Outcome: The appeal was dismissed and no interference was made with the impugned order.

Issues: Whether the appellate order enhancing the penalty, passed without hearing the petitioner, could be sustained and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The impugned appellate order resulted in enhancement of the penalty from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,47,086 and the petitioner was not heard by the appellate authority. In these circumstances, the order did not warrant retention, as the dispute required reconsideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and deciding the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh disposal after hearing the petitioner.

Issues: Whether issuance and clubbing of a single show cause notice/assessment order for multiple financial years (2019-20 to 2023-24) is permissible and whether the impugned assessment order dated 29.10.2025 and consequential orders can be quashed.

Analysis: The Court examined the legality of issuing a single show cause notice/assessment order covering more than one financial year. The decision follows this Court's earlier ruling dated 21.07.2025 in W.P.Nos.29716 of 2024, etc., which held that the GST regime contemplates issuance of show cause notices tied to the tax period; where annual returns are filed the year constitutes the tax period, show cause notices issued after annual returns or after commencement of limitation must be based on annual returns, and no notice can be clubbed for more than one financial year. Applying that legal framework to the facts, the impugned order in the present case was issued covering the financial years 2019-20 to 2023-24, thereby exceeding jurisdictional limits by clubbing multiple years in a single notice/order.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment order dated 29.10.2025 and all consequential orders are quashed and the show cause notice dated 02.07.2025 is set aside; liberty is granted to the respondent to initiate separate proceedings for each financial year. The decision is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether profit could be estimated at 5% on liquor purchases made in the assessee's name and added as business income, despite the existence of merchandise agreements under which the assessee received only a fixed monthly licence consideration.

Analysis: The assessee was a liquor licence holder and had entered into merchandise agreements under which the liquor purchased in his name was transferred to the merchandisers on a cost-to-cost basis, while he earned only fixed monthly receipts. Identical arrangements in respect of the second merchandiser were accepted by the Revenue in the same year, but the addition was sustained only for the first merchandiser. No material was brought on record to show that the assessee actually conducted the retail business, controlled day-to-day operations, or earned trading margins. In the absence of specific defects in the accounts and without evidence that the income was assessed in the hands of any other person, estimation on purchases was not justified.

Conclusion: The addition made by estimating 5% profit on the purchases was deleted, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned addition was set aside on the ground that the assessee's income was confined to the fixed licence consideration under the merchandise arrangement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee, as a licence holder, proves that liquor purchases were transferred on a cost-to-cost basis under a genuine merchandise arrangement and the Revenue accepts the same transactional pattern in identical circumstances, trading profit cannot be presumed and estimated merely because the merchandiser did not independently offer income to tax.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 12.50 lakh as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in an assessment framed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2006-07 is sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee claimed the cash deposit represented sales proceeds from the business of dairy products but did not produce sale or purchase bills to substantiate the sales. The assessing officer made the addition under Section 68 on the basis of failure to furnish supporting documents, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On review, the assessee prima facie discharged part of the evidentiary burden by asserting cash sales as source, but the absence of documentary proof meant the explanation could not be fully accepted. Conversely, the Revenue's complete rejection of the claim was not fully justified on the record. In the exercise of appellate discretion and in the interest of justice, a compensatory lump-sum reduction of the addition was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 68 is not sustained to the full extent; the addition is reduced to Rs. 2.50 lakh and the appeal is partly allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether interim stay of the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 should be granted pending further proceedings.

Analysis: The Court considered the petitioner's contention of alleged jurisdictional error and breach of principles of natural justice in the proceedings leading to confirmation of a higher tax demand. The Court permitted the State-respondents time to file a counter affidavit (four weeks) and granted the petitioner two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder, indicating that the matter requires further pleadings and consideration before final adjudication. In the interim, the Court recorded continued protection by staying the operation and effect of the impugned order until the next date of listing.

Conclusion: Interim stay of the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 is granted until the next date of listing; respondent no.2 and the State are permitted four weeks to file a counter affidavit and the petitioner two weeks to file a rejoinder thereafter.

Issues: Whether the reopening of assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid where the reassessment originated from documents seized during a search of a third party, or whether the assessment proceedings were required to be initiated under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The material on record shows that incriminating documents were seized during a search under Section 132 and that those documents related to the assessee though seized from a third party. The statutory scheme of Sections 153A and 153C begins with a non-obstante clause which gives the special procedure in search/requisition cases overriding the general reassessment provisions in Sections 147/148. Jurisprudence relied upon establishes that where incriminating material emanates from search proceedings and pertains to persons other than the searched person, the assessing officer is required to proceed under Section 153C read with Section 153A and cannot instead invoke Sections 147/148; failure to follow the special procedure renders any notice under Section 148 and consequent assessment under Section 147 without jurisdiction. The facts show an initial invocation of Section 153C which was dropped and a subsequent initiation under Section 148; on these facts the special procedure under Sections 153A/153C was applicable and was not followed.

