Issues: (i) Whether a shareholder had locus standi to maintain the application and the present company appeal challenging the earlier insolvency proceedings and the approved resolution plan. (ii) Whether the later application seeking to reopen the concluded CIRP and allege fraud was maintainable in view of the finality already attained and the conduct of the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether a shareholder had locus standi to maintain the application and the present company appeal challenging the earlier insolvency proceedings and the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The challenge was examined against the appellant's admitted status as a shareholder. The proceedings relating to admission of CIRP, approval of the resolution plan, and subsequent challenges had already been carried through earlier rounds of adjudication. In that context, the appellant was found not to be a person entitled to agitate the cause in his individual capacity on behalf of the corporate debtor. The earlier decisions had already treated the resolution plan as implemented and concluded, leaving no surviving personal grievance that could support the present challenge.

Conclusion: The shareholder lacked locus standi to maintain the application and the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the later application seeking to reopen the concluded CIRP and allege fraud was maintainable in view of the finality already attained and the conduct of the appellant.

Analysis: The earlier proceedings on the same foundation had been conclusively decided, and the approval of the resolution plan had attained finality after dismissal of the earlier appellate proceedings and the further challenge before the Supreme Court, followed by dismissal of review. The later application was filed after a substantial delay and sought to revive issues that had already been negatived. The Tribunal found concealment of material facts, repetition of earlier grounds, and an attempt to use the forum for a collateral criminal-law style invocation under the guise of insolvency proceedings. Such repeated invocation of the same allegations was treated as an abuse of process and not a maintainable basis to disturb concluded proceedings.

Conclusion: The later application was not maintainable and was rightly rejected as an abuse of process.

Final Conclusion: The company appeal failed, the impugned rejection of the later applications was sustained, and costs were imposed for abuse of the judicial process.

Ratio Decidendi: A shareholder cannot maintain insolvency-related proceedings to reopen a resolution plan that has attained finality, and repetitive allegations of fraud after conclusion of the CIRP are barred as an abuse of process.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the notice calling upon the petitioner to make good the pre-deposit for filing an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal required interference, and what consequential directions were warranted regarding the pending order on the notice, the proposed stay application, and recovery.

Analysis: The petition was not decided on the merits of the tax or interest demand. The immediate controversy concerned the communication alleging short payment of the requisite amount for a proposed Tribunal appeal. Since a hearing on the notice had already been concluded and an order by the Deputy Commissioner was awaited, the appropriate course was to require a prompt decision on the notice rather than adjudicate the disputed computation in writ proceedings. The petitioner was also permitted to pursue a stay application before the Tribunal, and recovery was directed to be preceded by notice. All substantive contentions were expressly preserved.

Conclusion: The writ court declined to interfere on the merits, directed the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order on the impugned notice within one week, permitted the petitioner to file a stay application before the Tribunal, and required ten days' prior notice before any recovery. The petition stood disposed of with all contentions kept open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notice concerning the sufficiency of pre-deposit for an intended statutory appeal is pending adjudication, the writ court may confine itself to ensuring a prompt decision and preserve the parties' rights in the appellate process, rather than determining the disputed liability in writ jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could be sustained when the deduction under Section 80G had already been examined and allowed in the original scrutiny assessment and the reopening was founded on an audit objection on the same material.

Analysis: The original assessment showed that the deduction claim had been specifically scrutinised through queries, responses, and supporting documents. The relevant CSR-related donations were disclosed in the return, examined during assessment, and only a minor disallowance was made. The reassessment was initiated on the very same material after the audit wing expressed a different view. Reassessment cannot be used to review or re-examine material already considered in the original assessment, and the absence of any fresh tangible material meant the reopening was based only on a different opinion on the same facts.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid as they amounted to a mere change of opinion. The impugned notice, order, and consequential notice were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the reassessment action was set aside because the jurisdictional precondition for reopening was not met.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded assessment cannot be reopened on the same material merely because the Revenue later adopts a different view, and an audit objection by itself does not justify reassessment without fresh tangible material.

