Outcome: Appeal dismissed under the National Litigation Policy on account of the monetary limit.

Issues: (i) Entitlement to a copy of the sanction order dated 10.06.2021; (ii) Whether limitation bars cognizance at the preliminary stage; (iii) Whether an extant sanction order alleged to be defective warrants quashing of the complaint and summoning order at inception; and (iv) Whether repeal of the Companies Act, 1956 invalidates prosecution based on an investigation ordered before the repeal clause came into force.

Issue (i): Entitlement to a copy of the sanction order dated 10.06.2021.

Analysis: The sanction order is a material document necessary for an effective defence. Its non-supply is capable of causing prejudice and miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to receive a copy of the sanction order.

Issue (ii): Whether limitation bars cognizance at the preliminary stage.

Analysis: Whether the alleged conduct formed part of a continuing series of acts or constituted an isolated act requires evidence regarding its proximity and connection with the wider alleged wrongdoing. Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also permits cognizance after limitation where delay is satisfactorily explained or required in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The bar of limitation cannot be determined at the preliminary stage; the objection is rejected at this stage against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether an extant sanction order alleged to be defective warrants quashing of the complaint and summoning order at inception.

Analysis: A distinction applies between complete absence of sanction and alleged invalidity of an existing sanction. Where sanction has been issued by the competent authority, the question whether it reflects due application of mind or proper appreciation of material is to be tested during trial, including through relevant evidence.

Conclusion: The complaint and summoning order cannot be quashed at inception on the alleged defective sanction; the validity challenge may be raised during trial.

Issue (iv): Whether repeal of the Companies Act, 1956 invalidates prosecution based on an investigation ordered before the repeal clause came into force.

Analysis: The investigation was ordered before Section 465 of the Companies Act, 2013 came into force. Section 465(2)(j) preserves investigations already ordered under the repealed enactment, while Section 465(3) retains the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, including preservation of investigations and legal proceedings concerning accrued liabilities and penalties.

Conclusion: The repeal does not render the investigation, sanction order, or summoning order defective; this issue is decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The sanction order must be supplied to enable an effective defence, while the criminal proceedings and the impugned orders remain operative, with the challenge to sanction validity available at the appropriate trial stage.

Ratio Decidendi: An alleged defect in an existing prosecution sanction, as distinct from the total absence of sanction, is ordinarily to be tested during trial and does not justify quashing at the threshold.

Issues: Whether a post-conviction settlement permits compounding of a dishonour-of-cheque offence through inherent jurisdiction after the revision affirming conviction and sentence has attained finality.

Analysis: The conviction and sentence had already been affirmed in a revision decided on merits. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be used to review, alter, or nullify a final judgment of a co-ordinate Bench. Upon final disposal, the Court becomes functus officio except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors; a subsequent settlement does not revive a concluded proceeding for reconsideration.

Conclusion: The request to compound the offence on the basis of the subsequent settlement was not maintainable, and the final conviction and sentence remained unaffected.

Issues: (i) Whether the upward adjustment made towards corporate guarantee by adopting 1% of the guarantee value as arm's length price was sustainable; (ii) Whether the disallowance of bad debts written off was liable to be deleted on the basis of actual write-off; (iii) Whether the principal component of EMI paid on leased assets was allowable as revenue expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether the upward adjustment made towards corporate guarantee by adopting 1% of the guarantee value as arm's length price was sustainable.

Analysis: Corporate guarantee to an associated enterprise was treated as a separate international transaction and not as a mere shareholder activity. The Authority relied on the retrospective inclusion of corporate guarantees within the transfer pricing framework and on the jurisdictional precedent holding that providing such guarantee involves risk and confers commercial benefit on the associated enterprise. The assessee had also charged 1% guarantee fee in respect of comparable guarantees extended to other overseas associates, which supported the adoption of an internal comparable.

Conclusion: The adjustment at 1% was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of bad debts written off was liable to be deleted on the basis of actual write-off.

Analysis: After the amendment to section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is required to establish actual write-off in the accounts and need not further prove irrecoverability. The Tribunal followed the settled position that the allowability of bad debt depends on the write-off in the books, and the jurisdictional precedent had applied the same rule.

Conclusion: The deletion of the disallowance was affirmed and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the principal component of EMI paid on leased assets was allowable as revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The lease arrangement was treated as a finance lease for accounting purposes, but tax treatment was held to depend on the Income-tax Act, 1961 rather than book entries. Under the Act, depreciation belongs to the owner of the asset, while lease rentals paid by a lessee without acquiring ownership are allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal followed the view that the legal ownership remained with the lessor and that the principal component of lease rental could not be disallowed merely because the assessee had capitalised the asset in its books under accounting standards.

