Issues: (i) Whether the seized gold could be treated as smuggled goods so as to invoke the statutory presumption and sustain confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether the penalty for dealing with allegedly smuggled gold was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the seized gold could be treated as smuggled goods so as to invoke the statutory presumption and sustain confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 shifts the burden of proving lawful acquisition only where the seizure is founded on a reasonable belief of smuggling, based on relevant material rationally connected with that belief. Domestic courier transport and absence of accompanying documents could justify suspicion and investigation, but did not by themselves establish illegal importation. The absence of foreign markings, the inconclusive assayer report, the disclosed jewellery business and melting explanation, and the failure to independently verify the identified recipient or melting laboratory were material circumstances not adequately addressed.

Analysis: The requirements of Section 111(i) and Section 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962 were not met merely because the gold was recovered from an airport cargo complex; no concealment in imported packages or unauthorised removal from a customs area was identified. Liability under Section 111(d) likewise required illegal importation to be established through evidence or a lawfully raised statutory presumption.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the gold could not be treated as smuggled on the available material, and the absolute confiscation was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty for dealing with allegedly smuggled gold was sustainable.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 required identification of the appellant's act or omission rendering the goods liable to confiscation and material demonstrating the requisite knowledge or reason to believe. Jewellery business and transportation without accompanying documents, without more, did not establish those statutory ingredients.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the penalty was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The adverse customs determinations concerning confiscation and personal penalty were set aside, with consequential relief to follow in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 arises only upon a reasonable belief of smuggling founded on relevant material; suspicion from domestic transportation and missing documents cannot alone establish illegal importation or sustain confiscation.

Issues: Whether an appeal against confiscation of gold carried by an international passenger is maintainable before the Tribunal when the gold was recovered from the passenger's person.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 excludes the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction over orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. Gold brought into India during international travel retains its character as passenger baggage even when recovered from the passenger's trouser pocket rather than from luggage. Allegations of non-declaration or concealment concern the merits of confiscation and penalty and cannot override the statutory exclusion of jurisdiction. The nature of the goods and transaction, rather than the relief sought, determines maintainability. Section 129DD provides the applicable revisional remedy.

Conclusion: No. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the baggage-related order; the appropriate remedy lies before the competent Revisional Authority.

Issues: (i) Whether commission-based marketing and order-procurement services supplied to foreign principals constituted export of services and were taxable in India; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked for recovery of the proposed service tax demand.

Issue (i): Whether commission-based marketing and order-procurement services supplied to foreign principals constituted export of services and were taxable in India.

Analysis: Rule 6A(d) required the place of provision of service to be outside India. Under Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, the place of provision is ordinarily the location of the service recipient. The service recipient is the person whose instructions are acted upon, whose business need is satisfied, and who bears the consideration; a third party affected by performance is not thereby the recipient. The foreign principals engaged the assessee to procure orders and promote their products, paid the commission in convertible foreign exchange, and used the services for their business. There was no evidence that Indian customers received any service from the assessee after their order details were passed to the foreign principals. The destination of the service was therefore outside India, determined by its consumption rather than its place of performance.

Conclusion: The commission services constituted export of services and were not liable to service tax; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked for recovery of the proposed service tax demand.

Analysis: The assessee regularly filed service-tax returns and disclosed the activity as export of service. Mere non-payment or failure to declare tax liability does not establish wilful suppression; a positive act showing intent to evade payment is required. No evidence established deliberate concealment or intent to evade service tax.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period was invalid and the demand was time-barred; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned service-tax confirmation was unsustainable both because the services qualified as exports and because the extended period was unavailable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a foreign principal engages and pays an Indian service provider for order procurement and marketing, the foreign principal is the service recipient, and the service qualifies as export when its place of provision is outside India notwithstanding that prospective customers are located in India.

Issues: (i) Whether waste and scrap arising from manufacture of goods of headings 8601 to 8606 cleared at a concessional rate under Notification No. 1/2011-CE was exempt under Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 62/95-CE; (ii) Whether the extended period under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was validly invoked; (iii) Whether interest and penalty under Sections 11AA and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether waste and scrap arising from manufacture of goods of headings 8601 to 8606 cleared at a concessional rate under Notification No. 1/2011-CE was exempt under Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 62/95-CE.

