Issues: (i) Whether goodwill arising on amalgamation is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the Revenue could, for the first time before the High Court, invoke the restriction under the fifth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether goodwill arising on amalgamation is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) treats goodwill as an asset for depreciation purposes. The question stood settled by the binding determination that goodwill is an asset within that Explanation and is eligible for depreciation.

Conclusion: Goodwill is a depreciable intangible asset and depreciation thereon is allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could, for the first time before the High Court, invoke the restriction under the fifth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The proposed restriction had neither been specifically raised before nor decided by the appellate authorities. It did not constitute an independent substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The Revenue cannot raise the fifth-proviso restriction for the first time before the High Court; no substantial question of law arises on that basis, against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's entitlement to depreciation on goodwill remains undisturbed, and the unraised statutory restriction cannot be introduced at the appellate stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Goodwill falls within the statutory category of depreciable assets, and a new issue not raised or adjudicated before the lower appellate authorities cannot be made the basis of a substantial question of law.

Issues: Whether the writ challenge to the NCLT's observations could be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The NCLT's observations proceeded on the settled position that claims relating to the period preceding approval of a resolution plan stand extinguished. Those observations fell within the NCLT's jurisdiction under the insolvency framework. The asserted conflict with State tax legislation did not establish a jurisdictional error, as permitting State tax claims to bypass the corporate insolvency resolution process would undermine the statutory effect of an approved resolution plan.

Conclusion: No jurisdictional infirmity was established to bypass the statutory appellate remedy before the NCLAT.

Issues: (i) Whether the employees' dismissals without an inquiry violated the principles of natural justice and were illegal; (ii) Whether approval of a corporate insolvency resolution plan extinguished the employees' rights under pre-CIRP labour awards and barred withdrawal of the court deposits.

Issue (i): Whether the employees' dismissals without an inquiry violated the principles of natural justice and were illegal.

Analysis: The employees were dismissed through composite charge-sheet-cum-dismissal orders after they had reported at their transferred locations, without a disciplinary inquiry. The employer did not establish any perversity in the labour awards finding that the dismissals had been effected in gross breach of the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The terminations were illegal, and the finding in the labour awards was affirmed in favour of the employees.

Issue (ii): Whether approval of a corporate insolvency resolution plan extinguished the employees' rights under pre-CIRP labour awards and barred withdrawal of the court deposits.

Analysis: The labour awards had adjudicated the employees' claims and granted compensation before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process. Their entitlement under the awards had therefore crystallised before the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and approval of the resolution plan. This was distinguishable from an unadjudicated employment claim pending when the resolution plan was approved. The deposits were made to secure compensation awarded to the employees during the challenge proceedings; their continued deposit in court did not, by itself, entitle the new management to recover them. The general question whether court deposits constitute assets of the corporate debtor was not decided.

Conclusion: The resolution plan did not defeat the employees' crystallised entitlement under the labour awards. The employees were entitled to withdraw the deposited amounts with accrued interest as compensation, in full settlement of their service-related claims.

Final Conclusion: The labour awards remain operative, and the court deposits with accrued interest are to satisfy the compensation payable to the employees, with no further service-related benefits remaining payable.

Issues: (i) Whether scrutiny under Section 39(1) could be initiated against a continuously registered dealer without a valid notice under Section 35; (ii) Whether the five-year limitation in Section 57 applied to Section 39 scrutiny; (iii) Whether the Superintendent of Taxes had lawful delegated authority to commence Section 39 proceedings; and (iv) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy under Section 65.

Issue (i): Whether scrutiny under Section 39(1) could be initiated against a continuously registered dealer without a valid notice under Section 35.

Analysis: Section 35(2) mandates registered dealers to file returns, whereas Section 35(3) permits notice to dealers other than registered dealers. Section 39(1) confines scrutiny to returns furnished by a registered dealer to whom a notice under Section 35 has been issued. The notice requirement is a condition precedent to the exercise of scrutiny jurisdiction. A harmonious construction did not permit the statutory qualification to be disregarded; a dealer that was always registered and filed returns under Section 35(2) could not be subjected to Section 39 scrutiny without the prescribed notice.

Conclusion: The Section 39(1) scrutiny was without jurisdiction for want of the mandatory Section 35 notice, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the five-year limitation in Section 57 applied to Section 39 scrutiny.