Issues: (i) Whether unsecured loans could be added under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the assessee produced confirmations, PAN, returns, bank statements and evidence of repayment; (ii) whether cash notings in seized Excel sheets could be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) whether, in respect of alleged bogus purchases, addition could be restricted to the profit element at 6%; (iv) whether the difference between book stock and physical stock justified a full addition or only an estimated profit addition; and (v) whether the matter concerning seized loose material and unexplained expenditure required restoration for verification.

Issue (i): Whether unsecured loans could be added under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the assessee produced confirmations, PAN, returns, bank statements and evidence of repayment.

Analysis: The assessee furnished primary evidence establishing the identity of the lenders, the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the parties. The loans moved through banking channels, cash deposits were not shown in the lenders' accounts immediately before the advances, summons were complied with in several cases, and the loans were repaid in the same or subsequent years. The Revenue relied mainly on search-related affidavits and an investigation report, but no independent adverse inquiry disproved the documentary evidence or established cash trail or accommodation entry mechanics. The applicable law at the relevant time did not require proof of source of source.

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

Issue (ii): Whether cash notings in seized Excel sheets could be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The seized sheet was explained as a working paper for fund planning and cash movement, and the specific amount was linked to a cash withdrawal from the disclosed bank account and reflected in the books. The Revenue did not bring corroborative material to show unrecorded expenditure or a separate cash trail. The note entries were treated as referable to recorded banking transactions rather than independent unexplained outgoings.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69C was not justified and its deletion was confirmed; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether, in respect of alleged bogus purchases, addition could be restricted to the profit element at 6%.

Analysis: The purchases were doubted on GST and field inquiries, but sales, stock records, invoices, bank trail and business turnover were not rejected. In such circumstances, the settled approach is to tax only the profit embedded in the disputed purchases rather than the entire purchase value. The appellate authority adopted 6% on the basis of binding precedent and the surrounding facts.

Conclusion: Restriction of the addition to 6% was upheld; both parties failed to obtain further relief on this issue.

Issue (iv): Whether the difference between book stock and physical stock justified a full addition or only an estimated profit addition.

Analysis: The book stock figure used by the Revenue was found to be overstated, the contemporaneous accounting data and search statement supported a lower book stock figure, and the valuer's report did not include stores and consumables that were present in the books. In the absence of evidence of suppressed sales or parallel books, the entire stock difference could not be taxed as unexplained income. The Tribunal found that no separate unaccounted stock or clandestine movement was proved.

Conclusion: The sustained addition was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the matter concerning seized loose material and unexplained expenditure required restoration for verification.

Analysis: The assessee sought reconciliation of the seized notings with recorded transactions, but the Tribunal found that verification of the notings against the books had not been adequately carried out. In the interest of natural justice, the matter required factual verification by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for verification and was allowed for statistical purposes.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed, the assessee obtained relief on the principal additions, and only one issue was restored for limited verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an assessee produces primary evidence proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors and the Revenue fails to rebut it with independent inquiry or adverse material, an addition under section 68 cannot be sustained; in cases of suspected bogus purchases or stock discrepancies where sales are accepted, only the embedded profit can be brought to tax absent proof of unrecorded turnover or clandestine transactions.

Issues: Whether interim protection should be granted against the impugned order and consequential coercive measures in a challenge to notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act.

Analysis: The petition assailed the notifications on the ground that there was no power under Section 168A to extend the time limit for passing orders and that the notifications were ultra vires Section 73(4) of the CGST Act. The Court followed the course adopted in earlier connected matters and granted interim protection pending final disposal.

Conclusion: The impugned order was stayed and the consequential coercive measures, including blocking of the electronic credit ledger and any attachment, were also stayed or vacated pending final hearing.

Issues: Whether the petitioners, accused of offences under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (f) and (i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Analysis: The allegations related to fraudulent availment of input tax credit and the offences were triable by a Magistrate with a maximum punishment of five years. The petitioners had remained in custody for about four months, had no similar criminal antecedents, and no material was produced to show any extraordinary circumstance warranting continued detention. The Court applied the principle that, in the ordinary course, accused persons in such matters should be enlarged on bail unless exceptional grounds exist, and also noted the absence of any adverse material distinguishing the case from that approach.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to bail and were admitted to bail on terms to be fixed by the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The bail applications were allowed and the proceedings were finally disposed of by granting release on bail subject to conditions.