Conclusion: Reopening under Sections 147/148 was void for lack of jurisdiction; the notice under Section 148 and all consequential actions are quashed and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where incriminating material seized in a search pertains to a person other than the searched person, the assessing officer must invoke Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the non-obstante clause therein precludes proceeding under Sections 147/148 in such circumstances and any reassessment initiated under Sections 147/148 on the basis of such seized material is void.

Issues: Whether a notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act had resulted in nil demand and no reassessment under Section 147 had been initiated.

Analysis: The return and assessment records showed full disclosure of material facts, including the dividend distribution issue, and the assessment was completed after scrutiny under Section 143(3) with nil liability. A notice of demand under Section 156 can be issued only when tax, interest, penalty, fine, or any other sum is payable in consequence of an existing order under the Act. In the absence of any assessment or reassessment order creating a demand, Section 156 could not be invoked as a standalone recovery measure. The notice was also issued years after the assessment without reopening proceedings under Section 147, and the same material had already been considered in the original assessment. The reliance placed on the cited Supreme Court decision did not assist the revenue because the factual setting was materially different.

Conclusion: The notice of demand was without jurisdiction and invalid, and the challenge succeeded.

Issues: Whether the GST Adjudicatory Tribunal (Delhi Bench) has been made functional in accordance with Section 109 read with Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and whether directions should be issued to the respondents to take immediate steps (including filing of an affidavit by a senior officer) to make the Tribunal operational.

Analysis: The statutory framework requires constitution of a Tribunal under Section 109 to entertain appeals under Section 112. Evidence on record addresses infrastructure, temporary premises, staffing and IT enablement including online filing and virtual hearing capabilities; however, actual commencement of adjudicatory functioning remains incomplete. The available affidavit details steps taken (orders for staggered filing withdrawn, identification of permanent and temporary premises, posting of certain officers, and IT readiness) but does not confirm full operational commencement. Given the elapsed time since notifications and appointments and the remaining tasks to enable hearings, a targeted direction for a further authoritative affidavit and a short timeline to complete functional readiness is appropriate to secure compliance with statutory mandate.

Conclusion: A direction is issued for an affidavit to be placed on record sworn by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, and the respondents are granted one week to take effective steps to make the Tribunal actually functional for discharging adjudicatory duties; matter to be listed for further consideration on the specified date.

Issues: Whether the assessment under Section 143(3) and consequential penalty under Section 271AAD(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are sustainable where the petitioner sought documents and cross-examination but failed to specifically identify persons for cross-examination and did not avail earlier opportunities to copy seized materials.

Analysis: The assessment standard is based on preponderance of probabilities. The petitioner did not respond to the notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) by obtaining the seized materials within the time prescribed and instead sought cross-examination without naming the persons whose statements were relied upon. The request for cross-examination at the late stage, without specifying the points or persons and without having first availed the opportunity to copy seized documents, was treated as unsustainable. In view of the substantial tax and penalty consequences, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration allowing the petitioner an opportunity to apply for relevant documents, file a composite reply to the earlier notices, and be heard; a conditional pre-deposit was directed before de novo proceedings.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment under Section 143(3) and penalty under Section 271AAD(1)(i) are quashed and the matter is remitted for fresh adjudication. Relief is granted to the petitioner in part pending compliance with directions including deposit of Rs. 25,00,000 and filing of a composite reply; if the petitioner fails to comply, the respondent may proceed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeal when the grounds of rejection were not the subject of a separate show cause at adjudication; (ii) Whether the Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeal as no violations specified under Section 2(15) of the Act were set out in the impugned order; (iii) Whether the Tribunal ought to have held the impugned order to be wrong for want of specified violations in terms of the explanation to Section 12AB(4) having been proved against the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether a further show cause notice was necessary where the assessee had voluntarily disclosed activities which formed the basis of the adverse decision.

Analysis: The proceedings and the adverse finding arose from the voluntary disclosure of activities in response to a notice seeking notes of activities. The authorities proceeded on the basis of that disclosure rather than introducing new allegations; consequently no additional material or fresh matters were required to be put to the assessee by a separate show cause notice.

