Issues: Whether Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be invoked for delayed payment of GST, belated filing of GSTR-3B returns, and short payment of interest without evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax.

Analysis: Section 74(1) applies only where non-payment or short-payment of tax is by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with an intention to evade tax. Mere delayed payment of tax or interest does not, by itself, establish these ingredients. The show-cause notice must disclose foundational facts and material supporting the allegation; mechanical use of the statutory expressions is insufficient. The tax and interest had been paid before issuance of the show-cause notice, and the notice contained no material establishing a deliberate intention to evade tax.

Conclusion: The requirements for invoking Section 74(1) were not met, and the proceedings initiated under that provision were unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether grounds under Section 16(2)(b) or 16(2)(c), not forming the original foundation of demand, can subsequently be introduced to sustain it? (ii) Whether GSTR-3B constitutes a return under Section 39 for purposes of Section 16(5)? (iii) Is there any legal distinction between availment of ITC and utilisation of ITC? (iv) Whether non-carry-forward or an incorrect disclosure in GSTR-9/GSTR-9C can defeat ITC already taken through a Section 39 return? (v) Whether the alleged non-applicability of Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax defeats the substantive entitlement created by Section 16(5)? (vi) Whether ITC of Rs. 20,94,605 pertaining to FY 2018-19 and taken through GSTR-3B during October 2019 to March 2020 is protected by retrospective Section 16(5)? (vii) Whether the tax demand and consequential interest and penalty can survive?

Issue (i): Whether grounds under Section 16(2)(b) or 16(2)(c), not forming the original foundation of demand, can subsequently be introduced to sustain it?

Analysis: The show-cause notice and original adjudication founded the disallowance exclusively on the time restriction in Section 16(4). Section 75(7) confines a confirmed demand to grounds specified in the notice. Allegations concerning non-receipt of supplies, non-payment of tax by suppliers, supplier certificates, or a fresh computation of excess credit were absent from the notice and original order. Such substantive defects may be independently raised and adjudicated in accordance with law, but cannot be introduced at the appellate stage to preserve the existing demand after its original basis has ceased.

Conclusion: No. Fresh grounds under Section 16(2)(b) or Section 16(2)(c) cannot sustain the demand; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether GSTR-3B constitutes a return under Section 39 for purposes of Section 16(5)?

Analysis: GSTR-3B is treated as a return under Section 39 within the statutory GST framework. Credit taken through GSTR-3B between October 2019 and March 2020 consequently satisfies the requirement in Section 16(5) that ITC be taken in a return under Section 39.

Conclusion: Yes. GSTR-3B is a return under Section 39 for applying Section 16(5); in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Is there any legal distinction between availment of ITC and utilisation of ITC?

Analysis: Availment occurs when eligible ITC is claimed through the prescribed return and credited to the electronic credit ledger under Section 49. Utilisation is the later debit of available credit towards output-tax payment. Annual reconciliation is a separate reporting exercise. Section 16(5) regulates the period for taking ITC and does not impose a corresponding deadline for utilisation of credit validly availed within that period.

Conclusion: Yes. Availment and utilisation are legally distinct, and subsequent utilisation cannot be treated as delayed availment; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether non-carry-forward or an incorrect disclosure in GSTR-9/GSTR-9C can defeat ITC already taken through a Section 39 return?

Analysis: GSTR-9 is an annual return and GSTR-9C is a reconciliation statement; neither is the Section 39 return through which the disputed ITC was taken. Section 16(5) makes entitlement conditional on timely availment through a Section 39 return, not on accurate disclosure in particular annual-return or reconciliation columns. An annual reconciliation discrepancy may warrant verification but cannot itself extinguish or recharacterise ITC already availed in GSTR-3B.

Conclusion: No. Incorrect carry-forward or disclosure in GSTR-9 or GSTR-9C cannot defeat ITC validly taken through a Section 39 return; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the alleged non-applicability of Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax defeats the substantive entitlement created by Section 16(5)?

Analysis: Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax prescribes a special rectification procedure for specified orders where no appeal has been filed. The entitlement to ITC arises directly from retrospective Section 16(5), while the notification only provides an additional procedural mechanism. The pending-appeal framework requires effect to be given to Section 16(5) independently of the special rectification procedure.