Conclusion: The deletion of the disallowance was affirmed and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the revenue's challenge to the two disallowances, but failed on the transfer pricing dispute relating to corporate guarantee; the cross appeals were therefore not interfered with and stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Corporate guarantee to an associated enterprise is a distinct international transaction requiring arm's length benchmarking, while bad debt deduction turns on actual write-off in the accounts and lease rentals paid by a lessee without transfer of ownership are allowable as revenue expenditure.

Issues: Whether the insurer was liable to satisfy the award when the premium was received before the accident but the policy period shown in the document commenced after the accident.

Analysis: The accident occurred on 19/04/2015, while the policy document showed coverage from 21/04/2015. However, the record reflected fund transfer/payment of premium on 16/04/2015. The insurer did not examine the agent said to have handled the transaction, though he was the best witness to explain whether the amount was an advance deposit or premium received for the vehicle. In these circumstances, adverse inference was drawn against the insurer. Applying Section 64-VB(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938, the relevant date for assumption of risk was the date of receipt of premium, and the insurer could not rely only on the later commencement date printed in the policy.

Conclusion: The insurer was held liable to pay compensation, and the challenge to the award failed.

Final Conclusion: The award fastening liability on the insurer was upheld because premium receipt preceded the accident, making the insurer responsible under the governing insurance law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where premium is proved to have been received before the accident, the insurer assumes risk from that date and cannot avoid liability merely because the policy document states a later commencement date.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were valid when the notice under section 148 was issued on an incorrect PAN and the assessee's reply under section 148A(b) was not duly considered; (ii) whether the additions sustained towards cash deposits and FDRs could survive on merits.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were valid when the notice under section 148 was issued on an incorrect PAN and the assessee's reply under section 148A(b) was not duly considered.

Analysis: The notice was issued against an obsolete and incorrect PAN despite the assessee having already obtained and used the correct PAN for filing its return and disclosing the relevant transactions. The assessee had specifically informed the Assessing Officer of the correct PAN during the proceedings under section 148A(b), yet the matter was proceeded with on the wrong PAN without meaningful consideration of the reply. The statutory scheme under section 148A requires prior inquiry, consideration of the reply, and formation of a reasoned satisfaction before issuance of notice under section 148; failure to do so constitutes more than a procedural irregularity and goes to jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid and liable to be quashed on the ground of incorrect PAN and non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under section 148A.

Issue (ii): Whether the additions sustained towards cash deposits and FDRs could survive on merits.

Analysis: The assessee explained that the cash deposits represented business receipts and related transactions reflected in its accounts, and the Revenue did not rebut the explanation with contrary material. Rejection of the accounts merely for want of audit under section 44AB was not justified on the facts. As regards the FDRs, the source was explained as renewal of earlier deposits and business receipts, and once the source stood explained, addition under section 69A could not be sustained. The same funds could not be taxed twice by separately treating cash deposits and corresponding investments as unexplained.

Conclusion: The additions sustained by the lower authority were unsustainable and were deleted.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was vitiated in law and the substantive additions also failed on merits, resulting in complete relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued against the wrong PAN, without due consideration of the assessee's reply in the mandatory pre-notice procedure, is jurisdictionally invalid; unexplained-money additions cannot survive where the source of deposits and investments is satisfactorily explained and double addition is impermissible.

Issues: (i) Whether additional evidence furnished before the appellate authority ought to be treated as admitted and considered on merits; (ii) whether addition under section 56(2)(x) could be sustained on the footing that the stamp duty value on the date of registered conveyance exceeded the declared consideration, and whether the provisos permitting adoption of the allotment date applied; (iii) whether the gain on transfer of the property was assessable as short-term capital gain or long-term capital gain.

Issue (i): Whether additional evidence furnished before the appellate authority ought to be treated as admitted and considered on merits.

Analysis: The appellate authority had examined the additional material in remand proceedings and decided the issues on merits. The evidences were relevant to the controversy and were directed to the root of the dispute. In such circumstances, a separate refusal to admit the material was inconsistent with the adjudication already undertaken.

Conclusion: The additional evidence was held to be admissible and the objection to its admission failed.