Analysis: The statutory limitation governing completion of assessments could not be circumvented through recourse to the scrutiny mechanism under Section 39. Section 57 was applied to Section 39 proceedings, and scrutiny commenced in 2023 for returns relating to 2007 to 2017 fell beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The impugned Section 39 scrutiny proceedings were barred by statutory limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Superintendent of Taxes had lawful delegated authority to commence Section 39 proceedings.

Analysis: Section 26 read with Rule 3 requires delegation of the Commissioner's powers through notification in the Official Gazette. No gazette notification delegating Section 39 powers to the Superintendent of Taxes was produced. Internal orders or circulars could not satisfy the mandatory statutory requirement for delegation.

Conclusion: The Superintendent of Taxes lacked lawful delegated authority to initiate the Section 39 proceedings, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy under Section 65.

Analysis: The challenge disclosed a jurisdictional error arising from non-fulfilment of the statutory notice requirement and absence of valid delegation. This brought the matter within the recognised exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of an alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme did not permit scrutiny against the assessee without fulfilment of the express jurisdictional preconditions, compliance with limitation, and lawful delegation of power.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal scrutiny power conditioned by statute may be exercised only upon strict compliance with its express jurisdictional preconditions, prescribed limitation, and lawful delegation.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is unconstitutional or must be read down to confine ITC reversal to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions; (ii) Whether and subject to what safeguards a purchaser's ITC may be denied or reversed when the supplier defaults in depositing tax or its registration is subsequently cancelled.

Issue (i): Whether Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is unconstitutional or must be read down to confine ITC reversal to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions.

Analysis: Input tax credit is a statutory concession, and actual payment of tax to the Government is integral to the credit mechanism. Section 16(2)(c) operates subject to Section 41 and forms part of an integrated statutory framework governing eligibility, reversal, recovery from the supplier, and subsequent re-availment. The earlier matching and reconciliation framework under Sections 42 and 43 was not operationalised, but the resulting difficulty concerns the manner of enforcement rather than the constitutional validity of the condition itself.

Analysis: The possibility of arbitrary or mechanical action in individual cases does not invalidate Section 16(2)(c). The condition cannot be restricted only to fraud, collusion, or fictitious transactions by reading down its text; instead, it must be applied harmoniously with the statutory safeguards and recovery mechanisms available against the defaulting supplier.

Conclusion: Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, is constitutionally valid and is not read down to limit its operation exclusively to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions.

Issue (ii): Whether and subject to what safeguards a purchaser's ITC may be denied or reversed when the supplier defaults in depositing tax or its registration is subsequently cancelled.

Analysis: The non-operationalisation of the original matching mechanism, the phased substitution of Section 41, and the subsequent introduction of Rule 37A require the statutory regime applicable to the relevant tax period to be applied. For periods before Rule 37A, the absence of a re-availment mechanism is material. The statutory power to recover tax collected but not deposited by the supplier, including under Section 76, remains a relevant part of the scheme and cannot be rendered ineffective.

Analysis: Subsequent or retrospective cancellation of the supplier's registration, a nil or short tax declaration, or an alert concerning the supplier may justify an inquiry but cannot alone justify denial or reversal of ITC. The notice must disclose the relevant supplier, invoices, tax periods, nature of the default, material relied upon, and the status of recovery proceedings against the supplier. The purchaser may discharge the burden of proof through invoices and evidence of actual receipt and movement of goods or services. A notice invoking fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression must itself state the foundational facts connecting the purchaser to such conduct. Personal hearing, reasoned consideration of the purchaser's material, and examination of the grounds for retrospective cancellation are required.

Conclusion: ITC cannot be denied or reversed mechanically merely because the supplier defaulted or its registration was subsequently cancelled. Reversal may follow where the purchaser fails to establish eligibility or where fraud, collusion, non-receipt of goods or services, or other grounds rendering the credit inadmissible are established in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: Pending notices and completed adjudications must be dealt with afresh in conformity with the prescribed safeguards, after adequate opportunity to furnish material and be heard. Amounts already reversed, deposited, or recovered shall be adjusted or refunded as warranted by the fresh determination, and no fresh coercive recovery may be undertaken until that determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Actual payment of tax is a valid statutory condition for input tax credit, but Section 16(2)(c) must be enforced as part of the integrated GST scheme and cannot be used to impose mechanical reversal upon a bona fide purchaser without a fact-based inquiry, procedural fairness, and consideration of recovery from the defaulting supplier.

Issues: Whether the reassessment order under Section 148A(3) and the consequent notice under Section 148 for assessment year 2020-21 warranted writ interference where the materially identical reassessment challenge for the preceding assessment year had already been decided against the assessee.

