Issues: (i) Whether the assessment framed under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction for want of incriminating material; (ii) whether additions based on seized loose sheets and rough papers were sustainable; (iii) whether the addition relating to loan from Muthoot Finance Ltd. was justified; and (iv) whether the ad hoc addition as deemed house property income could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment framed under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction for want of incriminating material.

Analysis: The search yielded seized material that the Tribunal found to constitute incriminating documents for assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A. On that basis, the challenge that the assessment lacked jurisdiction merely because no incriminating material existed was rejected.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment under section 153A failed and was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether additions based on seized loose sheets and rough papers were sustainable.

Analysis: The seized papers were found to contain mere jottings and rough estimates, often without dates, signatures, names, or any reliable link to the relevant assessment year. Such loose sheets, uncorroborated by books of account or independent evidence, were treated as unreliable and incapable of supporting the additions.

Conclusion: The additions founded on the loose sheets were deleted and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition relating to loan from Muthoot Finance Ltd. was justified.

Analysis: The amount was claimed to be a loan against jewellery security. The record showed that the revenue authorities did not effectively examine whether the loan was reflected in the assessee's books or whether the explanation was incorrect. In the absence of such verification, the addition could not stand.

Conclusion: The addition relating to the loan was deleted and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the ad hoc addition as deemed house property income could be sustained.

Analysis: The addition was made merely on an ad hoc basis without proper verification of the assessee's explanation that the relevant flat formed part of trading inventory and had been rented out. Since the factual position was not examined, the addition was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The ad hoc addition as deemed house property income was deleted and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with the jurisdictional challenge rejected but the disputed additions deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Seized loose sheets or rough papers, when not supported by dates, authorship, books of account, or independent corroboration, cannot by themselves justify income additions; ad hoc additions also cannot be sustained without factual verification.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 2,97,66,224/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 treating purchases as unexplained expenditure is sustainable.

Analysis: Section 69C applies where an assessee has incurred an expenditure and offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure; the statutory focus is on the source of expenditure and not on the authenticity of the expenditure recorded in books. In the present case the purchases were recorded in the assessee's audited books of account and supporting material (invoices, bank statements, shipping bills) was produced and independently authenticated by Customs authorities for SEZ exports. Coordinate and High Court precedents establish that where expenditure is recorded in regular books and the source is explained, Section 69C is not attracted. Non-response of creditors to notices issued under Section 133(6) does not, by itself, permit adverse inference to treat recorded purchases as unexplained expenditure when books are not rejected and no material demonstrates falsehood of books. The Assessing Officer did not point to rejection of books or specific discrepancies undermining the source of purchases; appellate findings relying on documentary and Customs verification were not misplaced.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 2,97,66,224/- under Section 69C is unsustainable and is deleted; the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the assessee's cross-objection is allowed (decision in favour of the assessee).

Issues: Whether the payment of Rs. 20,00,000 made pursuant to contractual shortage of goods in transit is allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or is disallowed as a penalty under the Explanation to Section 37(1).

Analysis: The payment was supported by the transportation contract clause allocating responsibility for shortage in transit, email correspondence evidencing the claim, ledger entries and bank statements showing payment through banking channels. There is no material or finding that the payment arose from violation of any statutory provision or law. The payment was made to indemnify the principal for loss of entrusted goods and thus arose from contractual obligations intrinsic to the business of transporting goods. The Explanation to Section 37(1) disallows expenditures that are penalties for infraction of law; payments that are compensatory under contract and not imposed for statutory contraventions are not caught by that Explanation. Judicial authorities recognizing that compensatory contractual damages incurred in the course of business are deductible under Section 37(1) were applied to the facts.

Conclusion: The payment of Rs. 20,00,000 is compensatory in nature, incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and does not fall within the Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; therefore the disallowance is unsustainable and the appeal is allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment made pursuant to contractual liability to compensate for shortage of goods in transit, supported by contemporaneous documentary and banking evidence and not arising from breach of statutory law, is compensatory and deductible as a business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of interest of Rs. 17,64,987/- received from nationalized banks, the same being attributable to profits and gains of business.