Issues: Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16, along with the assessment and penalty orders founded upon it, was liable to be quashed, and whether relief could be denied on the ground of delay or acceptance of the return.

Analysis: The impugned notice dated 18 April 2022 related to Assessment Year 2015-16, and the Revenue's concession before the Supreme Court in respect of notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 for that assessment year made the notice unsustainable. Once the foundation notice was invalid, the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty orders based on it could not survive. The fact that the return filed in response to the notice was accepted did not cure the jurisdictional defect. Delay in approaching the Court was also not treated as a bar to relief where the underlying notice was void and the Revenue had already conceded the issue.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and all consequential assessment, demand, and penalty proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 were quashed. The challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings founded on the impugned notice were held to be legally unsustainable, and all consequential actions were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice that is invalid for want of jurisdiction cannot be validated by acceptance of the return or defeated merely on the ground of delay, and all consequential proceedings founded on such notice must fall.

Issues: Whether the Tax Recovery Certificates and attachments of the petitioner's properties could be sustained in view of the reduction and partial extinction of the underlying tax demand, and to what extent the attached properties were liable to be released or continued under the surviving demand.

Analysis: The demand for two assessment years had substantially ceased to survive after appellate relief, while the remaining enforceable demand was limited to the quantum interest component for one assessment year and a separate penalty demand stayed by the Principal Commissioner. The Revenue accepted the current demand position and sought retention of one property only, whereas the petitioner offered continued attachment of the property whose market value was sufficient to secure the surviving unrecovered demand. On these facts, the continued attachment of all three properties was found unsustainable, but one property could remain attached to protect the Revenue in respect of the outstanding non-stayed demand.

Conclusion: The attachment over two properties was quashed and set aside, the third property was permitted to remain attached for the surviving demand, and the Tax Recovery Certificates were directed to be revised to reflect only the unrecovered demand not covered by stay.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of releasing two attached properties while preserving one attachment as security for the limited subsisting tax liability, with consequential revision of the recovery certificates.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery proceedings and attachments cannot continue beyond the extent of the enforceable outstanding demand, and where the surviving liability is limited, attachment may be retained only to the extent necessary to secure that liability.

Issues: (i) whether the CIT(A) could direct the assessee to seek condonation of delay before the CIT(Exemption) in relation to the belated filing of Form 10CCB; and (ii) whether deduction under section 80IC could be denied at the processing stage under section 143(1) merely because Form 10CCB was filed after the prescribed due date but before completion of assessment.

Issue (i): whether the CIT(A) could direct the assessee to seek condonation of delay before the CIT(Exemption) in relation to the belated filing of Form 10CCB;

Analysis: The order of the first appellate authority proceeded on the footing that condonation of delay in filing the prescribed report had to be sought before the CIT(Exemption). That direction was held to be erroneous because the cited jurisdiction did not lie with the Exemption charge on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The direction to approach the CIT(Exemption) was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether deduction under section 80IC could be denied at the processing stage under section 143(1) merely because Form 10CCB was filed after the prescribed due date but before completion of assessment.

Analysis: The statutory requirement to furnish the audit report was treated in the light of prior judicial decisions holding that belated filing before completion of assessment amounts to substantial compliance. On that approach, the deduction could not be rejected merely because the report was filed after the due date, and the adjustment made while processing the return was not justified on that ground alone. At the same time, the claim still required verification of eligibility under section 80IC.

Conclusion: Denial of the deduction solely for belated filing of Form 10CCB was not justified, and the matter was restored for limited verification.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief against the erroneous appellate direction and the mechanical denial of the claim, but the deduction claim was sent back to the Assessing Officer for verification on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory audit report filed after the due date but before completion of assessment cannot, by itself, defeat a deduction claim where substantial compliance is otherwise shown; any processing adjustment denying the claim must remain within the permissible scope of section 143(1).

