Issues: (i) Whether the transfer of demonetised cash to another person's bank account for deposit and its subsequent return to the appellant through banking channels constituted a benami transaction; (ii) Whether the appellant's account could remain attached for the entire Rs. 5,00,000 notwithstanding tax payment and deposit under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer of demonetised cash to another person's bank account for deposit and its subsequent return to the appellant through banking channels constituted a benami transaction.

Analysis: Cash is movable property within Section 2(26) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The person receiving the appellant's cash, depositing it in his proprietorship account and thereby lending his name was a benamidar within Section 2(10). Under Section 2(9)(A), the cash supplied by the appellant constituted consideration, while the amount held in the benamidar's account was property held for the appellant's benefit. Cash may operate both as property and as consideration; its prompt retransfer does not negate the transaction, since the statutory requirement is met where the property is held, even temporarily, for the immediate or future benefit of the person providing the consideration.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the appellant. The transaction was a benami transaction within Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's account could remain attached for the entire Rs. 5,00,000 notwithstanding tax payment and deposit under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, 2016.

Analysis: Of the Rs. 5,00,000 involved, Rs. 2,47,500 had been paid as tax and Rs. 1,25,000 had been deposited in an interest-free bond. The balance available to the appellant was Rs. 1,27,500. Attachment was therefore confined to the available balance of Rs. 1,27,500 together with the bond amount of Rs. 1,25,000; if the balance was unavailable in the account, its trail could be investigated and attached.

Conclusion: The issue is decided partly in favour of the appellant. The attachment is restricted to Rs. 2,52,500, comprising Rs. 1,27,500 and the bond amount of Rs. 1,25,000.

Final Conclusion: The benami character of the transaction is sustained, but the enforceable attachment is limited to the residual amount and bond representing Rs. 2,52,500.

Ratio Decidendi: Cash can be both property and consideration for purposes of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; where cash supplied by a beneficial owner is held through another who lends his name and is retransferred for that owner's benefit, the statutory elements of a benami transaction are satisfied irrespective of the temporary duration of holding.

Issues: Whether an assessment founded on a seized slip and a third-party statement could be sustained when the assessee was afforded only a next-day opportunity to cross-examine the third party.

Analysis: Principles of Natural Justice require a real and effective opportunity to cross-examine a person whose statement and seized document form the sole basis of an addition. A notice requiring attendance for cross-examination on the very next morning did not provide a meaningful opportunity and was merely illusory. The merits of the remaining objections to the addition were not adjudicated.

Conclusion: The assessment could not stand for denial of an effective opportunity to cross-examine the third party and required fresh determination after such opportunity, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether cash handed to another for deposit during demonetisation and retransferred through banking channels constituted a benami transaction, and the extent to which the appellant's assets could be attached.

Analysis: Cash is movable property within Section 2(26) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. A person accepting the appellant's cash and depositing it in the bank account of his proprietorship concern lent his name to the property and was therefore a benamidar under Section 2(10). The requirements of Section 2(9)(A) were satisfied because the cash was provided by the beneficial owner, was held in the benamidar's bank account, and was subsequently retransferred for the beneficial owner's benefit. Cash can simultaneously operate as property and consideration; immediate retransfer after the intended conversion of demonetised notes does not exclude the transaction from the statutory definition. In determining the attachable amount, account was taken of the tax already paid and the amount deposited in the interest-free bond under the disclosure scheme.

Conclusion: The transaction was benami, but the attachment was confined to Rs. 2,52,500, comprising Rs. 1,27,500 and the bond amount of Rs. 1,25,000.

Outcome: Fresh adjudication was directed upon a 25% deposit of disputed tax and submission of reply; consequential bank attachment was to be lifted upon compliance.

Issues: (i) Allowability of advertisement and sales-promotion expenditure; (ii) Allowability of marketing-support charges, rebates and discounts; (iii) Allowability of service charges and reimbursements; (iv) Allowability of depreciation on coolers; (v) Validity of the transfer-pricing adjustment for advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure.