Conclusion: No further show cause notice was necessary; finding against the assessee on the disclosed activities is valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the violations alleged were not those specified under Section 2(15) of the Act such that the Tribunal should have allowed the appeal.

Analysis: The admitted use of the assessee's resources to promote and finance election campaigns constituted participation in the electoral process, i.e. political activity. The character of the activity, not the label 'apolitical', determines whether it falls within permitted objects. The factual concession that funds were spent on election campaigns aligns the activity with political purposes rather than with the declared charitable objects.

Conclusion: The activity constituted political activity and did not fall within the assessee's declared objects; the Tribunal was not obliged to allow the appeal on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned order was erroneous for want of proof of specified violations under the explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Act.

Analysis: Explanation (a) to Section 12AB(4) covers situations where income of a trust or institution is applied otherwise than for the objects of the trust. The admitted and recorded application of substantial funds for election-related activities demonstrates application of income for purposes other than the trust's objects, satisfying the statutory description of a specified violation.

Conclusion: The requisite specified violation under explanation (a) to Section 12AB(4) is established; the impugned order is not erroneous for want of proof of specified violations.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge fails on all framed substantial questions of law; the decision confirming the denial of registration/renewal under Section 12AB stands against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a trust's admitted application of its income is for electoral/political activities rather than for its declared charitable objects, such application constitutes a specified violation under explanation (a) to Section 12AB(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and justifies denial of registration under Section 12AB.

Issues: Whether the assessment order for the assessment year 2000-2001 was barred by limitation under the second proviso to Section 14(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The assessment year in question fell within the period covered by the second proviso to Section 14(1), which prescribed a one-year period for completing the assessment. The final assessment order was passed after the expiry of that period, and the later omission of the proviso did not displace the applicable limitation regime for the relevant assessment year. The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Tribunal's finding that the assessment was time-barred.

Conclusion: The assessment order was barred by limitation and the revision was decided against the petitioner-State and in favour of the respondent-Assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: The limitation applicable to an assessment must be determined by the provision in force for the relevant assessment year, and an assessment made beyond that period is void for being time-barred.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26.07.2024 before the Appellate Authority despite expiry of the statutory period and on what terms; (ii) Whether the overdraft bank account of the petitioner maintained with the second respondent can be attached by the tax authority.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26.07.2024 and on what conditions.

Analysis: The Court considered the petitioner's assertion that it became aware of the impugned order only upon attachment of its bank account and the respondents' submissions that the demand was confirmed after considering the petitioner's reply and that the dispute arose from mismatches in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. The Court followed its consistent approach in similar matters to allow appellate remedy subject to conditional compliance to balance the interest of revenue and the assessee's right to appeal.

Conclusion: The petitioner is granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority/Commissioner (Appeals) within 30 days from receipt of this order, provided the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax (as confirmed in the impugned order) in two instalments within two months; on compliance the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits without reference to limitation; failure to comply will permit dismissal of the appeal and enable revenue action.

Issue (ii): Whether the overdraft (OD) account maintained by the petitioner can be attached by the tax authority.

Analysis: The Court examined the nature of the bank account and the second respondent's contention that amounts in the OD account belong to the bank. Applying the principle that OD accounts represent borrowings and that sums in such accounts are not the assessee's free funds available for attachment, the Court restricted attachment of the OD account while preserving the revenue's right to proceed against assets offered as security.

Conclusion: The overdraft account cannot be attached by the tax authority; however, the tax authority is at liberty to proceed against assets (movable or immovable) provided as security, subject to the bank's rights and the outcome of any appeal.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of by permitting an appeal on the stated conditions and by restraining attachment of the overdraft account while allowing the revenue to pursue secured assets; the matter is finally disposed of with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee seeks to challenge a tax demand after limitation has expired, courts may grant conditional relief permitting appeal subject to a provisional deposit of a substantial portion of the disputed tax; an overdraft account is not ordinarily attachable as the funds are the bank's and attachment may be restricted while secured assets remain available for recovery.

Issues: Whether the show cause notice in Form GST REG-17 for cancellation of registration is invalid for not containing the contents of the charges and whether interference by the High Court is warranted at the stage of issuance of the show cause notice.