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was barred by limitation and whether approval was obtained from the competent authority.

Analysis: The extended time limit for issuing notice under the reassessment regime had expired before the notice was issued. The period to be excluded in consequence of the legal fiction created in the earlier Supreme Court directions was applied, and on that basis the notice dated 29-07-2022 was held to be beyond limitation. It was also found that after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval had to be taken from the higher specified authority, but approval was obtained from a different authority. In view of these defects, the reassessment proceedings could not stand.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and consequential reassessment order were held invalid and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was annulled for want of a valid and timely notice, and the Revenue's appeal failed as a consequence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the reassessment notice is issued after the limitation period, and approval is not obtained from the statutorily competent authority, the reassessment is void and liable to be quashed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be afforded an to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading and supporting documents before the appellate authority decides the refund appeal afresh.

Analysis: The appellate authority rejected the refund on the ground that the record did not satisfactorily establish whether the shipping lines involved were foreign or Indian, and relied on the illegibility of the Bill of Lading to doubt the claim. The petitioner expressed readiness to produce a legible copy of the document before the appellate authority. In these facts, fairness required that the petitioner be given an opportunity to place the relevant material so that the appeal could be examined on the basis of complete and legible documents and decided on merits.

Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to produce a legible Bill of Lading and other necessary documents, and the appellate authority must reconsider the appeal afresh and conclude it within the time directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund appeal is rejected for want of legible or adequate supporting documents, the appellate authority must afford a reasonable opportunity to cure the deficiency and decide the matter afresh on merits.

Issues: (i) Whether loose sheets recovered during search could be relied upon to assess undisclosed investment and whether the statutory presumption under the Income-tax Act shifted the burden to the assessees; (ii) Whether jewellery found in the residential premises could be treated as business stock instead of unexplained investment; (iii) Whether telescoping of explained cash balance against the alleged investment in property was permissible.

Issue (i): Whether loose sheets recovered during search could be relied upon to assess undisclosed investment and whether the statutory presumption under the Income-tax Act shifted the burden to the assessees.

Analysis: Loose sheets recovered in search proceedings, though not books of account in the strict evidentiary sense, were treated as reliable material for income-tax assessment when contemporaneous entries were found and the surrounding circumstances supported them. The statutory presumption attached to search materials placed the burden on the assessees to rebut the entries with cogent evidence. Mere denial that the entries were not in their handwriting was insufficient, especially when the assessees admitted the recovery of the documents and failed to produce rebuttal material.

Conclusion: The loose sheets were rightly relied upon and the addition towards undisclosed investment in property was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether jewellery found in the residential premises could be treated as business stock instead of unexplained investment.

Analysis: The jewellery found in excess was not reflected in the books of account, wealth tax returns, or any accepted stock record. In the absence of satisfactory explanation for possession and source, the claim that the jewellery constituted business stock was rejected. The finding turned on the factual failure to account for the excess jewellery rather than on any legal infirmity in the assessment.

Conclusion: The excess jewellery was correctly treated as unexplained investment and the assessees failed on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether telescoping of explained cash balance against the alleged investment in property was permissible.

Analysis: Telescoping is available only where the source of the available cash or excess is satisfactorily explained. Here, the assessees did not establish the source of the cash said to be available for adjustment against the property investment. In the absence of cogent evidence, the Tribunal was justified in refusing telescoping and in sustaining the addition.

Conclusion: Telescoping was rightly denied and the addition was sustained in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The common appellate challenge failed on all material issues, and the Revenue's assessment was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: In search-based income-tax assessments, contemporaneous seized documents may be relied upon as incriminating material, and the assessee bears the burden to rebut them with evidence; unexplained jewellery and unsupported claims of telescoping cannot be accepted without satisfactory proof of source.

Issues: (i) Whether loss due to embezzlement/misappropriation by a person closely related to partners can be allowed as business expenditure; (ii) Whether Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is applicable to disallow the claimed commission/expenditure as excessive or unreasonable.