Analysis: The assessee, a co-operative society carrying on credit business to members, treated bank interest as business income and claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The assessing authority and the lower appellate authority held the interest taxable as income from other sources and denied deduction. The Tribunal noted decisions of the Karnataka High Court (including Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. and Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd.) holding similar interest to be attributable to business and eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i), and observed that these decisions have not been overruled by a larger bench of the Karnataka High Court or by the Supreme Court. The subsequent Karnataka High Court decision distinguishing those precedents concerned section 80P(2)(d) and does not negate the earlier High Court rulings relied upon by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted absence of any finding by the assessing officer that the interest was chargeable under the head "income from other sources" rather than business income.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the interest income of Rs. 17,64,987/- received from nationalized banks, as such interest is attributable to the profits and gains of the assessee's business. The appeal is partly allowed to this extent.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 read with section 144B are valid where the alleged escaped income, calculated by excluding IGST and applying GP rate, is below the monetary threshold of Rs. 50,00,000 under section 149(1)(b); (ii) Whether the addition of gross profit element on purchases treated as bogus is sustainable on merits when primary transactional evidence exists and books of account have not been rejected under section 145(3).

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment under section 148 is valid given the alleged escaped income falls below the statutory threshold.

Analysis: The reassessment was based on information alleging bogus purchases of Rs. 4,09,76,267/-. The assessee's audited books show IGST of Rs. 62,50,617/- separately accounted and purchases debited at Rs. 3,47,25,650/-. Applying the adopted GP rate of 13.85% to Rs. 3,47,25,650/- yields escaped income of Rs. 48,09,503/-, which is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. The statutory threshold in section 149(1)(b) refers to income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment, not the gross value of transactions. Jurisdiction under section 148 depends on the existence of escaped income meeting the statutory criterion; if the real escaped income does not meet the threshold, the assumption of jurisdiction is invalid.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings under section 148 are invalid as the alleged escaped income, computed on the real value of purchases (excluding IGST) at the accepted GP rate, is below Rs. 50,00,000/-, and therefore jurisdiction under section 148 is lacking in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of the gross profit element on the purchases should be sustained on merits.

Analysis: The assessee placed primary transactional evidence on record including purchase orders, invoices, e-way bills, bank RTGS/NEFT payments and goods received notes. The books of account were not rejected under section 145(3). The Assessing Officer relied primarily on an investigation report without conducting independent verification to disprove the transactional evidence. The gross profit component on the purchases was already reflected in the returned income; adding the same amount separately without rejecting books and without independent disproof results in double taxation.

Conclusion: The addition of the gross profit element is unsustainable on merits and is deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed on both jurisdictional and merit grounds, resulting in quashing of the reassessment and deletion of the addition; the reassessment proceedings do not survive and the impugned addition is not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of jurisdiction under section 148, escaped income must be measured by the real income chargeable to tax (net of taxes like IGST where not part of purchases); if such escaped income is below the statutory monetary threshold in section 149(1)(b), reassessment proceedings under section 148 cannot be validly initiated.

Issues: Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs.2,03,70,390 claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for in-house R&D expenditure for Assessment Year 2012-13.

Analysis: The assessment was earlier set aside for de novo adjudication; the assessing officer did not independently examine the revised claim but reproduced findings from the quashed order. Delay in DSIR approval is procedural and, where approval is ultimately granted covering the relevant period, does not bar entitlement to the deduction. Continuation of manufacturing activity despite transfer of assets to R&D does not, by itself, negate existence of bona fide R&D activity. The statute does not mandate patents or publications as the sole proof; what is required is that expenditure be incurred for an approved in-house R&D facility and be supported by records. No specific falsity or material defect was pointed out in the R&D expenditure details furnished. No evidence was shown of a double claim of deduction in the same assessment year on the same expenditure.

Conclusion: The claim of Rs.2,03,70,390 under section 35(2AB) is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the amounts credited to the assessee's bank account from exhibition sales organised by M/s PHI Events, Singapore are unexplained cash credits liable to addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the learned NFAC's appreciation of documents violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 / principles of natural justice by admitting additional evidence not put to the Assessing Officer.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned credits are unexplained cash credits under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Court examined documentary evidence including invitation/confirmation letters from PHI Events Singapore, invoices issued by the assessee to the consignee, shipping bill and airway bills evidencing export, customs/packing lists, transit insurance, Foreign Bill Transaction Advice and bank advices showing realization of SGD 686,812 (equivalent to Rs. 3,05,81,848) into the assessee's IDBI account, correspondence for Bank Realisation Certificate on DGFT portal, records of remittances from Deutsche Bank Singapore, invoices of sale at the exhibition site, lists of buyers and artists, and ledger entries showing payments to artists after deductions. The NFAC's detailed factual appreciation found the exhibition and sales genuine, the remittances traceable to PHI Events, and that the assessee had substantiated the nature and source of the credits beyond reasonable doubt. The Assessing Officer's adverse inferences were not supported by contrary evidence and were based on suspicion; the Court accepted NFAC's finding that documentary proof discharged the assessee's burden under Section 68.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE is deleted; the credits are held explained in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether admission or reliance on documents by the NFAC violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 / principles of natural justice because such documents were not put to the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The Court considered whether the documents relied upon by the NFAC were newly filed before NFAC or were already placed before the Assessing Officer. On the record, the assessee certified and produced a paper book showing that bank statements and artists' ledger accounts were contemporaneously furnished before the Assessing Officer; the Court found that no additional evidence was introduced before NFAC that was not available to the AO. Consequently the contention of violation of Rule 46A failed.