Conclusion: No. Non-applicability of the special rectification procedure does not defeat entitlement under Section 16(5); in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether ITC of Rs. 20,94,605 pertaining to FY 2018-19 and taken through GSTR-3B during October 2019 to March 2020 is protected by retrospective Section 16(5)?

Analysis: The disputed ITC related to FY 2018-19 and was taken through GSTR-3B returns filed before 30 November 2021. Retrospective Section 16(5), notwithstanding Section 16(4), permits ITC for the specified financial years where it is taken through a Section 39 return filed by that date. The demand was founded solely on the former limitation under Section 16(4).

Conclusion: Yes. The ITC of Rs. 20,94,605 is protected by retrospective Section 16(5); in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vii): Whether the tax demand and consequential interest and penalty can survive?

Analysis: Interest under Section 50(3) depends on ITC having been wrongly availed and utilised. Penalty under Section 73(9) similarly requires an underlying liability or contravention. Retrospective Section 16(5) removes the sole basis for treating the disputed ITC as wrongly availed, and no separate contravention or independent penalty was in issue.

Conclusion: No. The principal tax demand, consequential interest, and penalty cannot survive; in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The limitation-based denial of the disputed ITC and the fiscal liabilities arising solely from that denial lack statutory foundation after the retrospective operation of Section 16(5).

Ratio Decidendi: ITC validly taken through a Section 39 return within the period retrospectively permitted by Section 16(5) cannot be denied on the former Section 16(4) limitation, annual-reconciliation discrepancies, or fresh grounds outside the show-cause notice.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant bore the burden to prove eligibility for input tax credit and the applicability of any exception to blocked credit; (ii) Whether a non-specific invocation of Section 17(5) could sustain disallowance of input tax credit; (iii) Whether the disputed classes of inward supplies qualified for input tax credit; (iv) Whether lawfully leviable cess formed part of the taxable value of supply; (v) Whether interest on inadmissible input tax credit was payable only where the credit was availed and utilised; and (vi) Whether penalty under Section 73 was payable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant bore the burden to prove eligibility for input tax credit and the applicability of any exception to blocked credit.

Analysis: Section 16(1) permits credit for supplies used in the course or furtherance of business, subject to statutory restrictions. Section 155 places the burden of proving eligibility on the claimant. Where a supply prima facie falls within a blocked-credit category, contemporaneous evidence must establish the factual conditions of the claimed statutory exception; invoices, payment entries, or unsupported assertions do not suffice.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: the burden to establish eligibility and any claimed exception to blocked credit lay on the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a non-specific invocation of Section 17(5) could sustain disallowance of input tax credit.

Analysis: The exclusions under Section 17(5) apply to distinct categories and involve different statutory tests. The provision cannot operate as a general residuary ground for disallowing an expenditure perceived as unnecessary for business; the applicable clause must be identified for the relevant inward supply.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: a bare and unspecified invocation of Section 17(5) cannot, by itself, sustain disallowance.

Issue (iii): Whether the disputed classes of inward supplies qualified for input tax credit.

Analysis: The appellant failed to produce vehicle-wise records, consumption registers, service documents, asset records, capitalisation material, business-travel evidence, or other contemporaneous records establishing an invoice-to-asset nexus and Business Nexus. The exception for transportation of goods in the pre-amendment motor-vehicle provision was not established. Renovation and construction claims lacked evidence to show non-capitalisation or that the relevant asset qualified as plant and machinery under the retrospectively amended provision. Gifts of sarees and clothes, food and catering expenditure, and personal travel or hotel expenditure were covered by express blocked-credit restrictions or lacked proof of business use.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: the disputed input tax credit was inadmissible and its disallowance was sustained.

Issue (iv): Whether lawfully leviable cess formed part of the taxable value of supply.

Analysis: Section 15(2)(a) requires the Transaction Value to include taxes, duties, cesses, fees, and charges levied under another law where charged separately by the supplier. GST is levied on the underlying taxable supply after statutory determination of its value; inclusion of a lawfully leviable cess does not constitute an impermissible tax on cess.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: a cess that is lawfully leviable and satisfies Section 15(2)(a) forms part of the taxable value.

Issue (v): Whether interest on inadmissible input tax credit was payable only where the credit was availed and utilised.

Analysis: Section 50(3), read with Rule 88B(3), confines interest to the period and extent of Wrongful Availment and Utilisation of inadmissible credit. Mere wrongful availment without utilisation does not attract such interest.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: interest is payable only to the extent and for the period of wrongful availment and utilisation, to be determined under the applicable statutory mechanism.