Issue (i): Whether loss due to embezzlement by a closely related non-partner who managed the business can be treated as an allowable business expenditure or loss for income-tax assessment.

Analysis: The payment shown as commission/misappropriation lacked documentary support and particulars demonstrating the nature of services or recipients; the amount was drawn without partners' knowledge; no steps were taken to recover the alleged misappropriated sum; the close familial relationship between the alleged misappropriator and partners raised a legitimate suspicion of collusion and tax evasion. The absence of evidence explaining the mode of misappropriation, the role and benefits of the manager, and any recovery efforts undermined the claim that the amount represented a bona fide business loss or expenditure.

Conclusion: Against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits allowance of the claimed commission/expenditure or authorises disallowance as excessive/unreasonable.

Analysis: Payments to related persons or associates may be allowable only if they reflect fair market value, are for legitimate business needs, and are reasonable; the assessing officer has the power to evaluate reasonableness under Section 40A(2). Here, no bills, agreements, or evidence of services or fair market pricing were produced to substantiate the commission payments to over 30 identified persons. Given the lack of proof and the excessive nature of the amount, the assessing officer's disallowance under Section 40A(2) was supportable.

Conclusion: Against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate decision upholding the assessing officer's disallowance under Section 40A(2) and rejecting the claim of misappropriation as an allowable business loss is upheld; the appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Absent credible documentary evidence and proof of reasonableness, payments alleged as commission or misappropriated by a person closely related to partners cannot be treated as allowable business expenditure; the assessing officer may disallow such amounts under Section 40A(2) and reassessment notice under Section 147/148 is valid within the applicable limitation where escaped assessment exceeds statutory threshold.

Issues: (i) Whether the summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to call for documents and evidence can be quashed on the ground of mala fide/colourable exercise of power; (ii) Whether the Income Tax Officer (Investigation) who issued the summons was without jurisdiction or not an authorised officer under Section 131(1A) read with Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the summons under Section 131(1A) is vitiated by mala fide or colourable exercise of power.

Analysis: The material relied upon to establish mala fide was examined, including timing of the tax evasion petition, the interim civil injunction predating the petition, and the affidavit introduced after issuance of the summons. The record shows an anonymous Tax Evasion Petition received and processed under departmental procedure leading to issuance of the summons after approval. There is no direct or sufficiently cogent evidence of personal ill will, improper motive, or use of statutory power for an extraneous purpose. The petitioner's allegations were not raised before the authorities at the relevant time and the primary documentary material relied upon was produced after the summons. Authorities acted pursuant to a received complaint and internal procedure.

Conclusion: The plea of mala fide and colourable exercise of power is not established and does not invalidate the summons.

Issue (ii): Whether the Income Tax Officer (Investigation) who issued the summons lacked jurisdiction or was not an authorised officer under Section 131(1A) read with Section 132.

Analysis: Section 131(1A) identifies specified ranks and authorised officers; Section 132 permits authorisation of income tax officers by designated senior officers. Reading the provisions together, an Income Tax Officer authorised under Section 132 falls within the class of officers competent to issue summons under Section 131(1A). No pleadings or contemporaneous replies challenged or demonstrated absence of requisite authorization; the jurisdictional objection was raised only at oral argument and not pleaded earlier.

Conclusion: The issuing Income Tax Officer, being authorised under the statutory scheme, was competent to issue the summons and the jurisdictional objection fails.

Final Conclusion: The summons under Section 131(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was validly issued, the challenges on mala fide and lack of jurisdiction are negatived, and the writ petition fails.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory complaint is received and processed under departmental procedure and the record does not disclose cogent proof of personal malice or exercise of power for extraneous purposes, a summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by an income tax officer authorised under Section 132 cannot be quashed for mala fide or want of jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) Whether the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 passed initially in the name of the erstwhile (now non-existent) entity and subsequently rectified by corrigendum is valid; (ii) Whether the Pr. CIT properly invoked revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 (including reliance on Explanation 2 to section 263) by holding that the assessment order dated 15.12.2022 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for failure to make inquiries which should have been made on specified issues; (iii) Whether an assessment completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is immune from revision under section 263.