Issue (i): Allowability of advertisement and sales-promotion expenditure.

Analysis: The expenditure had a direct nexus with the assessee's concentrate business because increased beverage sales increased demand for concentrates. The assessee was the primary beneficiary, and any benefit to bottlers or brand owners was incidental. The expenditure was commercially expedient and its economic cost was recovered through concentrate pricing. Identical expenditure had consistently been allowed in the assessee's earlier years, and no distinguishing facts were established.

Conclusion: Advertisement and sales-promotion expenditure is allowable as a business deduction, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Allowability of marketing-support charges, rebates and discounts.

Analysis: Marketing support in the form of rebates, discounts and incentives was directly connected with promoting beverage sales and, consequently, sales of concentrates. The expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the assessee's business and was distinct from brand-advertising expenditure. Earlier orders allowing the claim on materially identical facts were applicable.

Conclusion: Marketing-support charges, rebates and discounts are allowable as business expenditure, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Allowability of service charges and reimbursements.

Analysis: The services had a direct nexus with the assessee's concentrate business. The fact that services also related to bottlers or conferred incidental benefits upon other group entities did not negate their business purpose. The claim was consistently allowed in earlier assessment years on the same basis.

Conclusion: Service charges and reimbursements are allowable as business expenditure, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Allowability of depreciation on coolers.

Analysis: The assessee retained ownership and control of the coolers, including rights of access, relocation and replacement. The coolers promoted sales of finished beverages, which had an inseparable commercial connection with demand for the assessee's concentrates. The coolers were therefore used for the assessee's business notwithstanding their placement at bottler or vendor locations.

Conclusion: Depreciation on coolers is allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Validity of the transfer-pricing adjustment for advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure.

Analysis: The proposed mark-up of 4.6% was not derived through a recognised transfer-pricing method. The assessee's overall profitability adequately compensated its functions, including the alleged brand-building activity. Earlier orders in the assessee's case had also rejected adjustment for such expenditure, and no distinguishing material was shown.

Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustment for advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletions of all substantive additions and the transfer-pricing adjustment are sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Consistent earlier decisions on materially identical facts must be followed where no distinguishing facts or contrary material are established.

Issues: (i) Whether Articles 6 and 7 of the Multilateral Instrument, including the Principal Purpose Test, could deny benefits under the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement without a specific notification incorporating their effect into that Agreement; (ii) Whether the aircraft leases were finance leases generating taxable interest or equipment royalty; (iii) Whether the leased aircraft constituted a fixed place permanent establishment in India and whether the lease rentals were exclusively taxable in Ireland under Article 8 of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Issue (i): Whether Articles 6 and 7 of the Multilateral Instrument, including the Principal Purpose Test, could deny benefits under the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement without a specific notification incorporating their effect into that Agreement.

Analysis: Although the Multilateral Instrument and the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement had been notified and the Agreement was designated as a covered tax agreement, no separate notification under Section 90(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 incorporated the Multilateral Instrument modifications into the Agreement. A treaty-based modification affecting domestic rights cannot be enforced merely through the notified Multilateral Instrument or a synthesised text.

Conclusion: The Principal Purpose Test under Articles 6 and 7 of the Multilateral Instrument could not be invoked to deny treaty benefits to the assessee. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the aircraft leases were finance leases generating taxable interest or equipment royalty.

Analysis: The lease terms retained title, residual ownership risks, repossession rights and rights to re-lease in the lessor, while requiring return of the aircraft at expiry. The lessee's operational obligations, limited sub-leasing right and use of lease-rental computation parameters did not transfer ownership or transform the arrangement into a finance lease. Article 12(3)(a) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement expressly excludes aircraft from equipment royalty, and rentals under an operating lease are not interest under Article 11.

