Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Issues: Whether, after approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the tax authorities can continue or initiate assessment, reassessment and penalty proceedings in respect of liabilities relating to the period prior to such approval.

Analysis: Upon approval of a resolution plan under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the plan becomes binding on all stakeholders, including statutory authorities. Claims not forming part of the approved plan stand extinguished, and pre-resolution liabilities cannot be pursued thereafter. The determinative factor is the period to which the liability relates, not the date on which the assessment or reassessment order is passed. Penalty proceedings, being consequential to the underlying assessment liability, cannot survive once the principal claim itself stands extinguished. The continuation of proceedings for assessment years relating to the pre-approval period was therefore without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The tax proceedings for periods prior to approval of the resolution plan were held unsustainable and were quashed, with the pre-resolution tax claims declared extinguished.

Outcome: The civil appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay, as the delay in filing was not found to be supported by a bona fide and plausible explanation.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The special leave petitions were dismissed, and the pending applications stood disposed of.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to avail Input Tax Credit for the relevant financial year in view of the amended provisions extending the time limit, and whether the demand confirmed under the Order-in-Original could be sustained.

Analysis: The amendment to Section 16 of the CGST Act introduced sub-sections (5) and (6), which extended the period for availing Input Tax Credit for specified financial years up to 30 November 2021. In view of the amendment, the challenge to the demand based on Section 16(4) no longer survived to that extent, and the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of Input Tax Credit for the relevant period. The respondents' request for payment of the excess utilised amount and interest was accepted by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Input Tax Credit for the relevant period, the Order-in-Original was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to pay the excess utilised amount and interest within 30 days.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by granting partial relief to the petitioner while preserving the limited monetary liability accepted by the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory amendment expressly extends the time limit for availing Input Tax Credit for specified periods, a demand founded solely on the earlier time bar cannot be sustained to that extent.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and the accompanying interlocutory application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

Outcome: Delay condoned. Special leave petition dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether the consideration received on transfer of shares could be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE, or was taxable as capital gains. (ii) Whether the claim for deduction under section 54F required allowance on the basis of the accepted transfer and computation of capital gains.

Issue (i): Whether the consideration received on transfer of shares could be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE, or was taxable as capital gains.

Analysis: The assessee supported the share transfer with the share purchase agreement, bank records, valuation material, audited financial statements and confirmations from the purchaser. The purchaser's funding trail was also examined, showing receipt of funds from its foreign holding company and issuance of fresh shares at premium. On these facts, the assessee had explained the source of receipt and the source of source. The addition was therefore not sustainable in the assessee's hands merely because the purchaser's internal funding structure was questioned. A genuine business transfer of shares could not be re-characterised as unexplained cash credit when the transaction itself was established and no material showed that the receipt was not sale consideration.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 read with section 115BBE was deleted and the share-sale receipt was to be taxed as capital gains.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for deduction under section 54F required allowance on the basis of the accepted transfer and computation of capital gains.

Analysis: Once the addition treating the sale proceeds as unexplained credit was deleted, the capital gains computation accepted by the assessee survived. The factual verification necessary for the deduction claim had not been carried out at the assessment stage, and the record was insufficient for a final adjudication of the eligibility and quantum of deduction. The proper course was to restore the matter for verification of the investment details and allow the claim in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issue under section 54F was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The addition treating the share-sale consideration as unexplained credit was set aside, while the deduction claim under section 54F was restored for factual verification, resulting in relief to the assessee on the main issue and remand on the ancillary claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a bona fide share-transfer transaction is supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence and the assessee explains both the receipt and the purchaser's funding trail, the consideration cannot be taxed as unexplained cash credit in the assessee's hands under section 68 merely because the purchaser's own capital structure is questioned.

Issues: Whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified where the Assessing Officer had made enquiries on cash sales and cash deposits, examined the relevant material, and adopted one of the possible views.

Analysis: The record showed that the assessee had responded to the assessment queries relating to cash sales, cash deposits, stock position, purchases, and supporting records. The assessment order had been passed after enquiry and verification, and the revision order proceeded on the view that the inquiry was inadequate and that the deposits ought to have been assessed differently. Since the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view after making relevant enquiries, the mere absence of detailed discussion in the assessment order did not establish lack of enquiry. A revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 could not be exercised to substitute a different opinion for a view already taken on the basis of enquiry.

Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 was not sustainable and the revisionary order was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Assessing Officer conducts enquiry and adopts one of two possible views, the order cannot be revised under section 263 merely because the Principal Commissioner prefers a different view.

