Issues: Whether the transfer of the immovable property took place on the date of the agreement to sell and receipt of full consideration, so that the capital gains were chargeable in AY 2018-19, and whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The agreement to sell was executed in AY 2018-19, full sale consideration had been received by the assessee in that year, possession of the property had already stood with the purchaser, and the postponement of the registered sale deed occurred because of a red entry and related official clearance beyond the assessee's control. On these facts, the rights in the property were held to have stood transferred in substance in the relevant year, attracting section 2(47)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by reason of extinguishment of the assessee's rights, even though the registered conveyance was executed later. Since the new property had already been acquired within the relevant period and the deduction claim was otherwise not disputed, the claim under section 54 was held allowable.

Conclusion: The capital gains were held taxable in AY 2018-19 and the assessee was held entitled to deduction under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has received full consideration, handed over possession, and effectively extinguished rights in the property under an agreement to sell, transfer may be regarded as having taken place in that year for capital gains purposes notwithstanding delayed execution of the registered sale deed.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could recall its earlier order passed under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Miscellaneous Application was disposed of without notice to the assessee and without affording an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the distinction between review on merits and procedural review permits recall where the proceeding is vitiated by a procedural defect going to the root of the matter. Since the Registry had inadvertently served the Revenue's application on the appellant instead of the assessee, no valid notice was issued to the assessee and no opportunity of hearing was granted. This violated the statutory requirement of notice under the proviso to section 254(2) and offended the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal invoked its inherent power of procedural review and applied the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit.

Conclusion: The earlier order dated 22/07/2025 was recalled and the Miscellaneous Application was directed to be listed afresh; the assessee's application succeeded.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy against the order passed on the impugned show cause notice, and all contentions were kept open.

Issues: Whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be compounded on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the parties, warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and modification of the sentence already imposed.

Analysis: The parties had entered into a compromise, the complainant had received the entire settled amount, and the execution proceedings had been withdrawn. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes every offence under the Act compoundable notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In view of the settled nature of the dispute, its essentially commercial character, and the absence of any material showing coercion, fraud, or undue influence, continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. The inherent power preserved under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was therefore attracted to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was compounded, and the sentence was modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a cheque dishonour dispute is voluntarily and fully settled and the complainant has received the entire amount in full satisfaction, the offence is compoundable at any stage and the Court may invoke inherent jurisdiction to bring the proceedings to an end in the interests of justice.

Issues: Whether the petitioners should be permitted to carry out amendments to the writ petitions to challenge the newly introduced provision and whether re-verification of the petitions should be dispensed with; no substantive adjudication on the merits of the challenge was undertaken.

Outcome: The Court permitted the petitioners to seek amendment in line with the Supreme Court's liberty and dispensed with re-verification, while directing compliance with the Supreme Court's directions and service on the Revenue.

Issues: Whether notional interest could be imputed on delayed realization of trade receivables from associated enterprises where the assessee was a debt-free company.

Analysis: The outstanding receivables were treated by the transfer pricing authority as a separate international transaction and interest was computed on the basis of an implied financing benefit. The assessee's case that it was debt-free and had not incurred any interest cost found support in binding precedent holding that, in the absence of borrowing cost or material showing a financing arrangement or passing on of interest-bearing funds to associated enterprises, no notional interest adjustment is warranted merely because receivables were realised belatedly. The Revenue did not bring any material to show actual interest cost, use of borrowed funds, or any demonstrable benefit conferred on the associated enterprise.

Conclusion: The notional interest adjustment on delayed receivables was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee is a debt-free company and no material shows that delayed receivables involved any actual financing cost or borrowing-funded benefit to associated enterprises, notional interest cannot be added as a transfer pricing adjustment.