Conclusion: The arrangements were operating leases; the rentals were neither taxable interest nor equipment royalty in India. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the leased aircraft constituted a fixed place permanent establishment in India and whether the lease rentals were exclusively taxable in Ireland under Article 8 of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Analysis: A fixed place permanent establishment requires a place at the foreign enterprise's disposal through which its business is carried on. In a dry lease, operational possession and control of the aircraft remained with the lessee; inspection, maintenance-protection and default repossession rights were merely protective incidents of ownership. The leasing business was undertaken outside India. Article 8 treats rental of aircraft in international traffic as independently covered, and the treaty does not require the lessor itself to operate aircraft or establish predominant international use. Aircraft forming part of a fleet deployed other than solely between places in India met the treaty condition.

Conclusion: The leased aircraft did not create a permanent establishment in India, and the lease rentals were taxable only in Ireland under Article 8. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions for aircraft lease rentals were deleted across the connected matters; issues concerning assessment limitation were left open, while interest and penalty matters were not substantively adjudicated.

Ratio Decidendi: Treaty modifications under the Multilateral Instrument cannot restrict benefits under a notified double taxation agreement unless their domestic effect is separately notified under Section 90(1); dry-leased aircraft under the lessee's operational control do not constitute a fixed place permanent establishment of the foreign lessor, and qualifying aircraft-rental income is governed by Article 8.

Issues: (i) Whether Acropetal Technologies Ltd could be retained as a comparable for benchmarking the engineering design services segment despite findings of financial irregularities and abnormal fluctuations in its margins; (ii) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on support services could be deleted by relying on the margins accepted in a subsequent Advance Pricing Agreement for a non-APA year.

Issue (i): Whether Acropetal Technologies Ltd could be retained as a comparable for benchmarking the engineering design services segment despite findings of financial irregularities and abnormal fluctuations in its margins.

Analysis: The comparable showed high margin volatility over several years and the record reflected SEBI-adjudicated irregularities in its financials, including diversion of IPO funds for non-business purposes. Such irregularities materially affected reliability of the operating margins. The Tribunal also noted consistent co-ordinate bench view that a company tainted by financial fraud and distorted margins should not be used as a comparable.

Conclusion: Acropetal Technologies Ltd was rightly excluded as a comparable, and the Revenue's challenge failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on support services could be deleted by relying on the margins accepted in a subsequent Advance Pricing Agreement for a non-APA year.

Analysis: The assessee had shown that the support-service methodology and the relevant functions were consistent across years, and that the later APA accepted a cost-plus mark-up for the covered period. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that where the transaction profile and FAR remain the same, an APA may have persuasive value for years outside the APA period, especially when supported by documentary evidence of services received and the benchmarked margins.

Conclusion: The deletion of the support-services adjustment was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were rejected in full, and the transfer pricing relief granted by the first appellate authority was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A comparable tainted by proven financial irregularities and unreliable margins may be excluded from transfer pricing benchmarking, and where the transaction profile and FAR remain unchanged, an APA accepted for subsequent years can be given persuasive value for a non-APA year when supported by evidence.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to economic adjustments in transfer pricing benchmarking, namely working capital adjustment and capacity utilisation adjustment, and whether the matter required restoration to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The assessee had adopted TNMM and claimed economic adjustments while benchmarking its international transactions. The adjustments were denied on the ground that the data relied upon was not verifiable and that documentary substantiation was inadequate. The record showed that the assessee's financials indicated under-utilisation of capacity, and the Tribunal followed its view taken in the assessee's own later year that under TNMM economic adjustments ought to be quantified and granted. It was held that the Transfer Pricing Officer could call for necessary information and adopt an appropriate method for quantification instead of rejecting the claim for want of exact data, and that denial of adjustments without considering the effect on margins was not consistent with Rule 10B(e) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to have the working capital and capacity utilisation adjustments reconsidered, and the matter was restored to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh benchmarking and determination in accordance with law after giving due opportunity.