Analysis: Section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits exemption from the whole or any part of duty. Notification No. 1/2011-CE exempted the specified coaches from duty in excess of 1%; therefore, the coaches remained exempted goods for purposes of the unqualified expression used in Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 62/95-CE. Sl. No. 17 does not restrict its benefit to goods wholly exempted or chargeable to nil duty. A restriction found in another notification could not be added by interpretation. Rule 2(d) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not transplanted into the notification, but its express inclusion of goods availing Notification No. 1/2011-CE corroborated the statutory character of the concession as an exemption. The proviso to Notification No. 27/2011-CE was attracted because goods of heading 8607 remained excisable despite their exemption; however, an incorrect initial claim under that notification did not defeat the independently applicable exemption under Sl. No. 17.

Conclusion: Waste and scrap arising from goods of headings 8601 to 8606 was exempt under Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 62/95-CE; the duty paid was not payable and was refundable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was validly invoked.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended period requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Departmental audit had already ascertained and quantified the relevant facts, collected the amounts, and those facts were subsequently the subject of refund adjudication before issuance of the notice. The notice contained no particularised allegation of a deliberate act or intent to evade. Mere alleged non-disclosure of exempt clearances could not constitute wilful suppression, particularly where the dispute concerned a tenable construction of exemption notifications and the material facts were within departmental knowledge.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invokable and the demand was barred by limitation in its entirety, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest and penalty under Sections 11AA and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were sustainable.

Analysis: Interest was consequential to the duty demand, which failed both on merits and limitation. Penalty under Section 11AC required the ingredients of fraud, suppression, or intent to evade, none of which were established.

Conclusion: No interest or penalty was sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption under Sl. No. 17 governed the entire disputed waste and scrap, rendering the amount paid refundable only once and leaving no legally sustainable duty demand, interest, or penalty.

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest was lawful without reasons to believe recorded by the Commissioner; (ii) whether the absence of a document identification number invalidated the arrest-related communications.

Issue (i): Whether the arrest was lawful without reasons to believe recorded by the Commissioner.

Analysis: Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires the Commissioner to record reasons to believe, based on credible material, concerning the specified offence and the need for arrest. This safeguard protects personal liberty. The detailed reasons were recorded by the investigating officer, while the Commissioner's authorisation contained only a bare statement of belief. The Commissioner's order and reasons must also be communicated to the person arrested.

Conclusion: The arrest and consequent custody were illegal; the petitioner was entitled to release.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a document identification number invalidated the arrest-related communications.

Analysis: The applicable circular requires a document identification number on specified communications, subject to recorded exceptions and subsequent regularisation. The grounds of arrest and reasons to believe lacked such numbers, and no exigency or regularisation was established.

Conclusion: The arrest-related communications failed judicial scrutiny on this ground also.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution retains liberty to seek custody in accordance with law after supplying written reasons to believe and grounds of arrest.

Ratio Decidendi: A GST arrest requires reasons to believe recorded by the Commissioner on credible material; specified arrest-related communications require a document identification number unless the applicable exception and regularisation requirements are met.

Issues: Whether the general penalty imposed in connection with the return was sustainable.

Analysis: The return had been filed and the late fee paid. The penalty order imposed Rs. 50,000, exceeding the maximum provided under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The show cause notice and penalty order were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A general penalty under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act cannot exceed the statutory maximum.

Issues: Whether payments adjusted through accepted Forms GST DRC-03A satisfied the principal tax payment condition for waiver of interest and penalty.

Analysis: Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires payment of the entire principal tax covered by an eligible demand within the prescribed period. Rule 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires an application in Form GST DRC-03A before seeking waiver where the tax was previously paid through Form GST DRC-03. Under Rule 142, the adjusted amount is credited against the demand as payment on the date of the original intimation. Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST clarifies the same mechanism. Both adjustment applications were accepted and the electronic liability register reflected nil outstanding principal tax. The explanation that an incorrect financial year had been selected in the original payment form required consideration; receipt of the payment was not disputed.

Conclusion: The principal tax payment condition for waiver was satisfied. The application remained to be processed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An accepted adjustment of prior tax payments against a demand must be given effect when determining whether the principal tax payment condition for waiver has been satisfied.

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable below the monetary threshold for appeals to the Tribunal; (ii) Whether penalty was sustainable for an alleged undisclosed dispatch location when the goods matched valid transit documents and the allegation rested on an uncorroborated driver's statement.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable below the monetary threshold for appeals to the Tribunal.