Conclusion: There is no breach of Rule 46A or natural justice; NFAC's reliance on the documents did not vitiate the appellate decision and the argument is dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The aggregate effect of the decision is that the revenue's appeal against deletion of addition under Section 68 is dismissed and the NFAC order deleting the addition is upheld; the assessee's cross-objection is dismissed as infructuous.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee adduces contemporaneous and verifiable documentary evidence (invoices, shipping bills, airway bills, bank transaction advices, customs/packing lists, and confirmations from the intermediary/agent) tracing foreign remittances to exhibition sales, such evidence suffices to explain credits within the meaning of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and additions based on mere suspicion cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether the contract for mud engineering services together with supply of mud chemicals/additives (consumed in execution) qualifies as a composite supply under Section 2(30) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 2(30) defines composite supply as two or more taxable supplies that are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business, one being a principal supply. The enquiry requires examining whether the supply of services and the supply of chemicals are mutually essential and intertwined parts of a single contractual obligation such that the goods are supplied in conjunction with the services and are necessary for execution of the contract. The contractual scope requires provision of mud engineering expertise together with provision and injection of formulated drilling fluids and chemicals tailored to the drilling activity; the chemicals are not off the shelf items but are prepared/used as part of the engineering service to maintain drilling parameters. The separate billing or issuance of distinct invoices does not by itself render the supplies separate if the goods and services are integral to achieving the contractual objective and are supplied in conjunction with each other.

Conclusion: The supply of mud engineering services together with the associated mud chemicals/additives consumed during execution constitutes a composite supply under Section 2(30) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; the impugned advance ruling and appellate advance ruling holding otherwise are set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's first claim stood admitted for want of specific denial and was therefore payable. (ii) Whether the bill verification committee's ex parte report could be sustained and whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for liquidation of the balance claim.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's first claim stood admitted for want of specific denial and was therefore payable.

Analysis: The pleadings did not specifically traverse the petitioner's assertion that the hotel had been hired for accommodation of protected persons during the relevant initial period. In the absence of a specific denial, the asserted facts were treated as admitted. The Court applied the settled rules of pleadings that a general denial is insufficient and that admitted facts need not be proved. On that basis, the petitioner's entitlement to payment for the first hiring period was accepted.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the bill verification committee's ex parte report could be sustained and whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for liquidation of the balance claim.

Analysis: The committee was constituted long after the hotel had been de-hired and the report was prepared without associating the petitioner or granting an effective opportunity to explain the occupancy records and claim calculations. The Court distinguished bill verification from mere fact-finding and held that where a claim is proposed to be reduced or rejected, procedural fairness requires notice and an opportunity to respond. The record also indicated that the petitioner had no effective control over the premises during occupation by protected persons and security personnel, weakening the respondents' later challenge to actual occupancy.

Conclusion: The committee report and the order constituting it were quashed, and the respondents were directed to liquidate the petitioner's claims.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the adverse verification process was set aside, and the petitioner was granted relief for payment of the admitted and verified dues.

Ratio Decidendi: Uncontroverted pleadings may amount to admission, and a decision reducing or rejecting a monetary claim through bill verification must comply with natural justice by affording the claimant a fair opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the petitioner/registered person is entitled to avail input tax credit (ITC) for invoices/debit notes pertaining to FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 despite the limitation in Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in view of the amendment by insertion of Section 16(5) and related notifications/circulars.

