin is higher than the corrected comparable margin.

Conclusion: The manufacturing segment adjustment was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed on both transfer pricing issues, and the relief granted by the first appellate authority was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where actual receipt of intra-group services is established by reliable evidence, the arm's length price cannot be fixed at nil without applying a prescribed transfer pricing method, and under TNMM no adjustment is warranted if the tested party's margin is not below the corrected comparable margin.

Outcome: Civil appeal dismissed; no interference was called for with the impugned order.

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue's delay of 338 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. (ii) Whether, in the software development services segment, the exclusion of CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Tech Mahindra Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd., and the inclusion of Spry Resources India Pvt. Ltd., was justified. (iii) Whether, in the ITeS segment, Hartron Communications Ltd., Capgemini Business Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Infosys BPO Ltd. were rightly excluded. (iv) Whether negative working capital adjustment could be applied against a captive cost-plus service provider. (v) Whether the assessee's plea for inclusion of Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. and Informed Technologies India Ltd. required fresh adjudication.

Issue: Whether the Revenue's delay of 338 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was supported by an affidavit explaining administrative pendency and time-bound litigation work. A liberal approach was applied in condonation matters, and there was no material showing mala fides or deliberate inaction.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the Revenue's appeal was admitted.

Issue: Whether, in the software development services segment, the exclusion of CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Tech Mahindra Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd., and the inclusion of Spry Resources India Pvt. Ltd., was justified.

Analysis: CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd. was found to have mixed software and BPO activities, no reliable segmental data, abnormal profit growth and an entrepreneurial profile. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. was found to possess significant intangibles, brand value and a materially different risk profile. Tech Mahindra Ltd. suffered from reliance on consolidated data, high related party transactions, extraordinary events and unreliable margin computation. Persistent Systems Ltd. was engaged in product development, IP-led and R&D-intensive activities, with acquisitions and functional differences. Mindtree Ltd. was accepted as rightly excluded on turnover and scale considerations. Spry Resources India Pvt. Ltd. was held to be not excludable merely for high receivables, since receivables affect working capital but not functional comparability.

Conclusion: The exclusions of the contested comparables were upheld and Spry Resources India Pvt. Ltd. was rightly directed to be included.

Issue: Whether, in the ITeS segment, Hartron Communications Ltd., Capgemini Business Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Infosys BPO Ltd. were rightly excluded.

Analysis: Hartron Communications Ltd. showed abnormal growth in its BPO segment and unreliable segment results, making its margins unsuitable for benchmarking. Capgemini Business Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. failed the related party transactions filter once the full related party profile was considered. Infosys BPO Ltd. was a large, brand-driven, diversified and risk-bearing enterprise with a materially different functional and economic profile, and it also failed the export revenue filter.

Conclusion: The exclusions of all three ITeS comparables were upheld.

Issue: Whether negative working capital adjustment could be applied against a captive cost-plus service provider.

Analysis: Working capital adjustment is meant to neutralise differences in receivables, payables and inventory, not to load an additional margin on a risk-insulated captive service provider. Where the assessee operates on a cost-plus basis for its AEs and does not bear working capital risk, a negative adjustment is inappropriate.

Conclusion: Negative working capital adjustment was held to be impermissible in the facts of the case.

Issue: Whether the assessee's plea for inclusion of Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. and Informed Technologies India Ltd. required fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The first appellate authority had not recorded a finding on these comparables despite specific objections and supporting material. Since inclusion of comparables requires verification of functional profile, filters, segmental data and margins, the matter required factual reconsideration.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh examination and was allowed for statistical purposes.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the transfer pricing relief failed, while the assessee obtained limited remand relief on two comparables; the matter was otherwise sustained on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing, comparability must be tested on functional profile, assets and risks, and a captive cost-plus service provider should not suffer a negative working capital adjustment where it does not bear working capital risk.

Issues: Whether penalty under section 42 read with section 46 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 was leviable on the assessee for non-disclosure of an amount credited by a foreign employer from past salary deductions towards a retirement plan.