Issues: Whether the rejection of the declared customs value and its enhancement on the basis of a retracted statement and an allegedly comparable invoice was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessment was founded essentially on a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which had been promptly retracted. The material relied upon for comparison was found not to be comparable, since the invoice description and specifications of the cited goods differed from the imported goods. No supporting evidence or discussion of contemporaneous imports was available on record to justify rejection of the declared transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 or its redetermination under Rule 3(1) of those Rules read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value and the consequential findings based solely on the retracted statement could not be sustained; the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared import value cannot be rejected or enhanced merely on the basis of a retracted statement without reliable corroborative evidence, including valid contemporaneous comparable imports.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order was maintainable in view of the petitioner's recourse to the statutory alternative remedy under the GST framework, and whether the concealment of the earlier application under the waiver provision warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The impugned order had already been the subject of proceedings under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in which the request for waiver of interest and penalty had been considered and allowed. In these circumstances, the Court found that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the appellate authority against the assessment order. The Court also noticed that the petitioner had not disclosed the filing of the application under Section 128A in the writ petition, and held that such concealment, coupled with availability of an alternative remedy, weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and no interference under Article 226 was warranted; the petition was dismissed.

Issues: Whether the services of sales and marketing consulting and manpower or HR consulting supplied to the foreign entity constituted export of services or intermediary services, and whether the appellant was entitled to zero-rating and refund of unutilized input tax credit.

Analysis: The agreement and surrounding facts showed that the appellant performed on-the-ground market services in India, coordinated with the local client's team, and rendered services in connection with the foreign entity's engagement with an Indian client. The Authority found that the arrangement involved three parties and that the appellant facilitated the supply of services between the foreign entity and the Indian client, which brought the activity within the definition of intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. For intermediary services, the place of supply is the location of the supplier under Section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. On that basis, the services were treated as taxable in India and not as export of services under Section 2(6), so the conditions for zero-rating and refund of unutilized input tax credit were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The services were correctly classified as intermediary services taxable in India, and they did not qualify as export of services or zero-rated supply; refund of unutilized input tax credit was not allowable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contractual arrangement shows that a supplier facilitates the foreign client's services to an Indian client and the activity is performed in India, the supply is intermediary service with the place of supply at the supplier's location and cannot be treated as export of services.

Issues: Whether service tax demand, interest and penalties could be sustained on the appellant in respect of GTA services when the recipient had discharged tax under reverse charge for a substantial part of the receipts, and whether the extended period could be invoked in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appellant's books and ITR showed freight receipts from the same recipient, while the recipient's letter and the material on record indicated discharge of service tax under reverse charge on the taxable value already identified. The balance considered by the authorities below was not shown, on the evidence accepted by the Tribunal, to justify shifting the tax burden to the service provider when the service recipient was the person liable under the reverse charge arrangement. The Tribunal also held that the appellant's belief that tax on the entire GTA service was payable by the recipient was bona fide, and in such circumstances the ingredients required for invoking the extended period, namely suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade, were absent.

Conclusion: The demand of service tax, interest and consequential penalties on the appellant was not sustainable. The appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appellant obtained full relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the recipient is liable under reverse charge and the assessee acts under a bona fide belief without suppression or wilful misstatement, tax cannot be demanded from the service provider and the extended period cannot be invoked.

Issues: Whether the retention, freezing and seizure of movable properties and bank accounts were sustainable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the appellants had shown lawful source of funds to displace the allegations that the assets represented proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The material on record, including the forensic audit and investigation findings, showed a money trail from the company's funds to fictitious vendors and then to the appellants, their relatives and entities controlled by them. The explanation of consultancy income, salary and rental receipts was found unsubstantiated, with no reliable documentary proof of genuine services, appointment details, rent documentation or other evidence of lawful acquisition. In view of the allegations of kickbacks, manipulation of accounts and diversion of funds, the burden on the appellants to explain the source of assets was not discharged.

Conclusion: The freezing and seizure of the movable properties were upheld and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where investigation establishes a prima facie money trail linking assets to diverted company funds, and the claimant fails to prove a lawful source of acquisition, retention of the properties as proceeds of crime is justified under the PMLA.