Analysis: Section 16(4) originally restricted entitlement to take ITC after the thirtieth day of November following the end of the financial year to which the invoice/debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. Section 16(5) was inserted to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (4), registered persons may take ITC in any return under section 39 filed up to 30.11.2021 for invoices/debit notes pertaining to FYs 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. The legislative amendment received Presidential assent and was given effect through Finance Act (No.2) of 2024, followed by Notification No.17 of 2024-Central Tax dated 27.09.2024 and Circular No.237/31/2024-GST which implemented and clarified the scope of the amendment. Applying the amended statutory text and the implementing instruments to the facts, the limitation bar in Section 16(4) is displaced in respect of the specified financial years for returns filed up to 30.11.2021, rendering orders that reverse ITC solely on the ground of limitation unsustainable to that extent.

Conclusion: The impugned orders are quashed insofar as they deny the petitioner's claim for ITC for invoices/debit notes pertaining to FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 where the ITC was availed within the period permitted by Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; consequential reliefs including restraint on proceedings, de-freezing of bank accounts, and refund/adjustment directions are granted, while the respondent retains liberty to proceed on non-limitation issues in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the assessment proceedings and order dated 19.08.2025 issued under Section 74 of the GST Act (pertaining to financial year 2025-2026) are without jurisdiction in view of omission of Sections 73 & 74 and applicability of Section 74A from 01.04.2024 onwards, and whether the impugned order should be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration under Section 74A.

Analysis: The petition concerns a proceeding and assessment order dated 19.08.2025, arising from a show cause notice dated 04.07.2025, where the respondent invoked Section 74 but also referred to Section 74A(5) later in the notice. The applicable statutory framework is that Sections 73 and 74 were omitted with effect from 01.04.2024 and Section 74A applies for the financial years 2024-2025 onwards. The respondent has admitted that proceedings were wrongly invoked under Section 74. The notice's mixed invocation of Section 74 and Section 74A(5) demonstrates confusion and non-application of mind, causing prejudice to the petitioner in preparing a reply. Given the omission of Sections 73 and 74 and the procedural defects in the notice, the assessment order issued under the wrong provision lacks jurisdiction and requires fresh consideration under the correct statutory provision, with opportunity for the petitioner to file objections and for the respondent to afford a personal hearing before passing orders on merits.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment order dated 19.08.2025 passed under Section 74 is set aside for want of jurisdiction; the matter is remanded for fresh consideration under Section 74A, with directions that the petitioner treat the order as a notice under Section 74A and file reply/objection within four weeks, and the respondent shall thereafter afford a 14-day clear notice for personal hearing and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid where the reasons recorded relied on entries in loose papers seized from a third party and alleged borrowed satisfaction/contradictory approvals; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is sustainable where the reassessment on which it is based is held invalid.

Issue (i): Validity of reassessment initiated under section 148/147 based on seized third party documents and alleged borrowed satisfaction.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the material on record, including the impounded loose papers (LP 184 & LP 186), the recorded reasons for reopening, the approval under section 151, statements and reports filed before the Settlement Commission, and relevant judicial precedents addressing borrowed satisfaction and presumption under section 132(4A). The Court noted contradictions in positions taken by the Principal CIT, absence of independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer, and that the presumption under section 132(4A) applies only to the person from whose possession documents were seized. The Tribunal relied on authoritative decisions holding that entries in third party seized papers cannot alone sustain reopening and that mechanical or contradictory approvals amount to borrowed satisfaction.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings under section 148/147 were invalid. The notice issued under section 148 and the consequent assessment order under section 147 are quashed.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of penalty under section 271(1)(c) founded on the quashed reassessment.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed consequential to the reassessment additions which the Tribunal has set aside as invalid. Where the foundational reassessment is void, the consequent penalty lacks a valid basis.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is deleted as it is consequential upon the invalid reassessment.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are allowed: the reassessment notices and orders under section 148/147 are quashed and the consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) is deleted, resulting in overall relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Reopening of assessment under section 148/147 based solely on entries in documents seized from a third party, without independent application of mind and where approval under section 151 is mechanical or contradictory, constitutes borrowed satisfaction and renders the reassessment and any consequential penalty invalid.

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal should interfere with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the assessing officer's disallowance of purchases to 25% where sales, opening and closing stocks were accepted and certain supplier records and GST returns were produced but some supporting documents were deficient.