Analysis: The information and allegations underlying the impugned reassessment action were identical to those involved in the preceding assessment year. The earlier decision had found that determining whether the amount disclosed by the assessee arose from a spurious transaction resulting in escaped income required factual examination by the Assessing Officer. Judicial discipline required adherence to the coordinate bench decision rendered in the assessee's own case.

Conclusion: The reassessment order and consequential notice did not warrant writ interference; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax paid under a mistake of law on exempt goods transport agency services is refundable; (ii) Whether interest is payable on that amount and, if so, at what rate.

Issue (i): Whether service tax paid under a mistake of law on exempt goods transport agency services is refundable.

Analysis: The assessee was eligible for exemption under Clause (21)(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, as amended, but paid service tax under reverse charge despite no liability. Such payment, made under a mistake of law, is a revenue deposit rather than tax or duty. Consequently, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not govern the refund claim, and retention of the amount would be without authority of law under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The refund of the amount paid under mistake of law is admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest is payable on that amount and, if so, at what rate.

Analysis: Since the payment retains the character of a revenue deposit and is outside the statutory refund mechanism for duty, the interest regime under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is inapplicable. The applicable principle supports compensatory interest at 12% per annum for wrongful retention of the deposit.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until payment of the refund, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption is given full effect by treating the erroneous payment as a refundable revenue deposit, with compensation for its retention.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment made under a mistake of law where no tax liability exists is a revenue deposit outside Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and its unlawful retention warrants refund with compensatory interest.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could withhold the refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 when an anti-evasion investigation concerning alleged fraudulent input tax credit was pending.

Analysis: Section 54(11) permits withholding where the refund-generating order is subject to an appeal, further proceedings, or any other pending proceeding under the Act, and the Commissioner, after hearing the taxable person, forms an opinion that release would adversely affect revenue because of fraud or malfeasance. The expression concerning other pending proceedings extends beyond a formally instituted appeal and includes a pending statutory investigation. The anti-evasion investigation had commenced before the refund-withholding order and was supported by contemporaneous material indicating non-existent or cancelled suppliers, absence of established movement of goods, and absence of the claimant from the manufacturer's supply chain. Those circumstances bore directly on actual receipt of goods for input tax credit purposes and supported the requisite opinion of fraud or malfeasance. A subsequently issued show-cause notice merely crystallised the ongoing investigation; the absence of a pending appellate proceeding or separate judicial stay did not invalidate the statutory withholding.

Conclusion: The refund was validly withheld under Section 54(11); the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether extraordinary writ jurisdiction could be exercised to quash an input-tax-credit adjudication order despite an available statutory appeal, on the asserted bar under Section 6(2)(b), variance from the show-cause notice, and denial of an effective hearing.

Analysis: Article 226 jurisdiction does not ordinarily substitute the statutory appellate process where the challenge requires examination of the adjudication record and disputed facts. The bar under Section 6(2)(b) depends upon identity of the precise subject matter, including the relevant tax period, transactions, invoices, ITC liability and allegations; a common supplier or general connection with ITC is insufficient. Whether the State and Central proceedings concerned identical liabilities required examination of their respective notices, orders and transaction-wise material. The impugned order disclosed an independent finding of ITC availment on goods-less invoices with reference to Section 16(2)(b), and therefore did not facially rest on a wholly new basis. The recorded grant of hearing opportunities, notwithstanding an apparent date discrepancy, and objections regarding evidence, limitation, clubbing of periods, replies and invocation of Section 74 required scrutiny of the underlying record in appeal.

Conclusion: An efficacious appellate remedy was required to be pursued because no ex facie lack of jurisdiction or undisputed breach of natural justice was established; all objections, including the applicability of Section 6(2)(b), remained open for appellate determination.

Issues: (i) Whether unfiled GST dues, interest and penalty for the pre-resolution-plan period were extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, thereby barring later proceedings; and (ii) Whether the statutory appeal barred writ jurisdiction where the demands were initiated without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether unfiled GST dues, interest and penalty for the pre-resolution-plan period were extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, thereby barring later proceedings.

Analysis: Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 makes an approved resolution plan binding upon the Central Government and authorities owed statutory dues, while Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect. The GST liabilities concerned the period preceding approval of the resolution plan, and no claim was lodged during the corporate insolvency resolution process. The approved plan extinguished all pre-effective-date governmental claims, whether assessed or unassessed, unless specifically preserved. This accords with the clean-slate principle, under which a successful resolution applicant cannot be burdened with undisclosed or undecided pre-plan claims.