Issue (ii): Whether addition under section 56(2)(x) could be sustained on the footing that the stamp duty value on the date of registered conveyance exceeded the declared consideration, and whether the provisos permitting adoption of the allotment date applied.

Analysis: The property was allotted earlier, part consideration was shown to have moved through banking channels, and the provisos to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) were held to require substantial compliance. The relationship between the parties was held insufficient, by itself, to discard the allotment evidence. The matter nevertheless required factual verification of the stamp duty value prevailing on the allotment date.

Conclusion: The issue was restored for limited verification of the stamp duty value as on the allotment date, and the addition under section 56(2)(x) was not finally sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the gain on transfer of the property was assessable as short-term capital gain or long-term capital gain.

Analysis: Once the allotment was accepted as conferring enforceable rights and substantial payment had been made earlier, the period of holding had to be reckoned from the allotment date rather than the date of registration of the conveyance deed. On that basis, the transfer took place after the requisite holding period for a long-term capital asset.

Conclusion: The gain was held to be assessable as long-term capital gain and not short-term capital gain.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the evidentiary and capital-gains issues, while the addition under section 56(2)(x) was sent back only for limited verification of the relevant valuation date.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an allotment confers enforceable rights and consideration is substantially paid through banking channels, the holding period for capital gains is counted from the allotment date, and the valuation mechanism under section 56(2)(x) must be applied with reference to the allotment date where the statutory provisos are satisfied.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148 were sustainable when the reopening was founded on an incorrect factual premise and without a live nexus to the assessee; (ii) whether the addition under section 69 for alleged cash payment over and above the recorded sale consideration could be sustained on un-confronted third-party material and without corroborative evidence; (iii) whether the reassessment was vitiated for want of mandatory approval and for breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148 were sustainable when the reopening was founded on an incorrect factual premise and without a live nexus to the assessee.

Analysis: The reopening proceeded on the assumption that the property had been purchased from the searched Omaxe group, whereas the documentary record showed purchase from another entity. No material was brought to establish any nexus between the assessee and the alleged incriminating material. The jurisdictional foundation was therefore based on a factual error and lacked tangible material connecting the assessee to the alleged cash transaction.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition under section 69 for alleged cash payment over and above the recorded sale consideration could be sustained on un-confronted third-party material and without corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The addition rested on excel-sheet entries and statements that were never supplied to the assessee for rebuttal. The record showed payment through banking channels, supported by the allotment agreement, loan disbursement certificate and bank details. In the absence of direct or corroborative evidence, and with the adverse material remaining untested, the addition rested on conjecture and preponderance of probabilities rather than proof.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69 was unsustainable and liable to be deleted.

Issue (iii): Whether the reassessment was vitiated for want of mandatory approval and for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The assessee's challenge to the absence of the required approval before completion of reassessment was not controverted by the Revenue. The material relied upon against the assessee was also not confronted, denying an effective opportunity of rebuttal. The statutory safeguards governing reassessment had not been strictly followed.

Conclusion: The reassessment suffered from jurisdictional infirmity and breach of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment order could not be sustained and the addition made on account of alleged cash payment failed, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment based on an incorrect factual premise, unsupported by a live nexus or corroborative evidence, and founded on material not confronted to the assessee, is invalid and any addition so made cannot be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether income-tax additions and demands pertaining to the period prior to the effective date survived in view of the approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) Whether the Revenue could deny carry forward of losses on the basis that the resolution plan granted a clean slate.

Issue (i): Whether income-tax additions and demands pertaining to the period prior to the effective date survived in view of the approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The approved resolution plan provided that all claims, liabilities, demands and other dues pertaining to the period on or before the effective date stood irrevocably and unconditionally settled, discharged and extinguished in perpetuity, and no income-tax claim had been placed before the resolution process as part of the approved plan. In these circumstances, the additions sustained in the assessment could not give rise to an enforceable demand against the assessee for the pre-effective-date period.

Conclusion: The additions and corresponding tax demand did not survive against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could deny carry forward of losses on the basis that the resolution plan granted a clean slate.

Analysis: The plea that a clean slate under the resolution plan necessarily bars carry forward of losses was not accepted. The availability of losses was treated as a relevant matter for the resolution process, and the Revenue having not placed the issue before the resolution forum could not successfully resist the assessee's claim on that basis.

Conclusion: The Revenue could not deny carry forward of losses on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the substantive tax issue, while the Revenue's appeal failed, resulting in a partial allowance of the assessee's cross appeal and dismissal of the Revenue's cross appeal.