Issue (vi): Whether penalty under Section 73 was payable.

Analysis: Penalty is not automatic merely because a tax demand arises, and the statutory distinctions concerning bona fide, technical, and fraudulent contraventions remain material. On the sustained findings that the appellant did not establish entitlement to the disputed credit, the statutory penalty applicable to the violation under Section 73 follows the tax legally sustained and requires recomputation where necessary.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: penalty under Section 73 applies on the tax amount legally sustained, subject to recomputation.

Final Conclusion: The tax liability founded on the disallowed input tax credit and the cess valuation treatment remains enforceable, with interest confined to utilised inadmissible credit and penalty aligned to the tax legally sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant of input tax credit must establish through contemporaneous evidence the factual basis of eligibility or of a statutory exception to blocked credit; unsubstantiated assertions of business use do not discharge that burden.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits.

Issues: Whether an assessment for Assessment Year 2022-23 could validly rely on cash-deposit and fund-transfer entries pertaining to the subsequent financial year when the objection was not appropriately addressed in revision.

Analysis: The assessment related to Financial Year 2021-22, whereas the impugned addition was founded on transactions occurring from 04.05.2022 to 21.05.2022. The revision record itself noted that the relevant credits pertained to Financial Year 2022-23. The objection concerning the temporal relevance of those entries went to the root of the assessment but was not addressed in proper perspective.

Conclusion: Reliance upon subsequent-year entries without appropriately determining their relevance to the assessment year in question, along with inadequate consideration of that objection in revision, vitiated the assessment and revisional orders.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to condone the delay and dismissing the assessee's appeal as time-barred and defective.

Analysis: The appeal before the Tribunal was filed after a delay of 2628 days without any application for condonation or satisfactory explanation. Despite repeated opportunities, the defects in the appeal were not rectified. The assessee's plea of lack of notice and ex-parte disposal was untenable because adjournment applications had been filed on its behalf through its directors. The contemporaneous record showed that the assessee had knowledge of the proceedings but failed to pursue them diligently. No sufficient cause for condonation was established.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in refusing condonation and in treating the appeal as time-barred and defective.

Issues: (i) Whether specialised machinery used to manufacture solar photovoltaic modules qualified as apparatus for drawing circuit patterns on sensitised semiconductor materials under Sl. No. 12 of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs dated 01.03.2005; (ii) Whether Solar PV Backsheets having a PVF layer qualified as multilayered sheets with tedlar base under Sl. No. 18 of Notification No. 25/1999-Customs dated 28.02.1999; (iii) Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could be sustained for the imported goods.

Issue (i): Whether specialised machinery used to manufacture solar photovoltaic modules qualified as apparatus for drawing circuit patterns on sensitised semiconductor materials under Sl. No. 12 of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs dated 01.03.2005.

Analysis: The exemption entry uses the disjunctive expression "projection or drawing" and does not confine drawing of circuit patterns to photolithographic exposure, microscopic circuitry or printed circuit boards. Strict construction of an exemption notification requires adherence to its text and does not permit addition of unstated technological conditions. The stringer, lay-up, bussing and laminator machinery function sequentially to arrange photovoltaic semiconductor cells in a predetermined configuration, establish conductive paths through ribbons and soldered joints, and preserve the resulting electrical network. This integrated operation physically establishes the circuit pattern of the photovoltaic module on sensitised semiconductor devices.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the machinery qualified for the exemption, and the differential duty demand and consequential interest were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether Solar PV Backsheets having a PVF layer qualified as multilayered sheets with tedlar base under Sl. No. 18 of Notification No. 25/1999-Customs dated 28.02.1999.

Analysis: The notification prescribed no condition that tedlar-base material be manufactured by, sourced from, or authorised by a particular trademark proprietor. Its own legislative setting used "Polyvinyl fluoride (TEDLAR)" and "Tedlar" in relation to inputs for solar cells and modules. Trade parlance and technical material established that tedlar is used in the photovoltaic industry as a description associated with PVF material. A manufacturer-specific restriction could not be read into an entry where the imported backsheets were multilayered, contained the requisite PVF layer, and were used for solar modules.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the Solar PV Backsheets qualified for the exemption, and the differential duty demand and consequential interest were set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could be sustained for the imported goods.