Analysis: The facts show trading operations with audited books, quantified opening and closing stocks, accepted sales, and supplier GST returns and account confirmations produced before the authorities. Notices under the statute to suppliers remained uncomplied with and some transportation and other supporting documents were deficient as recorded in the remand report. The assessing officer made a full disallowance under the relevant income-tax provisions on the basis of alleged fabricated documents and non-compliance by suppliers. The appellate authority examined the available documentary matrix-accepted sales and stocks, GST filings, banking payments and supplier confirmations-while also noting deficiencies in transportation and other supporting evidence. On this factual and documental balance, complete disallowance was held to be not justified but the inability of the assessee to fully substantiate all purchases warranted a limited adjustment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concurs with the appellate authority's limitation of the addition to 25% and declines to interfere with that reduction of the assessing officer's disallowance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where sales and stock figures are accepted and corroborative supplier GST returns and account confirmations are produced, complete disallowance of purchases is not warranted; a quantified limited disallowance is appropriate where material supporting documents are deficient.

Issues: (i) Whether the appropriate estimated profit rate on sale of material should be 2% or 1.25% for assessment year under consideration; (ii) Whether addition of Rs. 8,00,000 made under Section 68 as unexplained unsecured loan is sustainable.

Issue (i): Appropriate estimated profit rate on sale of material.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered prior adjudication on substantially similar facts in the assessee's assessment for an earlier year where the appellate authority reduced the estimated profit rate from 2% to 1.25%. The Tribunal applied the same view to the present assessment year while upholding the estimation of 6% on gross contract receipts made by the assessing officer.

Conclusion: The estimated profit rate on sale of material is directed to be 1.25% (in favour of the assessee with respect to this issue).

Issue (ii): Validity of addition of Rs. 8,00,000 under Section 68 as unexplained investment/loan.

Analysis: The assessee furnished the lender's bank statement demonstrating that the loan funds were advanced through banking channels and sourced from fixed deposit maturities. The Tribunal found that such evidence discharged the onus under Section 68 and negated the basis for the addition.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 8,00,000 under Section 68 is deleted (in favour of the assessee with respect to this issue).

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed as the estimated profit rate on sale of material is reduced to 1.25% while the addition under Section 68 of Rs. 8,00,000 is deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee produces bank evidence showing receipt of funds through banking channels and that the lender sourced funds from fixed deposit maturities, the onus under Section 68 is discharged and additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 45,148/- for donations under Chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the assessee is entitled to credit of foreign taxes of Rs. 99,187/- under Section 91 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 notwithstanding that Form No. 67 was filed after the due date of filing the return.

Issue (i): Entitlement to deduction of Rs. 45,148/- under Chapter VIA for donations.

Analysis: The assessee produced donation receipts which were on record with the Assessing Officer and supported the claim under Chapter VIA. The record was examined to verify eligibility of the donations for deduction under the relevant provisions of Chapter VIA.

Conclusion: Deduction of Rs. 45,148/- is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Entitlement to foreign tax credit of Rs. 99,187/- under Section 91 where Form No. 67 was filed belatedly.

Analysis: The claim for credit under Section 91 relates to foreign tax paid on income taxed in the hands of the assessee. Form No. 67 was filed during the course of assessment proceedings after the due date for filing the return but prior to rectification being adjudicated. The late filing was treated as a procedural irregularity and the materials on record establishing foreign tax payment were considered to determine entitlement to credit under Section 91.

Conclusion: Credit for foreign taxes amounting to Rs. 99,187/- is to be granted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the donation deduction and grant the foreign tax credit, producing a favourable revision of the assessment for the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated filing of Form No. 67 that is made in the course of assessment proceedings constitutes a procedural lapse and does not bar grant of foreign tax credit under Section 91 where the taxpayer establishes that the foreign tax was paid and the income has been taxed in the hands of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the seized imported consignment (multifunctional devices) may be provisionally released pending adjudication, and on what conditions.

Analysis: Prior writ orders allowing conditional provisional release of seized customs goods were not interfered with by the Supreme Court, while permitting the adjudicating authority to proceed and decide issues strictly in accordance with law. The established conditional framework requires quantification of any enhanced duty within a short prescribed period, deposit/payment of the quantified enhanced duty, provision of a bank guarantee as security, and preservation of the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction to continue proceedings. Provision for objective consideration of any application for waiver of demurrage charges and maintenance of transaction records if goods are sold after provisional release are part of the conditional regime applied in similar cases.

Conclusion: Provisional release is permitted subject to conditions: (i) quantification of enhanced duty by Customs forthwith and payment/deposit of the enhanced duty by the petitioner (release within four weeks of payment), (ii) provision of a bank guarantee equal to 10% of the total price of the goods, (iii) objective consideration of any demurrage waiver application, (iv) maintenance and production of transaction/customer details if goods are sold after release, and (v) the adjudicating authority remaining free to decide the matter in accordance with law. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to provisional release of the seized imported consignment of multifunctional devices subject to specified conditions pending adjudication.