Issues: (i) Whether a civil suit seeking declaration that a sale deed is null and void on the ground of violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 is barred by the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under the Act. (ii) Whether a sale of agricultural property in favour of a non-resident Indian, said to be in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the allied regulations, is void by reason of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 6(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Issue (i): Whether a civil suit seeking declaration that a sale deed is null and void on the ground of violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 is barred by the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under the Act.

Analysis: Section 34 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of matters that the adjudicating authority, appellate tribunal or special director (appeals) is empowered to determine. The dispute regarding alleged contravention of FEMA was already taken up before the statutory authorities, which imposed penalty. The declaration sought before the civil court was not independent of the FEMA issue but was consequential to it, and therefore the civil suit could not be sustained on that aspect.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether a sale of agricultural property in favour of a non-resident Indian, said to be in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the allied regulations, is void by reason of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 6(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: A contravention of FEMA does not, by itself, render the transaction void. The statutory scheme under FEMA provides for adjudication, penalty and, where warranted, confiscation, and the authorities in the present case chose to impose penalty without confiscating the property. Regulation 3(b) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2000 also indicates that transfer of immovable property to a person resident in India is not prohibited in the manner contended. The transaction therefore could not be treated as forbidden by law so as to fall within Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or Section 6(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The decree for partition was sustained in respect of the ancestral properties, but the declaration and consequential reliefs relating to the separate properties dealt with in the impugned sale transaction were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A contravention of FEMA does not ipso facto make a transaction void, and where the statute provides a self-contained adjudicatory mechanism with penalties, the civil court cannot declare such transaction void on the basis of the alleged FEMA violation.

Issues: Whether the ex parte assessment and the order rejecting the belated appeal were liable to be interfered with and the matter remitted on conditions.

Analysis: The assessment was passed ex parte after the assessee did not respond to the show-cause notice or produce supporting documents. The Court took note of the explanation offered for non-participation and the merits of the alleged discrepancies in turnover reconciliation, and held that an opportunity should be granted on equitable terms. Since 10% of the disputed tax had already been deposited at the appellate stage, the Court required deposit of the balance 15% as a condition for relief.

Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed conditionally, the impugned appellate order and assessment order were set aside upon deposit of 15% of the disputed tax, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the authority.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on interest on loans advanced to associated enterprises and the adjustment on corporate guarantee fee were sustainable. (ii) Whether deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowable in respect of the rail system, water system and receipts from sale of CERs. (iii) Whether disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and its effect on book profit under section 115JB was liable to be disturbed. (iv) Whether gain on prepayment of sales tax deferrals was capital in nature and whether write-off of project creditors was taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on interest on loans advanced to associated enterprises and the adjustment on corporate guarantee fee were sustainable.

Analysis: The adjustment on interest was examined in the light of the assessee's group decision and the settled approach that the arm's length rate for lending transactions depends on the rate prevailing in the jurisdiction where the loan is received and consumed. The corporate guarantee issue was considered in the light of the assessee's own earlier years, where the commission had already been restricted to 0.35%, and the later year facts were found to be materially similar. The Tribunal applied the principle of consistency and followed the earlier binding co-ordinate bench view.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing additions on interest and corporate guarantee were not disturbed and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowable in respect of the rail system, water system and receipts from sale of CERs.

Analysis: The claims were examined with reference to the assessee's earlier years, the setting aside of the revisionary order under section 263, and the subsequent finality of the issue in favour of the assessee. The CER receipts were also treated as covered by the assessee's own case and the sister concern decision. On the facts, the Tribunal found no reason to depart from the earlier adjudications.

Conclusion: The deductions under section 80-IA for the rail system, water system and CER receipts were upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and its effect on book profit under section 115JB was liable to be disturbed.

Analysis: The assessee had substantial interest-free funds far exceeding the investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal accepted the presumption that such investments were out of interest-free funds, and also accepted the restricted approach for indirect expenditure by applying the exempt-income-linked investment base. The corresponding MAT adjustment was also upheld on the same footing.

Conclusion: The relief granted by the lower appellate authority on section 14A and section 115JB was sustained.