Issue (i): Whether rectification by corrigendum cures the initial passing of the section 263 order in the name of a non-existent/erstwhile entity.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the timeline: assessment passed 15.12.2022; show-cause under section 263 issued 12.12.2023 (when erstwhile entity still existed); scheme of amalgamation sanctioned 15.01.2024 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2022; the assessee informed PCIT on 20.02.2024; PCIT issued corrigendum on 29.03.2025, the day after the impugned order. The Tribunal distinguished authorities where substantive procedural defects (such as failure to follow draft/final assessment procedure or limitation bar) rendered orders incurable, and treated the initial naming error as an inadvertent/palpable mistake rectified promptly by corrigendum without procedural prejudice to the assessee.

Conclusion: The corrigendum dated 29.03.2025 validly rectified the initial naming error and the section 263 order as rectified is not vitiated for that reason.

Issue (ii): Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking section 263 (including Explanation 2) by holding the AO's assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue for failure to make inquiries which should have been made on issues including related party transactions, platform selling expenses, provisions and inventory matters, trade payables, financing liabilities and advertisement expenses.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered (a) the material placed before the AO (queries issued, replies, audited financial statements, invoices and other records); (b) the scope of Explanation 2 to section 263 which makes an order erroneous if enacted without inquiries or verifications which should have been made; (c) the distinction between an assessment where inquiries were made (possibly inadequately) and an assessment where inquiries that should have been made were not conducted at all; and (d) the recent statutory context and case law guidance. On the facts, the Tribunal found that although the AO issued questionnaires and received voluminous documents, the AO had in several respects not made necessary enquiries or verifications that should have been made (particularly in relation to reversal of prior-year disallowances claimed as current-year adjustments, adequacy of verification of related party transactions and certain inventory/large balance-sheet items). The Tribunal held that where the AO has not made inquiries which should have been made under Explanation 2, the assessment may be held erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue and can be set aside for de novo assessment. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's submissions that the AO's view was a merely plausible view insulating it from section 263 in the presence of such failures of inquiry.

Conclusion: The Pr. CIT was justified in holding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial on the grounds specified and in setting aside the assessment for de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

Issue (iii): Whether an assessment completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre under section 143(3) read with section 144B is beyond revision under section 263.

Analysis: The Tribunal analysed the faceless assessment scheme in section 144B and the internal roles of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, assessment units, verification units and review units. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment unit functions as the faceless counterpart of the assessing officer and retains control over the final assessment; the faceless procedure contains inbuilt checks but does not oust the statutory revisionary jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263. Accordingly, a final assessment passed by NaFAC/AU remains subject to review under section 263 where jurisdictional conditions are met.

Conclusion: An assessment completed under the faceless scheme is not immune from revision under section 263 and the Pr. CIT has jurisdiction to exercise revisionary powers in such cases.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal, after evaluating the corrigendum, the scope of Explanation 2 to section 263 and the faceless assessment process and on factual review of the impugned order, concluded that the Pr. CIT's section 263 order as rectified was sustainable. The assessee's grounds challenging the naming of the order, the jurisdiction to invoke section 263 in respect of a NaFAC assessment, and the invocation of Explanation 2 were rejected. The appeal is dismissed and the revisionary order under section 263 stands upheld, directing de novo assessment as directed by the Pr. CIT.

Ratio Decidendi: Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits revisional action where an assessing officer has failed to make inquiries or verifications which should have been made; a promptly issued corrigendum may cure an inadvertent naming error where no procedural prejudice results; and assessments completed under the faceless scheme remain subject to section 263 when the statutory conditions for revision are satisfied.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,07,01,24,795/- made in respect of transfer of steam from eligible power unit to non-eligible unit is sustainable; (ii) Whether the assessee is entitled to redetermination of ALP of steam and consequential enhancement of deduction under section 80-IA; (iii) Whether receipts from sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) are capital receipts and whether such receipts are excluded from book profit under section 115JB; (iv) Whether the suo-moto disallowance under section 14A (and rule 8D) should be reversed where no exempt income was earned; (v) Whether computational errors and related rectification claims should be remitted for verification by the assessing officer.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,07,01,24,795/- in respect of transfer of steam is sustainable.