Analysis: The amount in question was found to be a later remittance arising out of past deductions from salary made by the foreign employer, and not income or a foreign asset earned during the relevant year. The assessee's explanation that he had ceased foreign employment, had no income earned in India during the year, and was under a bona fide belief that no return was required was accepted. On these facts, the case was treated as one involving a salaried employee acting under a bona fide misunderstanding rather than concealment of foreign income or asset.

Conclusion: The penalty was held to be unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned penalty under the Black Money Act was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for non-disclosure is not warranted where the credited amount represents a remittance of past salary deductions from a foreign employer and the assessee's omission occurs under a bona fide belief without concealment of foreign income or assets.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 was sustainable for non-disclosure of foreign bank deposits and assets in the return of income.

Analysis: The assessee had foreign bank deposits from past earnings abroad, the interest income from such deposits was disclosed in India, and due tax was paid thereon. The return form for the relevant assessment year did not contain a specific column or note requiring disclosure of such foreign assets, and the form was later amended to incorporate such a requirement. On these facts, the non-disclosure was treated as a bona fide mistake rather than a case of concealment of offshore income or assets created out of black money. The facts did not indicate deliberate suppression with a view to avoid Indian tax liability.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 43 was not justified and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) whether commission income earned by a foreign procurement facilitator could be assessed as the assessees' undisclosed income on an allegation of inflated purchases and diverted profits; (ii) whether balance credit card expenditure could be disallowed after substantial suo motu disallowance by the assessees; (iii) whether disallowance under section 40A(3) and estimated disallowance of unsupported cash payments were sustainable; (iv) whether stock devaluation of obsolete leather stock amounted to suppression of gross profit; (v) whether alleged unaccounted scrap and Grade-B shoe sales called for final addition or fresh verification; and (vi) whether the transfer pricing adjustments relating to export incentives, persistent loss filter, miscellaneous expenses, bad debts, guest house items, rates and taxes, and commission for marketing services were sustainable.

Issue: whether commission income earned by a foreign procurement facilitator could be assessed as the assessees' undisclosed income on an allegation of inflated purchases and diverted profits.

Analysis: The foreign entity was an incorporated and tax-compliant overseas company, no material showed it to be sham or fictitious, and there was no fund flow, circular routing, or repatriation of commission back to the assessees. The seized material and statements only showed coordination and facilitation in procurement, while the assessees produced customs data, supplier correspondence, and tax records supporting the genuineness of the arrangement. The Revenue did not establish that purchases were inflated or that the commission accrued to the assessees.

Conclusion: The addition on this issue was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted in favour of the assessees.

Issue: whether balance credit card expenditure could be disallowed after substantial suo motu disallowance by the assessees.

Analysis: The assessees had already disallowed a substantial portion on an estimated personal element, and the Assessing Officer did not identify any specific personal transaction in the balance claim. The expenditure was supported by books and materials, and the mode of payment through credit cards did not by itself make the claim personal or non-business. A blanket disallowance without transaction-specific defects was not justified.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the balance credit card expenditure was deleted in favour of the assessees.

Issue: whether disallowance under section 40A(3) and estimated disallowance of unsupported cash payments were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 40A(3) applies in a person-specific and day-specific manner, and the Revenue did not show that any individual payment exceeded the prescribed limit. The complete disallowance under section 40A(3) was therefore not sustainable. However, where the assessee failed to substantiate certain cash payments with supporting vouchers or evidence, the estimated disallowance sustained by the authorities was accepted.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40A(3) was deleted, while the estimated disallowance of unsupported expenditure was sustained.

Issue: whether stock devaluation of obsolete leather stock amounted to suppression of gross profit.

Analysis: The stock was found to be old, unused, and non-moving leather stock, and its valuation at realizable market value was consistent with accepted accounting principles for obsolete inventory. The assessee produced invoices, ledger extracts, and bank statements for subsequent sale, and the Revenue brought no market valuation report or direct evidence of suppression. ERP modifications and loose sheets alone did not establish undisclosed income, particularly when the books were not rejected.

Conclusion: The addition on account of stock devaluation was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue: whether alleged unaccounted scrap and Grade-B shoe sales called for final addition or fresh verification.