Issues: Whether the demand of service tax, confirmed mainly on the basis of Income-tax returns and Form 26AS without independent enquiry into the nature of receipts, was sustainable, including invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The demand was founded on figures reflected in Form 26AS and the profit and loss account. It was noted that Form 26AS is prepared by the Income-tax Department and may contain discrepancies, and that the figures in Form 26AS differed from the turnover declared in the books. No independent enquiry was made to verify the reason for the difference or to establish that the receipts were towards taxable services. The invocation of the longer period of limitation was therefore held to rest only on these statements, which was found insufficient for confirmation of tax.

Conclusion: The demand and the appellate confirmation were held to be unsustainable on limitation and merits of the departmental case based solely on Form 26AS and the profit and loss account. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of donations to political parties alleged to be accommodation entries was liable to be sustained.

Analysis: The issue was found to be squarely covered by an earlier coordinate bench decision on identical facts concerning donations claimed under section 80GGC. The assessee did not place any fresh material or evidence to distinguish the present case from the earlier decision. In the absence of any material rebuttal, and following the existing view that such donations routed through political parties found to be accommodation entry providers cannot be treated as genuine eligible donations, no interference with the disallowance was warranted.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 80GGC was upheld and the appeal of the Revenue succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The assessment action sustaining the denial of deduction for the impugned donation claim stood confirmed, resulting in relief to the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction claimed under section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 may be disallowed where the surrounding material shows that the donation was part of an accommodation-entry arrangement and the assessee fails to produce fresh evidence to dislodge a prior coordinate bench view on identical facts.

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus was maintainable to question detention pursuant to a judicial remand order. (ii) Whether non-supply of the verbatim reasons to believe recorded for authorising arrest under the GST law vitiated the arrest and the remand proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus was maintainable to question detention pursuant to a judicial remand order.

Analysis: A writ of habeas corpus lies where detention is illegal or where there is total non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards or lack of jurisdiction. A remand order passed by a Magistrate is ordinarily tested through statutory remedies, but where the challenge is to the legality of detention itself for breach of a statutory mandate, the extraordinary jurisdiction may be invoked.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of the verbatim reasons to believe recorded for authorising arrest under the GST law vitiated the arrest and the remand proceedings.

Analysis: The power to arrest under section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is conditioned on the Commissioner recording reasons to believe on the basis of material and then authorising arrest. Those reasons to believe are jurisdictional safeguards and are ordinarily required to be furnished to enable challenge to the arrest, though limited redaction may be justified in exceptional cases. On the facts, the record showed that the reasons to believe recorded at the administrative level were supplied in substance to the petitioner, and the supplied document was not materially at variance with the reasons recorded in the file.

Conclusion: Non-supply of a verbatim signed copy did not vitiate the arrest or the remand proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to arrest and judicial custody failed, as the statutory preconditions were found to have been complied with in substance and no illegality in detention was established.

Ratio Decidendi: In challenges to arrest under section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the reasons to believe are a jurisdictional safeguard that must ordinarily be furnished to the arrestee for judicial review, but minor differences in form do not invalidate the arrest if the substance of the recorded reasons has been supplied and no prejudice is shown.

Issues: (i) Whether reimbursable expenses collected by the service provider formed part of the taxable value for service tax under Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand.

Issue (i): Whether reimbursable expenses collected by the service provider formed part of the taxable value for service tax under Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.

Analysis: The demand was founded on Rule 5(1) and Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The governing principle had already been settled by the Supreme Court in Intercontinental Consultants, where Rule 5(1) was held to travel beyond Sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court reiterated that service tax is chargeable on the value of the service actually rendered and that amounts received merely as reimbursable expenditure, not forming quid pro quo for the service, cannot be added to the taxable value for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The reimbursable expenses were not includible in the taxable value and the demand on that basis could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand.