Issues: Whether cash credits deposited in the assessee's bank accounts, stated to have been collected from clients and utilised for payment of their statutory dues, could be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The documentary material, including bank statements, challans and the affidavit, showed that the assessee received monies only for remittance of clients' tax liabilities and that the corresponding debits in the bank accounts matched the tax payments made to government authorities. The lower authorities had treated the credits as unexplained without giving due weight to the matching debits and the surrounding evidence demonstrating that the assessee acted only as a conduit. On the overall facts, the deposits were found not to represent the assessee's own income.

Conclusion: The addition made by treating the bank credits as unexplained could not be sustained and was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the levy of interest under Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required fresh examination on the basis of the advance tax already paid and the dividend income received in March 2020; (ii) whether the computation of interest under Section 234A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required factual verification in the light of the statutory provisions and CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2021 dated 20.05.2021; and (iii) whether the computation of interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 also required reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the levy of interest under Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required fresh examination on the basis of the advance tax already paid and the dividend income received in March 2020.

Analysis: The interest computation under Section 234C turned on the correct appreciation of the advance tax paid during the year and the balance income on which tax remained payable. The record showed that the assessee had furnished a working of the interest computation, while the Revenue had not placed the basis of the higher figure before the Tribunal. The issue therefore depended on verification of the tax payments and the residual taxable amount after giving credit for advance tax already remitted.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

Issue (ii): Whether the computation of interest under Section 234A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required factual verification in the light of the statutory provisions and CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2021 dated 20.05.2021.

Analysis: The levy under Section 234A depended upon the correct period for which default interest was chargeable, which in turn required verification of the due date, the date of filing the return, and the date of payment of self-assessment tax. In view of the reliance placed on the statutory framework and the CBDT circular, the computation could not be affirmed without a factual re-examination of the relevant dates and payments.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

Issue (iii): Whether the computation of interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 also required reconsideration.

Analysis: Since the computation of interest under Sections 234A and 234C was being reopened for fresh verification of the relevant tax details, the computation under Section 234B was also required to be examined afresh on the same factual record to ensure a correct and complete determination of the assessee's interest liability.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The interest demand was not finally sustained or deleted on merits and the entire controversy relating to interest was sent back for fresh consideration, with the assessee obtaining only partial relief at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the correctness of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C depends upon verification of tax payments, dates and the applicable statutory framework, the computation should be set aside and examined afresh by the Assessing Officer.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax was payable under reverse charge mechanism on legal and professional services and GTA services after including reimbursable expenditure in the taxable value; (ii) Whether CENVAT credit on common input services used for taxable franchise service and exempted trading activity was admissible; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether service tax was payable under reverse charge mechanism on legal and professional services and GTA services after including reimbursable expenditure in the taxable value.

Analysis: The demand was founded on inclusion of reimbursable expenditure in the taxable value. The valuation rule invoked for such inclusion was held to be impermissible for the relevant period, as reimbursable expenditure could be included only after the statutory amendment relied upon by the Tribunal. The dispute period was prior to that amendment, and the tax already paid under reverse charge mechanism on the impugned services could not be enhanced by adding reimbursable amounts to the value.

Conclusion: The service tax demand on reimbursable expenditure was unsustainable and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether CENVAT credit on common input services used for taxable franchise service and exempted trading activity was admissible.

Analysis: The appellant was engaged in both taxable and exempted activities, including trading, which was treated as an exempted service for CENVAT purposes. No satisfactory evidence showed maintenance of proper separate accounts or compliance with the prescribed options under the credit rules. Since the common input services were used for both taxable and exempted activities, the credit attributable to the exempted activity was not allowable and proportionate reversal was required.

Conclusion: The denial of full credit and direction for proportionate reversal were upheld, and this issue was decided in favour of the department.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant was aware of its trading activity and of the obligation not to avail credit attributable to exempted activity, yet failed to maintain proper segregation and disclosed the relevant amounts only partially. This was treated as suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax liability, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period and consequential penalties.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation and the penalties were sustained, and this issue was decided in favour of the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The demand of service tax on reimbursable expenditure was set aside, while the order requiring proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit and the penalties was sustained, resulting in partial allowance of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Reimbursable expenditure cannot be added to the taxable value for the relevant period absent a valid statutory basis, but common credit used for both taxable and exempted activities requires proportionate reversal, and deliberate non-segregation may justify extended limitation and penalties.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was rightly invoked for recovery of allegedly inadmissible CENVAT credit.