Issues: Whether the addition of the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases was justified, or whether only an estimated profit element could be brought to tax when sales were accepted and the purchase claim was doubted.

Analysis: The Assessing Officer did not record a finding that no purchases were made, but only doubted the genuineness of the purchases. The accepted sales indicated that a complete disallowance of the purchase amount was not warranted. In such circumstances, the appropriate course was to estimate the profit embedded in the disputed purchases rather than treat the whole amount as income. On the facts, estimation at 8% of the total purchase value was considered justified.

Conclusion: The addition of 100% of the alleged bogus purchases was unsustainable, and the addition was restricted to 8% of the total purchase amount, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where purchases are doubted but corresponding sales are accepted, the entire purchase amount cannot be added as income and only the profit element can be estimated for taxation.

Issues: (i) whether deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) could be denied on the basis of a general investigation report and subsequent withdrawal of approval granted to the donee institution; (ii) whether the addition made under section 69C on the premise of a bogus donation and alleged commission payment could be sustained.

Issue (i): whether deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) could be denied on the basis of a general investigation report and subsequent withdrawal of approval granted to the donee institution.

Analysis: The donation was made through banking channels to an institution that held approval under section 35(1)(ii) at the time of payment, and the claim had been accepted in the original assessment. The reassessment was founded on a later investigation report, but no specific adverse material connecting the assessee's transaction to any bogus arrangement was brought on record. The statutory explanation to section 35(1) protects the deduction where approval is withdrawn after the payment has already been made, and the subsequent cancellation of approval cannot by itself defeat an otherwise allowable claim.

Conclusion: The denial of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) was unjustified and the assessee was entitled to the allowance.

Issue (ii): whether the addition made under section 69C on the premise of a bogus donation and alleged commission payment could be sustained.

Analysis: The addition rested on the same assumption that the donation was non-genuine. Once the disallowance of the deduction failed, the inference of unexplained commission also lost its basis. Independently, no cogent evidence was brought on record to establish actual commission payment by the assessee, and the addition was founded only on suspicion and adverse inference.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69C was not sustainable and was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the substantive tax issues, resulting in deletion of the disallowance and the related addition, while the challenge to the reopening notice did not require adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction under section 35(1)(ii) cannot be denied merely because the approval of the donee institution is withdrawn later, and a tax addition based only on a general investigation report without specific incriminating material linking the assessee to the alleged bogus transaction is unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment was vitiated for want of show-cause notice or draft assessment order before making additions; (ii) whether the contractual receipts reflected in Form 26AS were taxable in the year of receipt where the assessee followed the completed service contract method and claimed earlier recognition or adjustment through work-in-progress.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment was vitiated for want of show-cause notice or draft assessment order before making additions.

Analysis: The assessment record showed issuance of statutory notices and repeated opportunities, with the assessee responding to the requisitions. The assessment order also recorded the notices issued, replies received, and conclusions drawn. On that basis, no procedural lapse or denial of opportunity was established.

Conclusion: The challenge on procedural infirmity failed and was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the contractual receipts reflected in Form 26AS were taxable in the year of receipt where the assessee followed the completed service contract method and claimed earlier recognition or adjustment through work-in-progress.

Analysis: The dispute was only about the year of taxability, since the receipts themselves were taxable. The Tribunal noted that income under the Income-tax Act is governed by the method of accounting, and that receipts may be taxed either on cash basis or accrual basis depending on the assessee's accounting. On the facts, the assessee failed to substantiate that the disputed receipts had already been offered to tax in earlier years, and the materials on record did not support the claim that the amounts had been accounted for in the relevant earlier periods. The reflection of receipts and TDS in Form 26AS, coupled with the absence of convincing evidence of prior taxation, supported taxation in the year of receipt.

Conclusion: The addition of the contractual receipts in the year under consideration was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the additions made on account of contractual receipts and rejected the procedural challenge, leaving the assessee with no relief in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee fails to prove prior taxation of contractual receipts and the evidence shows receipt during the relevant year, such receipts may be taxed in that year according to the applicable method of accounting.

Issues: Whether penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained for alleged non-compliance with notices under section 142(1) when the assessee sought adjournment, later furnished the required details, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) without any addition.