Issue (iv): Whether gain on prepayment of sales tax deferrals was capital in nature and whether write-off of project creditors was taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The sales tax deferral issue was held to be covered by earlier years where the amount was treated as capital receipt. The project-creditor write-off was also treated as governed by the assessee's own earlier decision, where similar additions under section 28(iv) had been deleted. The same reasoning was applied by consistency.

Conclusion: The sales tax deferral receipts were treated as capital in nature and the addition on project creditors was deleted.

Final Conclusion: All the Revenue's appeals were rejected, and the assessee's cross-objections were rendered academic and dismissed as infructuous.

Ratio Decidendi: Where identical issues have already been decided in the assessee's own case or connected group cases and the material facts remain unchanged, the Tribunal will follow the earlier view on the principle of consistency unless a contrary distinguishing feature is shown.

Issues: Whether the assessment and consequential orders passed on 06.12.2024 were barred by limitation under section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, having regard to the nature of the Tribunal's earlier directions on transfer pricing adjustments and the distinction between a fresh assessment and a mere giving effect order.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that where its earlier order had remanded the issue of advances to associated enterprises for verification of evidence, the resulting action required examination of records and therefore fell within section 153(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By contrast, where the Tribunal had already given a conclusive finding on the rate of corporate guarantee commission, the Assessing Officer was only required to give effect to that finding, attracting section 153(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On both counts, the impugned orders were passed beyond the applicable limitation period. The same reasoning was applied to the assessment year involving corporate guarantee and outstanding receivables, and the order was held to be time-barred. Once the assessments were struck down on limitation, the remaining grounds were not adjudicated.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the impugned orders were barred by limitation and could not survive.

Final Conclusion: All three appeals succeeded because the consequential assessment orders were set aside as time-barred, leaving the substantive transfer pricing grounds unanswered.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a superior forum remands an issue for factual verification, the time limit under section 153(3) applies; where the forum has already recorded a conclusive finding and only ministerial effect is required, section 153(5) applies, and orders passed beyond the applicable statutory period are invalid.

Issues: Whether penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable for initial non-compliance with notices under section 142(1) when the assessee later furnished the required details and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) accepting the returned income.

Analysis: The assessment records showed that the assessee initially failed to comply with certain notices, but subsequently filed a detailed reply with supporting documents, which were verified and found tenable by the Assessing Officer. The assessment was ultimately completed under section 143(3) without any adverse inference and by accepting the returned income. On these facts, the non-compliance stood sufficiently regularised in the course of assessment, and the later acceptance of the details indicated that the Assessing Officer had effectively condoned the earlier absence.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was not justified and was directed to be deleted. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The connected appeals were allowed and the penalty levied for the alleged non-compliance was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee subsequently makes substantial compliance with the requisitions and the assessment is completed under section 143(3) accepting the returned income, the earlier default in attendance or compliance may be treated as condoned and penalty for such default is not warranted.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand confirmed towards alleged excess availment and utilisation of input tax credit on account of mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A was sustainable. (ii) Whether the findings on the remaining issues, including corporate guarantee, cross-charges, ineligible input tax credit, merchant export rate, refund, reverse charge on import of services, and doctor consulting or patient counseling, could be sustained or required reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the demand confirmed towards alleged excess availment and utilisation of input tax credit on account of mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A was sustainable.

Analysis: The demand rested on the premise that credits appearing in GSTR-3B but not in GSTR-2A were inadmissible. The petitioner demonstrated that the disputed credits related to imports and SEZ procurements, which were not reflected in GSTR-2A for the relevant period by system design. It was also shown that the entries were reported under the wrong table in GSTR-3B and were subsequently corrected in the annual return. The Court accepted that denial of credit on this basis was erroneous on the material before the authority.

Conclusion: The finding of excess input tax credit was unsustainable and the demand, interest, and penalty on that count were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings on the remaining issues, including corporate guarantee, cross-charges, ineligible input tax credit, merchant export rate, refund, reverse charge on import of services, and doctor consulting or patient counseling, could be sustained or required reconsideration.