Analysis: The departmental litigation circular excludes recurring issues from its monetary limits. The question concerning mobile-squad enforcement jurisdiction was treated as recurring in transportation checks.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable notwithstanding the monetary threshold, in favour of Revenue on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was sustainable for an alleged undisclosed dispatch location when the goods matched valid transit documents and the allegation rested on an uncorroborated driver's statement.

Analysis: Section 129 is an anti-evasion provision, with intent to evade tax treated as foundational to penalty. The goods matched the tax invoice and e-way bill. The driver's statement was the basis of the allegation, but the alleged warehouse was not independently verified and no opportunity for cross-examination was provided. The circular concerning an additional place of business requires independent establishment of an operational undisclosed facility. Penalty discretion must be exercised judicially, and suspicion cannot replace legal proof.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The recurring-issue exception applied to the departmental appeal, but the alleged undisclosed dispatch and tax evasion lacked the evidentiary foundation necessary for penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: An alleged undisclosed loading point supported solely by an uncorroborated driver's statement cannot sustain a detention-related penalty when the goods match valid transit documents and intent to evade tax is not established.

Issues: (i) Whether eight companies were properly excluded as transfer-pricing comparables. (ii) Whether reliance on a comparable-selection decision concerning another assessee was permissible. (iii) Whether the 15% related-party transaction filter was justified.

Issue (i): Whether eight companies were properly excluded as transfer-pricing comparables.

Analysis: Under Section 92C and Rule 10B, the transactional net margin method requires comparison with functionally comparable uncontrolled transactions. Material differences included software product development, specialised research and training activities, as well as substantial differences in scale, brand value and intangible assets. Where a company conducts diverse activities, reliable segmental financial information is needed to identify margins from comparable activities. Information obtained under Section 133 must be credible and verified.

Conclusion: The eight companies were properly excluded, and no substantial question of law arose from those findings. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reliance on a comparable-selection decision concerning another assessee was permissible.

Analysis: A decision concerning another assessee provides a relevant basis for comparison where the material facts and business activities are similar and there is no reason to distinguish the earlier decision.

Conclusion: Reliance on such a decision was permissible. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the 15% related-party transaction filter was justified.

Analysis: A related-party transaction filter assists in identifying margins representative of uncontrolled transactions. A narrower threshold is appropriate where it yields sufficient comparable entities; a higher threshold depends on the availability of sufficient comparables at the lower threshold.

Conclusion: The 15% filter was justified. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing determination retains the exclusions of the challenged comparables and the 15% related-party transaction filter.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the transactional net margin method, comparability depends on functionally similar uncontrolled transactions, reliable segmental information where diverse activities require separation, and a related-party transaction filter calibrated to the availability of sufficient comparables.

Issues: Whether penalty was warranted for non-compliance with information notices when the required information was subsequently furnished before completion of assessment.

Analysis: The penalty provision concerned failure to comply with an information notice. The second notice referred to the first and afforded another opportunity to furnish the same information. Although the information was supplied after the second deadline, it was furnished before completion of assessment and was taken into account in making it. The initial breach was treated as technical.

Conclusion: The penalty was not warranted and must be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for a technical failure to comply with an information notice is not warranted where a further opportunity is afforded and the required information is furnished and used before completion of assessment.

Issues: Whether the departmental appeals are maintainable under the monetary limits and exceptions in the binding departmental instructions.

Analysis: The amount involved was not claimed to exceed the prescribed High Court threshold. The instructions provide exceptions, including for classification and refund issues of a legal or recurring nature; classification was neither pleaded nor argued.

Outcome: The Chief Commissioner of Customs was directed to attend the next hearing concerning implementation of the instructions. The appeals remain pending, and maintainability has not been finally adjudicated.

Issues: Whether money-laundering proceedings can survive the quashing of the sole predicate criminal case.

Analysis: Proceeds of crime are property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The governing Supreme Court precedent addresses the effect of discharge, acquittal or quashing of the scheduled offence on money-laundering action concerning linked property. The proceedings in this case were based solely on a predicate FIR that had been quashed along with its consequential proceedings.

Conclusion: No. The money-laundering proceedings and consequential proceedings cannot survive, though they may be revived if the predicate proceedings are revived.