Analysis: The record showed that notices under section 142(1) were issued during scrutiny assessment and, in respect of certain notices, the assessee sought adjournment on the ground that the information was under compilation. The required particulars were subsequently furnished and accepted by the Assessing Officer, who completed the assessment under section 143(3) at the returned income without any addition or disallowance. In these circumstances, the assessment was not framed under the best judgment procedure under section 144, and the record did not support treating the matter as one warranting penalty for non-compliance.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was not sustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee ultimately furnishes the information sought under section 142(1) and the assessment is completed under section 143(3) without resort to section 144, penalty for alleged non-compliance with the notice is not warranted.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made on account of cash deposits during the demonetisation period could be sustained when the assessee produced cash book and quantitative stock details to explain the source of deposits; (ii) Whether the addition made on account of sale proceeds of small fixed assets could be sustained in the absence of supporting bills.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made on account of cash deposits during the demonetisation period could be sustained when the assessee produced cash book and quantitative stock details to explain the source of deposits.

Analysis: The assessee had opened two new retail outlets and maintained cash book entries and quantitative stock details to support cash sales. The books were not rejected, and no defect was found in the stock details. The deposits were traceable to cash sales already offered to tax as turnover. An estimate based on assumed average sales for earlier months could not displace the maintained books or justify treating the same turnover again as unexplained income.

Conclusion: The addition on account of cash deposits was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made on account of sale proceeds of small fixed assets could be sustained in the absence of supporting bills.

Analysis: The amount represented proceeds from petty fixed assets such as household and office items, and the corresponding reduction was reflected in the fixed asset schedule. No depreciation had been claimed on those items, and the nature of the receipts did not justify an adverse inference merely because individual bills were not produced.

Conclusion: The addition on account of sale proceeds of fixed assets was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed by deleting both additions, resulting in complete relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: When books of account and supporting quantitative details are not rejected or found defective, a receipt already recorded as turnover cannot be taxed again as unexplained income, and minor fixed-asset sale proceeds reflected in the accounts cannot be disallowed merely for want of separate bills absent contrary material.

Issues: Whether the five disputed comparables had to be excluded from the transfer pricing exercise because the earlier remand by the Tribunal to the Dispute Resolution Panel was not complied with and the adjustment therefore required recomputation.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that, in an appeal where the assessing officer alone was the respondent, any remand direction had to be addressed to the assessing officer and not to the Transfer Pricing Officer or the Dispute Resolution Panel, since neither was a party before it. It further noted that the Dispute Resolution Panel's statutory role under the draft-assessment framework is activated through the assessee's objections, but in the present proceedings the five comparables directed to be reconsidered were ultimately not dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal's earlier remand. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found that the assessee's transfer pricing computation had suffered an irregularity requiring correction.

Conclusion: The five comparables were directed to be removed for computation of the arm's length price, and the software development services adjustment was ordered to be recomputed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: In set-aside transfer pricing proceedings, where a remand issue is not complied with in substance, the affected comparables must be excluded and the arm's length price adjustment recomputed.

Issues: (i) Whether the amount attributed to the assessee's share in the property transaction could be brought to tax as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the amount attributed to the assessee's share in the property transaction could be brought to tax as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The sale deed recorded that the consideration was paid in cash instalments over a long period and the agreement to sell and connected record supported that narration. The addition was made without establishing a fresh credit entry in the books for the disputed amount and without dislodging the documentary explanation regarding the timing and manner of payment. In the absence of proof of a sum credited in the books during the relevant year, the statutory condition for section 68 was not satisfied.

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

Final Conclusion: The assessment addition relating to the property transaction could not be sustained on the basis adopted by the Revenue, and the assessee obtained full relief in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 68 applies only where a sum is found credited in the assessee's books for the relevant year, and an addition cannot be sustained without establishing that foundational fact.

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the vehicle, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable when the Revenue failed to prove that the goods transported were of foreign origin and the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The allegation was that the vehicle was used to transport green peas and yellow peas of foreign origin. No document or reliable evidence was produced to establish that the seized goods were of foreign origin. As the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden remained on the Revenue to prove foreign origin, and that burden was not discharged. In the absence of proof of smuggled or foreign-origin goods, confiscation of the vehicle could not be sustained, and the consequential redemption fine and penalty also had no legal basis.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the vehicle, the redemption fine and the penalty were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issues: Whether the refund application filed before final determination of the eligibility to exemption was premature and not maintainable.

Analysis: The refund claim was filed while the dispute regarding entitlement to the exemption notification was still unsettled. The governing principle applied was that a refund cause of action arises only after the final dispute has been resolved in the assessee's own case. On that footing, the application filed before such final determination could not be entertained merely because the duty had been paid under protest. The subsequent favourable decision on merits did not validate a refund application that was premature when presented.

Conclusion: The refund application was rightly rejected as premature and not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the Customs Act is maintainable only after the underlying dispute giving rise to the claim has attained finality in the assessee's own case; a pre-decisional refund application is premature even if duty was paid under protest.