Analysis: The impugned order on these issues was found to have been passed without proper consideration of the relevant statutory provisions, circulars, notifications, and the petitioner's submissions. To afford one more opportunity for adjudication, the matter was sent back for fresh consideration on these remaining issues.

Conclusion: The findings on the remaining issues were set aside and remanded for reconsideration afresh.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in part, with the confirmed ITC demand annulled and the remaining disputed issues restored to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where disputed input tax credit relates to imports or SEZ procurements not reflected in GSTR-2A for the relevant period by system design, and the reporting error is otherwise supported by the record, the credit cannot be denied merely on that mismatch; where the adjudication is incomplete on other disputed heads, remand for fresh consideration is appropriate.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee commission was to be determined by adopting an equal split of interest savings between the guarantor and the borrower under the interest saving method; (ii) Whether disallowance computed under section 14A could be added to book profits while computing liability under section 115JB; (iii) Whether the Assessing Officer was required to re-work the total income in light of the pending rectification request and the earlier reliefs granted in connected rounds.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee commission was to be determined by adopting an equal split of interest savings between the guarantor and the borrower under the interest saving method.

Analysis: The controversy concerned the ALP of guarantee commission in a second round of proceedings. The Tribunal noticed that comparable coordinate-bench decisions had adopted a 50:50 split, while also noting the contrary observation that such split is not a universal standard and must ordinarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. On the record before it, and taking guidance from the coordinate-bench decisions, the Tribunal directed adoption of the 50:50 split for determining the ALP under the interest saving method.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Assessee; the transfer pricing adjustment was to be recomputed by adopting a 50:50 split.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance computed under section 14A could be added to book profits while computing liability under section 115JB.

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by the Special Bench ruling in Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., which held that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) must be made independently and without resorting to section 14A read with Rule 8D. Applying that principle, the additions made to book profits on account of section 14A disallowance were held unsustainable and the book-profit computation was directed to be redone accordingly.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Assessee; the section 14A-related additions to book profits were set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the Assessing Officer was required to re-work the total income in light of the pending rectification request and the earlier reliefs granted in connected rounds.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the assessee's rectification application under section 154 was pending and that the assessment working required verification in light of the submissions regarding reductions and set-off of earlier reliefs. It therefore directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessment records and re-compute taxable income after considering the assessee's claim.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Assessee to the extent of a direction for re-computation.

Final Conclusion: The common order granted substantive relief on the transfer-pricing and book-profit issues, while other grounds were treated as consequential or general, resulting in partial allowance of the appeals as a whole.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer-pricing disputes concerning corporate guarantee commission, the interest saving method may justify an equal split on the facts of the case, and book-profit computation under section 115JB must be made independently of section 14A read with Rule 8D.

Issues: Whether the assessment order confirming the GST demand on alleged excess claim of input tax credit could be sustained when the petitioner contended that the GSTR-2B particulars and supporting materials were not properly considered and the matter warranted fresh consideration on merits.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on a mismatch between ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and the figures reflected in GSTR-2B and invoked Section 16(2) and Rule 36(4), along with the relevant circular, to confirm the proposal under Section 73 with consequential levy of interest and penalty. The materials placed before the Court indicated that the comparison statement in the impugned order did not properly reflect the ITC shown in GSTR-2B for the relevant period. The Court found, prima facie, that the order had been passed without due consideration of the petitioner's factual submissions and supporting records on merits.

Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the respondent for fresh adjudication on merits after considering the petitioner's submissions and granting personal hearing.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration and the appellate order were liable to be set aside for want of a proper show cause notice containing the alleged contraventions and shortcomings, and whether the consequential proceedings could survive.