Ratio Decidendi: Money-laundering proceedings linked solely to a scheduled offence cannot survive the quashing of the predicate criminal case.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit on manpower supply services was admissible; (ii) whether the value of goods and consumables justified the service tax demand for undervaluation; (iii) whether rent-a-cab services supplied to the SEZ unit were exempt from service tax; (iv) whether the extended period of limitation was available; and (v) whether deposits made towards the input service providers' liabilities were refundable.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit on manpower supply services was admissible.

Analysis: The invoices, agreements, returns and financial records evidenced the input services and payment of tax. Under the agreements, wages formed part of the gross amount charged but were paid directly to the supplied manpower. Rules 4 and 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules govern payment and documentation; they do not require the recipient to verify the provider's remittance of tax. The Department produced no evidence establishing that the invoices were not genuine.

Conclusion: The credit was admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the value of goods and consumables justified the service tax demand for undervaluation.

Analysis: Rule 5 of the Service Tax Valuation Rules had been declared ultra vires, while Section 67 was amended with effect from 1 April 2015. The demand did not separately identify the subsequent period. VAT returns evidenced tax paid on sales of materials, and VAT and service tax were treated as mutually exclusive. The admissibility of witness statements was also affected by non-compliance with Section 9D.

Conclusion: The undervaluation demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether rent-a-cab services supplied to the SEZ unit were exempt from service tax.

Analysis: The endorsed Form A-2 authorised procurement of specified services without upfront service tax, and the Department did not establish that its endorsement was unauthentic. Section 51 of the Special Economic Zones Act gives that Act overriding effect.

Conclusion: The services were exempt from service tax, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended period of limitation was available.

Analysis: The relevant transactions and credit were reflected in returns and had been subject to departmental audits and an earlier investigation. Section 73 requires evidence of the specified conduct, including wilful suppression or fraud, for invocation of the extended period; an incorrect self-assessment alone is insufficient.

Conclusion: The extended period was unavailable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether deposits made towards the input service providers' liabilities were refundable.

Analysis: The Department obtained deposits from the assessee during investigation towards the service tax, interest and penalty liabilities of its input service providers. Obtaining those amounts from the recipient was arbitrary and unjustified.

Conclusion: The deposits totalling Rs. 19,05,34,034 were refundable within 30 days of receipt of the order, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The credit and service tax demands, associated interest and penalties do not survive; the investigation deposits are to be returned.

Ratio Decidendi: A recipient satisfying the payment and documentation requirements for Cenvat credit cannot be denied that credit solely because the service provider has not remitted the tax.

Issues: Whether the bail conditions requiring two local sureties and deposit of the passport should be modified.

Analysis: One local surety had been furnished, but the inability to obtain a second had prevented the appellant from benefiting from bail. The passport had already been deposited with the tax authorities.

Conclusion: One local surety and another surety satisfactory to the Magistrate shall suffice. Proof of the existing passport deposit and an undertaking not to seek its release without the trial court's permission shall replace the requirement to deposit it.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in protesting the inspection-stage payments justified rejecting the assessee's claim; (ii) whether the orders concluding the tax proceedings were sustainable despite non-issuance of a payment acknowledgement and non-consideration of the protest.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in protesting the inspection-stage payments justified rejecting the assessee's claim.

Analysis: The protest was submitted 17 days after payment. The inspection coincided with a family wedding, and the associated customary formalities continued afterwards.

Conclusion: The delay did not justify rejecting the claim, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders concluding the tax proceedings were sustainable despite non-issuance of a payment acknowledgement and non-consideration of the protest.

Analysis: Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules provides for acknowledgement in Form GST DRC-04 of a payment reported through Form GST DRC-03. Although a notice and hearing followed, the acknowledgement was not issued and the protest concerning the inspection-stage payments was not considered. The adopted precedent addressed the effect of non-issuance of that acknowledgement.

Conclusion: The orders were unsustainable, and the inspection-stage payments must be refunded, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to a refund of the inspection-stage payments; the underlying tax liability was not determined on its merits.

Issues: Whether the omission of the restriction under Rule 96(10) affects pending proceedings and the processing of the export refund.

Analysis: Rule 96(10) was omitted without a saving or sunset clause. Binding Supreme Court precedent addresses the effect of such an omission on pending proceedings. A Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs clarification states that the omission takes effect retrospectively from 23 October 2017.

Conclusion: Proceedings under the omitted restriction cannot continue, and the refund is to be processed.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under an omitted subordinate rule cannot continue where its omission is not accompanied by a saving or sunset clause.