Analysis: The dispute turned on interpretation of the valuation provisions and the treatment of reimbursements. In such a setting, the allegation of suppression or mala fide necessary to justify extended limitation was not made out. The Court therefore held that the invocation of the extended period was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked and the demand failed on that ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was set aside and the appeal succeeded on merits and on limitation, with consequential relief as permissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: For the relevant service tax regime, reimbursable expenses not constituting consideration for the taxable service cannot be added to the value of taxable service by subordinate legislation beyond Sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, and a purely interpretational dispute does not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation absent suppression or mala fide.

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained in view of the petitioner's alternative remedy of appeal, and whether limited protection should be granted to enable filing of such appeal.

Analysis: The impugned order was challenged under Article 226, but a preliminary objection was raised that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought permission to pursue the appellate remedy on the ground that the assessment order was ex parte and that there was delay in filing the appeal. In these circumstances, the Court permitted recourse to the statutory appeal and protected the petitioner from coercive action for a limited period to enable filing of the appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not adjudicated on merits and the petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy, with interim protection against coercive steps until the appeal was filed within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available, writ jurisdiction may be declined and the petitioner may be relegated to the appeal forum with limited protective relief to facilitate access to that remedy.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest paid on borrowed funds under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the borrowed money was deployed in the assessee's composite business structure and through its associated share investment arrangement.

Analysis: Section 36(1)(iii) allows deduction of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of business or profession. The controlling enquiry is whether the borrowing was for business purposes, and the matter must be examined from the standpoint of commercial expediency. The Court held that the High Court erred in treating the utilisation of funds through the subsidiary/shareholding route as outside the assessee's business. The assessee carried on a composite business with interlinked operations and common management, and the borrowed funds were used in a manner connected with that business. Interest on such borrowed capital cannot be denied merely because the funds passed through an associated concern before being applied to the share transaction.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to deduction of the interest paid on the borrowed sum under Section 36(1)(iii), and the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest on borrowed capital is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) when the borrowing is commercially expedient and connected with the assessee's business, including in a composite business arrangement involving associated concerns.

Issues: Whether the Curative Petitions satisfied the limited parameters for exercise of curative jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitions were found to be defective and the defects had not been cured despite communication by the Registry. The Court nevertheless examined the matter on merits and held that no case was made out to entertain the Curative Petitions within the parameters laid down for curative relief.

Conclusion: The Curative Petitions did not satisfy the requirements for curative jurisdiction and were not entertainable.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended in dismissal after a merits-based refusal to invoke curative jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A curative petition can be entertained only within the narrow parameters recognised by the Court, and where those parameters are not satisfied, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated within limitation and with the requisite approval under the post-amendment reassessment regime. (ii) Whether the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases should be sustained in full or whether the matter required fresh adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated within limitation and with the requisite approval under the post-amendment reassessment regime.

Analysis: The notice issued at the pre-assessment stage expressly recorded prior approval of the specified authority. The record showed that the proceedings were commenced within the period prescribed for the relevant assessment year under the amended reassessment provisions. The objection regarding absence of approval was not supported by the record, and the limitation challenge was based on an incorrect factual premise.

Conclusion: The reassessment challenge was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases should be sustained in full or whether the matter required fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The assessment and appellate records contained adverse material from the investigation and GST authorities suggesting accommodation entries and bogus invoices, while the assessee also relied on books of account, stock records, invoices, bank entries and sales evidence. The Tribunal noted deficiencies in transportation evidence, purchase-to-sale correlation, and rebuttal of the adverse third-party material. At the same time, it considered that the dispute required deeper factual verification as to actual receipt of goods and the genuineness of the suppliers.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection failed, but the dispute on the disputed purchases was not finally decided on merits and was sent back for reconsideration after further verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where adverse third-party material casts serious doubt on purchases, the assessee must establish actual receipt of goods through cogent evidence, and where the facts remain insufficiently verified, remand for fresh adjudication is appropriate.