Analysis: The impugned show cause notice alleges violation of Rule 21(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and annexes a communication from the Deputy Director, DGGI to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner conveying investigative materials. The petitioner submitted two substantive replies to the notice, including a reply dated 25.12.2025 addressing alleged availment of input tax credit from non-existent suppliers. The annexed supporting documents supply factual particulars of the allegations. Given that the petitioner has understood the charges and has filed detailed responses, no substantial prejudice arises from permitting the proper officer to consider the replies and decide in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed; the proper officer is permitted to proceed on the basis of the replies to the show cause notice and decide the matter in accordance with law within two weeks, which is adverse to the petitioner.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is leviable where the assessing officer disallowed expenses treating them as capital in nature while the assessee treated them as revenue expenses (i.e., whether the addition is based on a debatable question of revenue v. capital and therefore attracts penalty).

Analysis: The assessing officer reopened assessment under Section 143(3)/147 and disallowed amounts including alleged unrecoverable export benefits and security deposit under Section 36(1)(vii), and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The issue whether an expenditure is revenue or capital in nature involves interpretation and application of law to facts and may admit of a reasonable difference of opinion. Where the classification of an expenditure as revenue or capital is a debatable issue, the element of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars necessary to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not established. Reliance on precedent holding that bona fide or debatable claims do not attract punitive penalty supports deleting penalty when there is no evidence of fraud, concealment or knowingly false particulars.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not leviable in this case because the disallowance arose from a debatable revenue v. capital classification and there is no finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars; the penalty is deleted and the assessee's appeal is allowed.

Issues: Whether the Superintendent, CGST and CX had jurisdiction to adjudicate a show-cause notice invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: Paragraph 2(i) of the Circular dated September 29, 2016 categorically excludes cases involving taxability, classification, valuation and extended period of limitation from adjudication by Superintendents even where the monetary demand is within Rs.10,00,000. The notice and the impugned order expressly invoke the proviso to Section 73(1) (extended period of limitation). The exclusion in the said Circular therefore places matters invoking the extended period outside the competence of a Superintendent and within the competence of a Deputy/Assistant Commissioner. Participation by a party in proceedings before an authority that lacks jurisdiction does not confer jurisdiction on that authority.

Conclusion: The order dated October 29, 2024 passed by the Superintendent, CGST and CX is a nullity for want of jurisdiction and is set aside; decision is in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a delegated administrative instruction excludes specified categories of tax matters (including invocation of the extended period of limitation) from the competence of a particular adjudicating rank, any order on such excluded matters issued by that rank is void for want of jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax paid using a partner's service-tax registration/PAN can be treated as payment towards the partnership firm's liability. (ii) Computation and correctness of service tax liability on Works Contract Service and Transportation of Goods including claims of abatement and sub-contractor liability.

Issue (i): Whether service tax paid using the partner Shri K. S. Nair's service-tax registration/PAN may be adjusted against the partnership firm's liability.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined statutory provisions concerning registration based on PAN and partnership principles. It considered authorities holding that payments made by a partner can be relevant to the firm's liability and noted prior decisions permitting adjustment where tax has been paid though under a partner's registration. The Tribunal also observed that any tax liability of the partner for services he rendered separately must be accounted for.

Conclusion: Payment of service tax under the partner's PAN is to be allowed and adjusted against the appellant firm's liability.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for service tax on amounts characterized as Works Contract Service and Transportation of Goods is sustainable, including abatement claims and the appellant's contention of being a subcontractor for which main contractor paid tax.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the factual record, the lack of documentary support for certain receipts (Transportation) and the legal position on subcontractor liability. It applied precedent holding that a sub-contractor remains liable to pay service tax even if the main contractor has discharged tax on the overall transaction. The Tribunal found that documents submitted warrant further custodial examination for abatement and reconciliation, necessitating remand to the adjudicating authority for re-computation and opportunity to produce evidence.

Conclusion: The demand insofar as it arises from services rendered by the appellant as a sub-contractor is upheld; the computation of demand relating to Works Contract and Transportation receipts is remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration on the basis of documents to be produced by the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed by permitting adjustment of tax paid under the partner's PAN against the firm's liability, while upholding the liability of the appellant as sub-contractor; computation issues are remitted for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a partner has paid service tax using his PAN/registration for services rendered by the partnership, such payment can be adjusted against the partnership firm's liability, but a sub-contractor remains independently liable to discharge service tax even if the main contractor has paid tax on the transaction; computation disputes and entitlement to abatement require remand for documentary verification.

Issues: (i) Whether non-production of postal receipt, acknowledgment card, or other postal records proving issuance and service of the demand notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act was fatal to the complaint; (ii) Whether the acquittal should be set aside and the matter remanded to permit further evidence on notice and service.