Analysis: The addition rested mainly on search statements and loose sheets, while the assessee claimed that the same receipts had already been disclosed in another assessment year and that GST liability had been discharged. The material on record had not been independently verified for double taxation, disclosure in the later year, or completeness of accounting. The matter required factual re-examination.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue: whether export incentives, persistent loss filter, miscellaneous expenses, bad debts, guest house items, rates and taxes, and commission for marketing services were correctly treated for transfer pricing purposes.

Analysis: Export incentives arising solely from export activity had direct operational nexus and formed part of operating income under TNMM. Companies incurring losses in only two out of three years were not persistent loss-makers and could not be excluded merely on that basis. Routine miscellaneous and administrative expenses, bad debts arising from business transactions, and rates and taxes or license fees were operating in nature. Where guest house income was treated as non-operating, the corresponding expenditure had to receive the same treatment to preserve symmetry. The ALP of marketing commission services could not be determined at nil without benchmarking, and the aggregation approach was justified where the transactions were closely linked and supported by agreements and evidence.

Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the transfer pricing issues, and the relevant adjustments and exclusions were deleted or directed to be recomputed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The common order granted substantial relief to the assessees by deleting major corporate-tax additions and most transfer-pricing adjustments, while sustaining only the estimated disallowance of unsupported cash expenditure and restoring the Grade-B shoe issue for fresh examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Additions and transfer pricing adjustments must rest on cogent evidence and a consistent application of operating filters, and where an item bears a direct nexus with business operations, or where a corresponding income is treated in a particular manner, the related expense or receipt must be treated symmetrically for a reliable determination of income or arm's length margin.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to file an additional or supplementary reply through the GST portal, and whether the assessment order rejecting refund required interference and remand.

Analysis: The proceedings under the GST framework were conducted through online mode for issuance of notice, filing of reply, and communication of the order. In that setting, a portal mechanism for supplementary replies was necessary, or at least a controlled request-based facility enabling the noticee to seek permission to file a further reply before the next date of hearing. The petitioner's inability to file the additional reply online, coupled with the attempt reflected in the grievance process, showed that the reply before adjudication was not complete from the petitioner's standpoint. Relegating the petitioner to an appeal would not cure the prejudice caused by the absence of an effective opportunity to place the full defence before the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The order rejecting the refund application was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after granting one opportunity to file an additional or supplementary reply.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in obtaining restoration of the adjudicatory process so that the refund claim could be reconsidered after a fuller reply on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proceedings are conducted primarily through an online statutory portal, the noticee must be afforded a workable procedural facility to seek and file a supplementary reply before adjudication, and denial of such opportunity can justify setting aside the order and remitting the matter.

Issues: (i) Whether the erstwhile anti-profiteering authority had jurisdiction to direct further investigation and re-investigation into the respondent's supplies; (ii) whether the omission of the anti-profiteering authority-related rules rendered the proceedings non est; (iii) whether the proceedings were barred by limitation; (iv) whether interest or penalty could be imposed; and (v) whether the respondent had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction by commensurate price reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the erstwhile anti-profiteering authority had jurisdiction to direct further investigation and re-investigation into the respondent's supplies?

Analysis: Rule 133(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 empowered the authority to refer the matter back for further investigation where the report warranted such inquiry. The subsequent insertion of Rule 133(5) was treated as clarificatory. The respondent's own earlier submissions had invited consideration of whether benefits had been passed on to other customers, and the authority's direction for further investigation was therefore held to be within jurisdiction. The scope of investigation under Rule 129 was also treated as wide enough to cover allied and unenumerated matters relevant to section 171.

Conclusion: The challenge to jurisdiction failed and the direction for further investigation was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the omission of the anti-profiteering authority-related rules rendered the proceedings non est?

Analysis: The omission of Rules 122, 124, 125, 134 and 137 did not extinguish proceedings already initiated under section 171. The legal framework continued to preserve the anti-profiteering mechanism, and the later vesting of jurisdiction in the Tribunal reinforced that the regime had undergone only a change in forum, not abolition of the underlying liability or pending proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings were held to survive notwithstanding omission of the said rules.

Issue (iii): Whether the proceedings were barred by limitation?

Analysis: The six-month period in Rule 133(1) was treated as directory and not mandatory, particularly in light of the beneficial nature of anti-profiteering legislation. Absence of a specified consequence for delay meant that lapse of the timeline did not vitiate the proceedings as a whole.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether interest or penalty could be imposed?