Analysis: The issue was considered against earlier coordinated Tribunal orders in the assessee's own cases and DRP directions which required verification whether the CIT(A) order for AY 2015-16 had been challenged. The record, including an affidavit of the assessing officer and prior Tribunal decisions, shows no departmental appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2015-16. The DRP direction was binding under the dispute resolution scheme; the adjustment was retained contrary to that binding direction.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment is deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the ALP of steam should be redetermined and consequential enhancement of deduction under section 80-IA permitted.

Analysis: The claim for enhancement was not examined by TPO/AO despite DRP directions to pass a speaking order. Coordinate Tribunal orders in the assessee's own cases remitted identical claims to the assessing officer for verification and directed opportunity of hearing. Relevant jurisprudence distinguishing fresh claims and corrections to claims was considered.

Conclusion: The matter is restored to the assessing officer for verification and decision in accordance with law; the grounds are allowed for statistical purposes (remand in favour of the assessee for further adjudication).

Issue (iii): Whether REC receipts are capital receipts and excluded from book profit under section 115JB.

Analysis: Authorities and coordinate-bench decisions treating REC receipts as capital in nature were applied. Statutory distinction between carbon credits (specifically defined in section 115BBG) and RECs was observed; taxing provisions construed strictly. The question whether such receipts form part of book profit under section 115JB was examined in light of precedent holding capital receipts excluded from book profit computation.

Conclusion: REC receipts are held to be capital receipts not taxable as revenue and excluded from book profit under section 115JB; decision in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the suo-moto disallowance under section 14A (and rule 8D) should be reversed where no exempt income was earned.

Analysis: The factual position is that no exempt income arose in the year and earlier appellate decisions in the assessee's own cases deleted similar disallowances; the assessing officer admitted no departmental appeal against the earlier favourable CIT(A) order; DRP directions required deletion if no appeal existed.

Conclusion: The suo-moto disallowance under section 14A is deleted and the corresponding addition to book profit under section 115JB is deleted; decision in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether various computational mistakes apparent from record should be remedied.

Analysis: Certain computational discrepancies were identified and a rectification application under section 154 is pending; one item (DDT) was rectified and not pressed. The remaining computation issues require factual verification by the assessing officer.

Conclusion: The matters are remitted to the assessing officer for verification and rectification after providing opportunity of hearing; remand ordered in favour of the assessee for factual determination.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part by deleting the transfer pricing adjustment and the section 14A disallowance, holding REC receipts to be capital and excluded from book profit, and remitting specified claims (enhanced section 80-IA deduction and computational rectifications) to the assessing officer for verification and decision with opportunity of hearing; overall the decision provides substantive relief to the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods were eligible for exemption from Basic Customs Duty under the relevant customs notifications despite the classification dispute; (ii) Whether the differential Integrated Goods and Services Tax demand could be sustained when payment of the higher tax would have enabled input tax credit and the situation was revenue neutral.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods were eligible for exemption from Basic Customs Duty under the relevant customs notifications despite the classification dispute.

Analysis: The goods were assessed after examination and out-of-charge was granted on the basis of the documents furnished at import. The exemption notification covered goods under the relevant chapter heading irrespective of the sub-heading, and the customs authorities had cleared the goods after being satisfied with the classification and origin documents.

Conclusion: The demand of Basic Customs Duty and Social Welfare Surcharge was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the differential Integrated Goods and Services Tax demand could be sustained when payment of the higher tax would have enabled input tax credit and the situation was revenue neutral.