Analysis: The notice for cancellation did not disclose the specific deficiencies or alleged violations said to have been committed by the petitioner. The cancellation procedure under the GST framework requires a proper and detailed notice before adverse action is taken, and the absence of such particulars deprived the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to explain the matter. Since the cancellation order was founded on that defective notice, the consequential appellate order also could not stand. The Court also directed that, if so advised, a fresh notice may be issued and proceedings may continue in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The cancellation notice, the cancellation order, and the appellate order were set aside; the writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment initiated under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid in the absence of incriminating material found during search; (ii) Whether the notice under Section 148 was within limitation under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) Whether non-supply of sanction under Section 151 and violation of Section 153D vitiated the reassessment; (iv) Whether the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the reassessment proceedings were invalid for want of compliance with GKN Driveshafts procedure and Section 292BB did not cure the defect; (v) Whether the additions under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the denial of exemption under Section 10(38), and levy of tax under Section 115BBE were sustainable.

Issue: Whether the reassessment initiated under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid in the absence of incriminating material found during search.

Analysis: The search did not yield any incriminating document or other material relating to the assessment year in question. The reasons for reopening were founded on a general penny-stock allegation and not on fresh material specifically linking the assessee to escaped income. In a completed assessment, reopening cannot rest on a mere change of opinion or on generic suspicion, and the absence of search material went to the root of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held invalid and void ab initio, in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Whether the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was within limitation under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The extended ten-year period could be invoked only where the AO possessed evidence revealing escaped income represented in the form of an asset exceeding the statutory threshold. The record showed no undisclosed asset discovered in search; the shares and sale trail were already disclosed, and the requirement of an undisclosed asset was not satisfied by a mere allegation of large escaped income.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 was time-barred and the reassessment failed on limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Whether non-supply of sanction under Section 151 and violation of Section 153D vitiated the reassessment.

Analysis: The assessee was not furnished the sanction and the record indicated a strong possibility of mechanical approval. Mandatory statutory safeguards governing reopening and post-search approval were not shown to have been meaningfully complied with, rendering the jurisdictional foundation defective.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid on account of breach of Sections 151 and 153D, in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Whether the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the reassessment proceedings were invalid for want of compliance with GKN Driveshafts procedure and Section 292BB did not cure the defect.

Analysis: The assessee's objections to reopening were not disposed of by a separate speaking order before further assessment steps were taken. Section 292BB cures defects in service, not a notice or proceeding that is inherently unlawful or taken in violation of the mandatory procedure laid down for reassessment.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 143(2) and the consequent proceedings were invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Whether the additions under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the denial of exemption under Section 10(38), and levy of tax under Section 115BBE were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee produced contract notes, demat statements, banking records and other contemporaneous evidence showing genuine exchange-traded share transactions. No specific defect in the documentary trail was established, no nexus with any entry operator or price manipulation was proved, and no cross-examination was afforded regarding third-party statements. On these facts, the transaction could not be treated as bogus, the LTCG exemption could not be denied, and the consequential commission addition and punitive tax rate also could not survive.

Conclusion: The additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted, the exemption under Section 10(38) was accepted, and the levy under Section 115BBE failed, all in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was quashed and the additions were deleted, leaving the assessee entitled to full relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment based on search-related reopening requires jurisdictional compliance with limitation, sanction, and statutory procedure, and additions on alleged bogus share gains cannot be sustained without specific incriminating material and assessee-linked evidence rebutting the primary documentary trail.

Outcome: Writ petition dismissed, with liberty to pursue appeal before the appellate forum along with a delay condonation application.

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 148 for the relevant assessment year was barred by limitation under section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the consequent reassessment could survive.

Analysis: The relevant assessment year was 2015-16. The notice under section 148 was issued on 13.04.2022, i.e. beyond six years from the end of the assessment year. The applicable legal position, as followed from binding precedent, is that for assessment years beginning on or before 01.04.2021, a notice under section 148 cannot be issued where it was already time-barred under the unamended limitation regime. The extended time framework under the amended provisions did not save the notice in the present facts.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 was barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. The reassessment order, being founded on an invalid notice, also failed.