Analysis: The period of alleged profiteering preceded the introduction of the penalty provision in section 171(3A) and the interest provision in Rule 133(3)(c). On that temporal basis, those fiscal consequences were not attracted to the respondent for the period in question.

Conclusion: Interest and penalty were held not recoverable.

Issue (v): Whether the respondent had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction by commensurate price reduction?

Analysis: The rate of GST on the affected FMCG goods had reduced from 28% to 18%, but the respondent did not correspondingly reduce prices. Applying section 171(1), the authority held that each recipient is entitled to the benefit of tax reduction by way of commensurate price reduction, and benefits passed to some other customers do not absolve failure to pass on the benefit to the actual recipient. The respondent's own earlier statement that a substantial amount may not have been passed on to the customer was treated as supporting the finding. The DGAP's recomputation of profiteering at Rs. 13,61,51,254/- was accepted.

Conclusion: The respondent was found to have profiteered Rs. 13,61,51,254/- by not passing on the GST rate reduction benefit.

Final Conclusion: The respondent's liability for profiteering was affirmed, the quantified amount was directed to be deposited into the applicable Consumer Welfare Funds, and the procedural objections except those relating to interest and penalty were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where GST rate reduction is not passed on to the recipient by commensurate reduction in price, profiteering under section 171 is established for the affected supplies; the investigation power is wide, procedural timelines are directory, and later omission of forum-constituting rules does not extinguish pending proceedings.

Issues: Whether the earlier order required modification so that only the appellate order dated 23.12.2025 was quashed and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

Analysis: The application pointed out a bona fide typographical error in the earlier order, which had inadvertently referred to quashing an additional order beyond the appellate order challenged before the Court. The correction was sought to align the operative part of the order with the intended relief and to preserve the quashing of the appellate order while also recording condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

Conclusion: The application was allowed and para 5 of the earlier order was substituted so that the appellate order alone stood quashed and the delay in filing the appeal stood condoned.

Issues: Whether blocking of input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86-A of the UP GST Rules, 2017 was valid when the impugned order did not record the requisite reason to believe in writing.

Analysis: The power under Rule 86-A is conditional upon the competent authority forming and recording, in writing, a reason to believe before blocking input tax credit. Subsequent written instructions or later explanations cannot cure the absence of reasons in the impugned order itself. The order merely referred to a conclusion of fraudulent availment of input tax credit and did not disclose the recorded reasons required by law. The material relied upon also did not show the necessary application of mind to the petitioner's case so as to satisfy the statutory threshold.

Conclusion: The blocking order was jurisdictionally deficient for want of recorded reasons to believe and was set aside. Relief was therefore granted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained after expiry of the statutory period for filing an appeal under the GST law so as to bypass the limitation prescribed for the appellate remedy; (ii) Whether any interference was warranted on the grounds of jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice in relation to the impugned notice and assessment order.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained after expiry of the statutory period for filing an appeal under the GST law so as to bypass the limitation prescribed for the appellate remedy.

Analysis: The petitioner approached the writ court after the limitation for filing the statutory appeal had expired. The order notes that the challenge raised in writ jurisdiction was available immediately after issuance of the notice and assessment order, yet no appeal was filed within time. The Court relied on the settled principle that tax limitation provisions are to be strictly followed and that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to do indirectly what cannot be done directly or to circumvent the statutory appellate scheme. The Court also referred to the principle that extraordinary writ power should not be exercised to render the limitation provision otiose.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable as a device to bypass the expired statutory appellate remedy, and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether any interference was warranted on the grounds of jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice in relation to the impugned notice and assessment order.

Analysis: The Court recorded that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice and had also been granted an opportunity of hearing. On that basis, it found that no jurisdictional error and no violation of natural justice had been substantiated. The Court also held that the petitioner had approached the Court at a belated stage without a satisfactory explanation for the delay or laches.

Conclusion: No interference was called for on these grounds, and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be an impermissible attempt to evade the statutory appellate limitation, and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in the absence of any substantiated jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a time-bound appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should not be used to defeat that limitation or to bypass the statutory appellate procedure in the absence of patent illegality or violation of natural justice.