Issue (i): Whether non-production of postal receipt, acknowledgment card, or other postal records proving issuance and service of the demand notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act was fatal to the complaint.

Analysis: The complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was founded on dishonour of cheques punishable under Section 138, and issuance of a demand notice within the statutory framework was essential. While service may be presumed when a notice is sent by registered post to the correct address, and endorsements such as unclaimed or refused may amount to valid service in law, the date of issuance and the date of service or deemed service still had relevance for compliance with the limitation requirements. In the absence of postal receipt, acknowledgment card, or comparable postal records, the evidentiary basis to establish those dates was missing.

Conclusion: The non-production of the relevant postal documents justified the trial court's finding and, by itself, supported the acquittal on the record as it then stood.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal should be set aside and the matter remanded to permit further evidence on notice and service.

Analysis: The missing documents had been produced in a connected matter between the same parties, and the dispute involved money due to a public sector undertaking. In these circumstances, an opportunity to adduce further evidence, including the relevant postal documents, was considered appropriate so that the complaint could be decided afresh after both sides were heard on evidence.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate court for fresh consideration with liberty to both sides to adduce further evidence.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the prosecution was restored to the trial stage for a fresh adjudication on evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the service or deemed service of the statutory notice must be supported by reliable postal evidence where the dates of issuance and service are material to limitation, but a defective evidentiary record may justify remand to permit additional evidence and fresh consideration.

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance of deduction under section 80IC on account of inter-unit transfer of pre-used plant & machinery and alleged breach of conditions is sustainable; (ii) Whether disallowance of depreciation on plant & machinery due to discrepancies found in survey can be sustained; (iii) Whether additions under section 69C in respect of alleged bogus purchases/expenses from M/s Radhika Enterprises should be restricted; (iv) Whether claim of deduction under Chapter VI-A (section 80IC) can be allowed though the return was filed after the due date and whether section 80AC operates to disallow such claim.

Issue (i): Disallowance of deduction under section 80IC due to inter-unit purchase/transfer of pre-used plant & machinery.

Analysis: The issue was examined in light of prior appellate orders in the assessee's own case where identical factual and legal questions were decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal. The appellate authority applied those coordinate-bench decisions to the year under consideration and found no new corroborative material to distinguish the present case from earlier years. The claim was quantified in Form 10CCB and supported in audit records filed before completion of assessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The disallowance of deduction under section 80IC is not sustainable and the deduction is to be allowed (in favour of assessee).

Issue (ii): Disallowance of depreciation on plant & machinery due to discrepancies found during survey.

Analysis: The appellate authority relied on prior Tribunal findings in the assessee's own case which held that valuation differences observed after several years and during survey did not justify doubting audited books without rejecting them under section 145. The earlier Tribunal orders deleting similar additions were held to be binding for the subject years and no independent corroborative evidence supported AO's valuations.

Conclusion: The disallowance of depreciation is not sustainable and the additions are to be deleted (in favour of assessee).

Issue (iii): Treatment of alleged bogus purchases/expenses from M/s Radhika Enterprises and the extent of addition under section 69C.

Analysis: The appellate authority applied the ratio of the Tribunal's prior orders in the assessee's own case, which had restricted additions under section 69C to 12% of the total bogus purchases. Following that precedent, the AO was directed to restrict the addition to the prescribed percentage as earlier held by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69C is to be restricted to 12% (in favour of assessee to that extent).

Issue (iv): Allowability of deduction under section 80IC where return was filed after the due date and interplay with section 80AC.

Analysis: The appellate authority considered jurisprudence holding that filing of audit report/Form 10CCB is directory and that declarations filed before completion of assessment can be treated as sufficient. The assessee had filed Form 10CCB and audit report quantifying deduction before completion of assessment. Coordinate decisions and higher court precedents permitting allowance despite belated filing were applied.

Conclusion: The claim of deduction under section 80IC is allowable despite belated filing of the return; section 80AC does not bar the deduction in the facts of the case (in favour of assessee).

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's orders and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, resulting in allowance of the challenged deductions and deletion or limitation of the contested additions in accordance with prior Tribunal precedent; the overall effect is favourable to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where identical factual and legal issues have been finally decided in the assessee's own case by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, subsequent assessments for later years involving the same issues should follow that precedent unless fresh, distinguishing evidence is produced; audit certificates/Form 10CCB filed before completion of assessment are directory and may support allowance of statutory deductions despite delay in filing the return.