Analysis: The higher Integrated Goods and Services Tax, if paid, would have been available as input tax credit to the importer. The request to file a supplementary Bill of Entry for availing such credit was not considered. In a revenue neutral situation, where the duty paid would accrue as credit to the same assessee, the confirmed demand was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The differential Integrated Goods and Services Tax demand was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in full and the appeal succeeded, with consequential relief available in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the exemption conditions are satisfied on the face of the import documents and the duty paid would, in any event, be available as credit to the assessee, a demand founded on a contrary reclassification or a revenue-neutral tax adjustment cannot be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants complied with the conditions of Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. under the Target Plus Scheme, particularly the actual-user and non-transferability requirements, in relation to the imported goods. (ii) Whether the demand of duty, confiscation and penalty, including the penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants complied with the conditions of Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. under the Target Plus Scheme, particularly the actual-user and non-transferability requirements, in relation to the imported goods.

Analysis: The exemption under the Target Plus Scheme was conditional and the burden lay on the importer to establish compliance. The record showed that the Haldia imports were not supported by credible evidence of job work or physical movement of goods, while the purported job worker denied receipt of goods and the delivery documents did not satisfactorily establish utilisation. The Chennai imports also showed a coordinated routing of goods through third parties, with job workers stating that they acted on instructions of a third party and that the processed goods were delivered elsewhere. The absence of endorsed supporting manufacturers, lack of reliable stock, transport and processing records, false address details, and the overall pattern of diversion led to the conclusion that the goods were not utilised in terms of the notification.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to prove compliance with the notification conditions, and the duty-free benefit was not available.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty, confiscation and penalty, including the penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, were sustainable.

Analysis: Once breach of the exemption conditions and misstatement were established, invocation of duty demand, confiscation and penalty provisions was sustainable. The challenge to reliance on statements without cross-examination did not succeed because the findings rested on corroborative documentary and circumstantial material, and no prejudice was shown. However, the penalty under section 112 could not be sustained because the notice and order did not clearly specify the exact clause and manner of the alleged contravention, and that defect warranted interference to that limited extent.

Conclusion: The demand, confiscation and penalty under section 114A were sustained, but the penalty under section 112 was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was substantially upheld, with only the penalties imposed under section 112 being deleted, and the appeals succeeded only to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: An importer claiming exemption under a conditional notification must strictly prove compliance with the notification's substantive requirements; where the record establishes diversion or non-utilisation in the prescribed manner, duty demand and connected penal action are maintainable, though a penalty cannot stand if the notice fails to clearly disclose the specific statutory contravention alleged.

Issues: Whether the denial of foreign tax credit claimed under section 90/90A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of delayed filing of Form No.67 is sustainable, and whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of credit.

Analysis: The assessee declared foreign income and claimed foreign tax credit under section 90/90A but filed Form No.67 nine days after the due date. The Tribunal applied the principle that a procedural breach does not extinguish the substantive right to relief under DTAA and followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court holding that technical delay in filing Form No.67 should not automatically bar allowance of foreign tax credit. The Tribunal directed limited remand to the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and allow the credit if supported by records.

Conclusion: The denial of foreign tax credit solely on account of delayed filing of Form No.67 is set aside; the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and allow the foreign tax credit if substantiated. The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural non-compliance such as delayed filing of Form No.67 does not extinguish the substantive right to foreign tax credit under the DTAA; such claims must be considered on verification of underlying facts rather than denied mechanically for technical delay.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs.47,50,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68/69/69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period can be sustained where the assessee had recorded corresponding cash sales in its books of account which were not rejected by the revenue.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the AO or appellate authority pointed out defects in the books of account, stock records, purchases or other documentary discrepancies that would render recorded cash sales bogus or unexplained. The Tribunal considered the legal requirement that deeming provisions under section 68/69/69A apply where money is found with the assessee which is not recorded in the books or where explanations are not satisfactory. The Tribunal noted that the books were audited and not rejected, that the assessee furnished cash book, VAT/CST returns, datewise sales and purchase charts, stock reconciliations and confirmations, and that there was corresponding reduction in stock consistent with declared sales. The Tribunal also relied on precedents holding that sales recorded in books and reflected in stock movements cannot be treated as undisclosed income unless proved bogus by reliable evidence. The Tribunal found no specific defect identified by the AO in the accounts or stock position and accepted the explanation that deposits represented recorded cash sales.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs.47,50,000 as unexplained income is deleted and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.