Analysis: The distinction between adjudication and recovery was inapplicable after extinguishment of the underlying claim. A show-cause notice and consequential demand proceedings under Section 73(9), including interest and penalty, amount to proceedings concerning that extinguished claim. Section 88 concerns liquidation and cannot revive a liability extinguished through an approved resolution plan; the general adjudicatory powers under the GST law remain subject to Sections 31(1) and 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the pre-resolution-plan GST dues, interest and penalty stood extinguished, and no subsequent proceedings for their determination or recovery could be initiated or continued.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory appeal barred writ jurisdiction where the demands were initiated without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenged action is without jurisdiction and contrary to binding insolvency law. The relevant facts were undisputed and the challenge raised a pure legal question concerning the authority to initiate proceedings for an extinguished claim.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, writ jurisdiction was available notwithstanding the alternate statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: An approved resolution plan conclusively extinguishes unfiled statutory claims relating to the pre-approval period and precludes subsequent tax-adjudication proceedings concerning those claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory dues not lodged in the corporate insolvency resolution process and not preserved by an approved resolution plan are extinguished under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and cannot thereafter be assessed, adjudicated or recovered notwithstanding general powers under fiscal legislation.

Issues: Whether the assessment order required reconsideration in light of the available GSTR 2A/2B data, GSTR 3B returns and annual return.

Analysis: The available portal records and annual return furnished prima facie evidence of input tax credit. Since the assessment was confirmed for non-production of return copies, fresh consideration was warranted after verification of the asserted recovery of 40% of the tax demand and after affording a reasonable opportunity.

Outcome: The impugned assessment order was set aside for fresh consideration, with consequential lifting of bank attachment upon verification of the asserted recovery.

Issues: Whether notional rental income under Section 23(1)(a) could be assessed in respect of unsold flats for the period before issuance of an occupancy certificate.

Analysis: A property lacking an occupancy certificate is legally incapable of occupation. Where the property was neither legally occupiable nor actually occupied during the relevant period, no annual letting value could be attributed on a notional basis under the head income from house property. The completion certificate did not establish legal occupiability in the absence of the occupancy certificate.

Conclusion: No notional rental income was chargeable for the period preceding issuance of the occupancy certificate.

Issues: (i) Whether an amendment effective 15.06.2026 applied to an imported consignment handed to the first carrier on 08.06.2026 under a combined transport Bill of Lading; and (ii) Whether the request for provisional release of the imported goods required consideration under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether an amendment effective 15.06.2026 applied to an imported consignment handed to the first carrier on 08.06.2026 under a combined transport Bill of Lading.

Analysis: The relevant date was determined with reference to the handing over of the goods to the first carrier. The goods had been so handed over before the amendment came into force. Multimodal transport is recognised under Chapter 11 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, and the later date on the shipment document did not alter the position. The amendment therefore operated prospectively and could not govern the consignment.

Conclusion: The amendment effective 15.06.2026 was inapplicable to the consignment and could not be a ground to refuse consideration of the release request, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the request for provisional release of the imported goods required consideration under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 provides the statutory framework for provisional release. No distinguishing feature justified departure from the approach applicable to similar imported goods. The release request was required to be decided under that provision, with conditions permissible in law, while the merits of the adjudication proceedings remained independent.

Conclusion: The request for provisional release must be considered under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 and, upon compliance with lawfully imposed conditions, the goods must be provisionally released, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The provisional-release request must be addressed without applying the subsequent amendment, while the merits of the customs adjudication remain open for independent determination.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment brought into force after goods are handed to the first carrier in a recognised multimodal shipment cannot be applied to that consignment.

Issues: Whether a corporate debtor, after approval of a resolution plan resulting in a change of management or control, is immune under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 from prosecution for alleged offences committed before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process.

Analysis: Section 32A(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ceases the corporate debtor's criminal liability for pre-CIRP offences and bars its prosecution once a resolution plan approved under Section 31 results in management or control passing to an unconnected new person. The approved resolution plan resulted in such a change of management and control, and the alleged environmental offences related to the period of the previous management. The statutory conditions for immunity were therefore satisfied.

Conclusion: The corporate debtor was entitled to statutory immunity from prosecution for the pre-CIRP offences. The criminal proceeding and cognizance order were quashed insofar as they concerned the petitioner-company, without any adjudication of the case against the remaining accused persons.