Analysis: The matter involves an application for interim release of goods seized under a seizure memo where prior, closely analogous orders have permitted provisional release on fulfilment of specified conditions. The operative framework applied permits provisional release subject to: payment/deposit of the quantified enhanced duty; prompt quantification by Customs within one week; release within four weeks of receipt of duty; provision of a bank guarantee equal to 10% of the total price of the imported goods; and preservation of consignation and transaction details if the goods are provisionally sold. The order preserves the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority to continue and decide the substantive proceedings uninfluenced by the conditional release, and allows consideration of any application for waiver of demurrage objectively.

Conclusion: Provisional release of the seized consignment is permitted subject to (i) quantification of enhanced duty by Customs within one week, (ii) payment/deposit of the entire quantified enhanced duty and release within four weeks of such payment, (iii) provision of a bank guarantee equal to 10% of the total price of the goods, (iv) maintenance and production of customer and transaction details if goods are provisionally sold, and (v) the adjudicating authority remaining free to decide the substantive proceedings on merits.

Issues: Whether the alleged conduct of the liquidator warranted further adjudication of the contempt allegations, and whether the liquidation process could be carried forward by seeking re-auction before the appellate tribunal.

Analysis: The petition arose from allegations that the liquidator had acted contrary to the undertaking recorded earlier before the Court. The Court noted the sequence of events in the liquidation and auction process, including the subsequent developments before the NCLT and NCLAT, the petitioner's enhanced offer, and the liquidator's statement that a request would be made before the appellate tribunal for setting aside the earlier e-auction and conducting a re-auction with a higher reserve price. The Court also noted the liquidator's contractual and regulatory discretion under the process document to reject bids and restart the auction process, and observed that the larger objective was maximisation of value of the liquidation estate.

Conclusion: The Court declined to pursue the contempt allegations further, recorded the liquidator's statement to seek re-auction before the NCLAT, and left all consequential issues, including objections, to be decided by the appellate tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The petition was brought to an end by recording the liquidator's course-correction and by leaving the proposed re-auction and related objections for determination in the pending appellate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In liquidation matters, where subsequent developments and the liquidator's stated proposal better serve maximisation of value, the Court may record the statement and leave consequential auction issues to the competent appellate forum rather than proceed with a separate contempt adjudication.

Issues: Whether a Memorandum of Cross-Objection can be heard and decided prior to the formal admission of an appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: An appeal under Section 35G is a restricted statutory appeal maintainable only upon satisfaction that a substantial question of law is involved; the procedure is governed by Section 35G(9) and Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A Cross-Objection is a derivative right contingent upon the main appeal having been validly admitted and notice directed for hearing on the merits. At the Hearing on Admission the focus is confined to whether substantial questions of law are framed; the respondent lacks locus to litigate merits by way of Cross-Objection before admission. Permitting adjudication of a Cross-Objection at the pre-admission stage would circumvent the statutory filter and adjudicate merits prior to determination of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Conclusion: The Cross-Objection (OCOT 6 of 2025) is dismissed as premature; this conclusion is in favour of the Appellant.

Issues: Whether the petitioner, who received goods from a supplier whose GST registration was under suspension and where no e-way bill was generated, was entitled to release of the detained goods under section 129(1)(a) of the UPGST Act instead of imposition of penalty/seizure under section 129(1)(b).

Analysis: The supplier's registration was suspended w.e.f. 21.11.2025 and a tax invoice issued on 03.12.2025 cannot be treated as a valid tax invoice or as one of the specified documents for movement while suspension subsisted, having regard to Rule 21-A(3) of the UPGST Rules, 2017 and the definition of invoice under section 2(66) read with section 31 of the UPGST Act. The e-way bill could only be generated by a registered person (supplier/recipient/transport) in terms of Rule 138(3) of the UPGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner admitted that no e-way bill was generated and produced no material showing restoration of the supplier's registration. In absence of the prescribed/ specified documents accompanying the goods in transit, the concession in Circular No. 76/50/2018 GST dated 31.12.2018 (relied upon for release under section 129(1)(a)) does not apply. The petitioner, alleging ownership, had the obligation to ensure generation of the e-way bill before movement but failed to do so.

Conclusion: The petitioner is not entitled to release of the goods under section 129(1)(a); the impugned orders are upheld and the writ petitions are dismissed against the petitioner (resulting in a decision in favour of the Revenue).