Issues: (i) Whether functionally dissimilar companies were correctly excluded as transfer-pricing comparables. (ii) Whether a company with abnormal profits attributable to extraordinary circumstances was correctly excluded as a comparable.

Issue (i): Whether functionally dissimilar companies were correctly excluded as transfer-pricing comparables.

Analysis: The software-services exclusions were covered by an existing decision involving the same assessee. For IT-enabled services, functional profiles and business models were material to comparability. The factual findings included extensive outsourcing and differences between higher-end and routine services; the outsourcing findings were not contested. The inquiry under Section 260A concerns substantial questions of law.

Conclusion: The exclusions for functional dissimilarity were upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a company with abnormal profits attributable to extraordinary circumstances was correctly excluded as a comparable.

Analysis: Transfer-pricing analysis seeks to determine an arm's length price. The company's exceptionally high margin was attributed to extraordinary circumstances, including a merger and consolidated results; its inclusion would distort the mean profit level indicator.

Conclusion: The company was correctly excluded, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing benchmark cannot be based on the excluded comparables.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer-pricing comparables must be functionally comparable, and an entity with abnormal results attributable to extraordinary circumstances must be excluded to avoid distorting the arm's length benchmark.

Issues: (i) Whether writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite an alternative appellate remedy; (ii) Whether an appellate order passed before the deadline for written submissions violates natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite an alternative appellate remedy.

Analysis: An appeal to the Tribunal is ordinarily the appropriate remedy against an order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The challenge concerned an apparent procedural error and sought an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: Writ jurisdiction was available despite the alternative appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether an appellate order passed before the deadline for written submissions violates natural justice.

Analysis: The notice allowed written submissions by a specified date, but the appellate authority decided the appeal ex parte before that date, denying the opportunity to make those submissions.

Conclusion: The premature appellate order violated natural justice and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to a fresh hearing and a fresh decision on the appeal; the assessment merits remain open.

Ratio Decidendi: Deciding an appeal before the deadline allowed for submissions violates natural justice and may justify writ intervention notwithstanding an alternative appellate remedy.

Issues: (i) Whether Diwali expenditure incurred at business premises was allowable as business expenditure; (ii) Whether disallowance of general, office and sales-promotion expenses was sustainable beyond expenditure admitted to be personal.

Issue (i): Whether Diwali expenditure incurred at business premises was allowable as business expenditure.

Analysis: Under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, expenditure incurred for business purposes is allowable. The Diwali expenditure was nominal, incurred at the business premises with staff members, and was capable of creating goodwill among employees and customers. There was no finding that the expenditure had not been incurred at the business premises.

Conclusion: The Diwali expenditure of Rs. 24,340 was allowable and its disallowance was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance of general, office and sales-promotion expenses was sustainable beyond expenditure admitted to be personal.

Analysis: The assessee did not contest the finding that expenditure of Rs. 76,118, reflected in five vouchers, was personal in nature. However, no specific finding established that the remaining expenditure was personal or was not incurred for business purposes. The absence of verifiable bills could not sustain a blanket disallowance of the balance amount without such a finding.

Conclusion: The disallowance was sustained to the extent of Rs. 76,118 of admitted personal expenditure, while the balance disallowance of Rs. 5,08,410 was deleted; the issue was partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Business expenditure incurred for Diwali celebrations at the business premises remained deductible, and only the admitted personal outlay was excluded from deduction.

Ratio Decidendi: A disallowance of business expenditure may be sustained to the extent shown or admitted to be personal, but cannot be retained for the remaining expenditure merely because supporting bills are unverifiable without a specific finding that it is personal or non-business expenditure.

Issues: Whether long-term capital gain arising on conversion of land into stock-in-trade could be assessed in full in the year of conversion and execution of the development agreement, instead of proportionately as the stock-in-trade was sold.

Analysis: Section 45(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 postpones chargeability of capital gain arising on conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade until the previous year in which such stock-in-trade is sold or otherwise transferred. The consideration under the development agreement was receivable over time, and the converted stock-in-trade was sold in stages. The corresponding capital gains had been offered in the relevant assessment years in proportion to the sale consideration received. Assessment of the aggregate consideration in the impugned year would result in double addition of capital gain.

Conclusion: Long-term capital gain was chargeable proportionately in the years in which the converted stock-in-trade was sold; the addition of the entire capital gain in the impugned assessment year was deleted.