Issues: Whether an individual shareholder is an aggrieved person entitled to maintain an appeal against approval of a resolution plan.

Analysis: Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 confers appellate standing upon a person aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority. The binding interpretation of that expression excludes an individual shareholder from challenging approval of a resolution plan, since shareholders' interests are represented through the resolution professional or liquidator and permitting individual shareholder challenges would undermine the time-bound insolvency process. Allegations of fraud or collusion, unsupported by specific material, do not create an exception to this rule. Homebuyers who did not independently challenge the resolution plan cannot indirectly contest it by supporting the shareholder's appeal.

Conclusion: An individual shareholder is not an aggrieved person under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and cannot maintain an appeal against approval of a resolution plan.

Issues: Whether the addition for cash deposits was sustainable despite the assessee's claimed opening cash balance supported by prior bank withdrawals.

Analysis: The cash-flow statement and bank records demonstrated the availability of cash in hand from withdrawals made from various bank accounts, which was subsequently re-deposited. No defect in the cash-flow statement was identified. The addition rested solely on an inference based on perceived normal human behaviour and the preponderance of human probabilities, notwithstanding the documented source of cash.

Conclusion: The cash deposits stood explained by the available opening cash balance; the addition was deleted.

Issues: Whether a timeframe for deciding applications for cancellation of duplicate Permanent Account Numbers should be prescribed.

Analysis: The grievance concerned the absence of a prescribed period for disposal of duplicate PAN cancellation applications and the resulting difficulties in accessing PAN-linked services. Since no representation seeking prescription of such timeframe had first been made to the CBDT, the matter was considered appropriate for consideration by that authority.

Outcome: The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a representation to the CBDT within two weeks, and the CBDT was directed to decide it within eight weeks of receipt and communicate its decision.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could reject appeals for want of territorial jurisdiction despite their administrative transfer to the Delhi Bench.

Analysis: Rule 4 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and the situs of the assessees' business and Assessing Officer ordinarily connected the matters with Lucknow. However, the appeals had been transferred to the Delhi Bench by an administrative order of the President, and the appellate orders had been passed by the Delhi Commissioner (Appeals) pursuant to an order under Section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A Tribunal Bench cannot judicially nullify or disregard an administrative transfer order. The principle governing High Court jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following a transfer under Section 127, does not govern the place of hearing of appeals before the Tribunal after an administrative transfer.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's rejection of the appeals for lack of territorial jurisdiction was erroneous; the restored appeals shall be heard and decided on merits by the Delhi Bench.

Issues: (i) Whether gains from sale of shares and securities were taxable as capital gains or business income; (ii) Whether payments for purchases from a non-resident parent attracted withholding tax and disallowance under section 40(a)(i); and (iii) Whether an additional administrative-expense disallowance relating to exempt income could be made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) without recorded satisfaction.

Issue (i): Whether gains from sale of shares and securities were taxable as capital gains or business income.

Analysis: The factually identical prior rulings were followed. Consistent investment treatment, deployment of non-interest-bearing surplus funds, absence of trading activity, and the investment intention underlying the transactions supported capital-gains character; transaction volume alone did not convert the investments into business activity.

Conclusion: The gains are assessable as capital gains and not as business income, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payments for purchases from a non-resident parent attracted withholding tax and disallowance under section 40(a)(i).

Analysis: Under section 195, withholding tax arises only where the non-resident payment is chargeable to tax in India. The payments were for imported materials supplied from outside India and had been accepted as international transactions without a transfer-pricing adjustment. The related chargeability and permanent-establishment aspects could not support a withholding disallowance on the purchase payments.

Conclusion: No tax was deductible at source on the purchase payments; consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) is permissible, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether an additional administrative-expense disallowance relating to exempt income could be made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) without recorded satisfaction.

Analysis: Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D(1) requires recorded dissatisfaction, having regard to the accounts, with the correctness of the assessee's own expenditure disallowance before the Rule 8D formula may be applied. The assessment applied the formula without identifying expenditure relatable to exempt income or recording the requisite satisfaction despite the assessee's voluntary disallowance.

Conclusion: The additional administrative-expense disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The recharacterisation adjustment, the withholding-tax purchase disallowance, and the incremental exempt-income expense disallowance do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A disallowance under Rule 8D(2) is permissible only after the assessing authority, upon examination of the accounts, records dissatisfaction with the assessee's computation as required by section 14A(2).