Outcome: Delay condoned and the petitions were disposed of without adjudication on merits, with the question of law kept open.

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail granted in relation to summons issued under Section 70 of the Chhattisgarh State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for an offence under Section 132 of that Act, was justified on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The allegation involved suspicious transactions with multiple high-risk suppliers and alleged availing of fraudulent input tax credit without actual supply of goods, with books of account and related records stated to be relevant. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, and for the purpose of ascertaining the truth and securing the necessary documents, custodial interrogation was considered necessary. The fact that the respondent was already in custody in another case was also noticed.

Conclusion: The grant of anticipatory bail was not justified and the order granting pre-arrest bail was set aside. The respondent was directed to be taken into custody in the present case, while leaving open the remedy of regular bail.

Issues: (i) Whether deduction under section 80IB(10) was allowable on a proportionate basis for the housing project, (ii) whether disallowance under section 14A could survive in the absence of exempt income, (iii) whether the ad hoc disallowance of vehicle repairs, maintenance and motor car depreciation was sustainable, (iv) whether the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases could be made in an unabated assessment without incriminating material found in search, and (v) whether notional rent could be added on unsold stock in the absence of incriminating material.

Issue (i): Whether deduction under section 80IB(10) was allowable on a proportionate basis for the housing project.

Analysis: The housing project was approved and commenced on land exceeding one acre, and the statute did not require acquisition of the entire land in one tranche. The first approval date governed the project where there were multiple approvals. The commercial area objection was not accepted, as the so-called commercial space was treated as convenience shopping and the amended commercial-area threshold was held to operate retrospectively for eligible approved projects. The presence of some residential units exceeding the prescribed built-up area did not defeat the claim in respect of the qualifying portion of the project.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 80IB(10) was held allowable on a proportionate basis in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance under section 14A could survive in the absence of exempt income.

Analysis: It was found that no exempt income had been earned during the year. In such circumstances, section 14A could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the ad hoc disallowance of vehicle repairs, maintenance and motor car depreciation was sustainable.

Analysis: The disallowance was made on the assumption of personal use by directors, but the expenditure belonged to the company and personal expenditure of a company was not a basis for such disallowance in the absence of supporting material.

Conclusion: The ad hoc disallowance was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases could be made in an unabated assessment without incriminating material found in search.

Analysis: The year was unabated on the date of search, so additions could be sustained only on the basis of incriminating material relating to that year. The finding was that no such material was found for the year under consideration, and the revenue did not rebut that factual conclusion.

Conclusion: The addition for bogus purchases was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether notional rent could be added on unsold stock in the absence of incriminating material.

Analysis: The addition was also founded only on a search assessment without any incriminating material for the relevant year. The factual finding deleting the addition was not disturbed.

Conclusion: The notional rent addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the substantive issues relating to deduction, disallowances and additions, while the revenue's appeal failed in full; the composite result was a partial allowance of the assessee's appeal and dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and the impugned order was not interfered with.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal could be condoned; (ii) Whether the Tribunal's directions regarding release and retention of seized documents and digital devices suffered from any infirmity warranting interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal was re-filed after a delay of 225 days. The explanation offered for the delay was found unsatisfactory. The Court noted that the appeal papers were substantially typed and photocopied, and that Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 prescribes a strict time limit for appeal, permitting only a limited extension on sufficient cause being shown.

Conclusion: The delay in re-filing was not condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's directions regarding release and retention of seized documents and digital devices suffered from any infirmity warranting interference in appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal had directed release of documents and digital devices not forming part of the prosecution complaint, while retaining those which did form part of the complaint and permitting their use subject to the terms recorded. The Court found no infirmity in those directions and held that, to the extent the appellant sought enforcement or further relief, the proper course was to avail the remedy under Section 35(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: No interference was called for on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on limitation and on merits, and was dismissed, with liberty to the appellant to pursue remedies in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a strict appellate limitation with a limited power of extension, an unexplained and excessive delay in re-filing cannot be condoned, and appellate interference is unwarranted where the impugned directions disclose no legal infirmity and an alternate statutory remedy remains available.