Analysis: The demand was founded on an allegation that inadmissible credit had been deliberately and intentionally availed on ineligible input services, but the show cause notice did not allege suppression of information in the ER-1 returns. The appellant had disclosed availment of credit in the returns filed from time to time. To invoke the extended period, the statutory conditions of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty must be strictly established. Mere self-assessment, or the fact that the irregularity surfaced during audit, does not by itself constitute suppression with intent to evade. The reasoning adopted in the impugned order relied on self-assessment and alleged non-disclosure to the department, but those grounds did not answer the actual allegation in the notice and were inconsistent with the requirement of proving the ingredients of section 11A(4).

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not validly invoked, and the invocation thereof was held to be erroneous; the assessee succeeded on the limitation issue.

Issues: Whether the demand, interest, and penalty arising from alleged contravention of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be sustained after the provision had been held ultra vires and the Revenue's challenge had been not pressed before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The Rule 8(3A) restriction requiring payment of duty on consignment-to-consignment basis had already been declared ultra vires by the High Court, and similar view had been followed in later decisions. The Revenue's appeal before the Supreme Court was disposed of as not pressed, which was treated as leaving the High Court ruling undisturbed and as having attained finality. In that backdrop, the Tribunal followed its earlier decisions and held that the demand confirmed under the impugned order could not survive.

Conclusion: The demand, interest, and penalty founded on Rule 8(3A) were held unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 notwithstanding the plea of violation of natural justice. (ii) Whether, after audit proceedings under Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 notwithstanding the plea of violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The availability of an effective statutory appeal ordinarily bars invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The recognized exceptions are violation of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and challenge to vires. On the facts, the petitioner was issued notice, granted time to respond, and given an extended opportunity for reply and personal hearing. The record did not establish denial of hearing or any material breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground, and the alternative appellate remedy was required to be pursued.

Issue (ii): Whether, after audit proceedings under Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 65 expressly provides that where audit results in detection of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised, the proper officer may initiate action under Sections 73 or 74. Accordingly, the initiation of proceedings after audit was supported by the statutory scheme and could not be treated as lacking jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge failed, and initiation of proceedings under Section 73 was held to be permissible.

Final Conclusion: The petition was held not entertainable under writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner was left to work out the statutory appellate remedy against the impugned demand order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised unless a recognized exception is established, and an audit finding of tax short payment may lawfully lead to proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 as provided by the statute.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Revenue's appeal solely on the ground of low tax effect despite the Assessing Officer's finding of organised tax evasion and the exception contained in clause (h) of the CBDT circular.

Analysis: The Court held that the Tribunal disposed of the appeal without examining the merits, whereas the assessment record disclosed allegations of false or fictitious share transactions amounting to organised tax evasion. Clause (h) of the CBDT circular was read as having a wide ambit, with the reference to bogus capital gains or losses through penny stocks and accommodation entries treated as illustrative rather than exhaustive. On that reading, cases involving organised tax evasion fall within the exception and are not barred by the low tax effect instructions.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's dismissal on low tax effect was not justified, and the appeal was required to be heard on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal involving allegations of organised tax evasion falls within the exception to the CBDT low tax effect circular, and cannot be dismissed without examining the merits merely because the tax effect is below the prescribed threshold.

Issues: Whether, in the absence of an available and served assessment order and demand notice, the reflected tax demand and the consequential adjustment of refund could be sustained, and whether the impugned intimations under section 245 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The assessment records did not disclose a copy of the assessment order with the Assessing Officer, and therefore there could be no question of service on the assessee. In the absence of an assessment order and demand notice, a demand reflected only on the portal could not acquire legal enforceability. The consequential adjustment of refund, made against such non-existent enforceable demand, also lacked legal foundation.

Conclusion: The intimations issued under section 245 were illegal and were quashed. The outstanding demand entry was directed to be deleted, and the amount adjusted from refund was ordered to be returned with applicable interest.

Issues: Whether the review petitions challenging the judgment dated 02.03.2021 could be entertained in view of the earlier dismissal of review petitions in the same batch.

Analysis: The order notes that an earlier set of review petitions arising from the same judgment had already been considered by another Bench and dismissed on delay as well as on merits by order dated 23.04.2024. In view of that disposal, the Court held that it would not be proper to reopen the issue and reconsider the present review petitions on merits, particularly when the present petitioners were identically situated.

Conclusion: The review petitions were not entertained and were dismissed.