Analysis: No concealment, suppression of identity, fictitious documentation or import of goods different from those declared was established. Acceptance of a higher IGST rate for disclosed goods did not by itself constitute misdeclaration attracting confiscation. The exemption findings also removed the foundation for confiscation of the machinery and backsheets. Further, all goods had been finally assessed and cleared for home consumption before the show-cause notice, were neither seized nor released against a bond, and were unavailable for confiscation. With confiscation unsustainable, the consequential redemption fine and penalty lacked a statutory basis.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: confiscation, redemption fine and the composite penalty were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The exemption denials and the confiscatory and penal consequences founded on those denials were unsustainable under the applicable notification language and statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption entry must be applied according to its text and relevant technical or trade usage; conditions such as a prescribed manufacturing technology or manufacturer-specific authorisation cannot be introduced where the notification does not impose them.

Issues: Classification of kitchen exhaust hoods exceeding 120 cm in horizontal side and incorporating an integral fan under Heading 8414.

Analysis: Heading 8414 separately recognises fans and ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating a fan. The tariff entry for hoods under Tariff Item 8414 60 00 is confined to hoods having a maximum horizontal side not exceeding 120 cm. The Explanatory Notes also treat ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating a fan as a distinct category from fans. The integrated fan was only one component of a larger assembly comprising casing, dampers, filters, grease-collection equipment, lighting and related fittings; the assembly consequently retained the essential character of a kitchen hood rather than a fan. Since the hoods exceeded 120 cm and no specific tariff entry applied, classification lay under the residual entry.

Conclusion: Kitchen exhaust hoods incorporating an integral fan and exceeding 120 cm in horizontal side are classifiable under Tariff Item 8414 80 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and not under Tariff Item 8414 59 90.

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint for cheating disclosed a prima facie case warranting refusal to quash the proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction; (ii) Whether non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry requirement before issuing process against accused residing outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction required quashing or remittal; (iii) Whether the complaint lacked specific allegations against the director petitioners so as to preclude their prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint for cheating disclosed a prima facie case warranting refusal to quash the proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: Inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Material arising from the related cheque-dishonour proceedings, including the forensic opinion indicating alteration of the cheque date, furnished prima facie support for the allegation that the cheque had been forged and used to institute proceedings. The non-disclosure of these subsequent developments by the petitioners, coupled with the evidentiary dispute requiring trial, prevented a finding that continuation of the cheating complaint was an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The cheating complaint was not liable to be quashed at the threshold.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry requirement before issuing process against accused residing outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction required quashing or remittal.

Analysis: An inquiry or investigation before process is mandatory where the accused reside beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction. Although that inquiry was not conducted, the complaint could not be treated as disclosing no offence in view of the prima facie material concerning alleged forgery and cheating. The procedural defect therefore required fresh consideration at the pre-process stage rather than termination of the complaint.

Conclusion: The summoning order was set aside and the matter was remitted for compliance with the mandatory inquiry requirement.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaint lacked specific allegations against the director petitioners so as to preclude their prosecution.

Analysis: Criminal liability of company officers cannot rest solely on vicarious liability unless the governing statute so provides; active involvement and criminal intent must be prima facie alleged. The complaint alleged a conspiracy by the accused persons, and the forensic material prima facie supported the accusation of alteration of the cheque and its use in proceedings. The allegations were therefore not wholly devoid of a case against the director petitioners.

Conclusion: There was no basis to exclude the director petitioners from the complaint at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The complaint remains open for fresh pre-process scrutiny under the mandatory statutory procedure; the available prima facie material does not justify its termination.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to conduct a mandatory pre-process inquiry for out-of-jurisdiction accused requires remittal rather than quashing where the complaint and attendant material disclose a prima facie criminal case requiring further inquiry.

Issues: Whether the directions for a forensic audit extended to a general examination of the affairs of 17 banks.

Analysis: The audit directions were construed as principally concerning commercial transactions and relationships involving the judgment debtors, FHL, FHHPL and the banks. The relevant clauses did not authorise an unrestricted inquiry into the banks' affairs beyond those transactions.

Conclusion: The forensic audit is confined to transactions involving the judgment debtors, FHL, FHHPL and the banks, and does not permit a fishing and roving enquiry into the banks' entire affairs.

Issues: (i) Whether the Special Court's order directing restoration of attached properties to the insolvency professional on an association's application was legally sustainable; (ii) Whether a monitoring committee should be constituted to verify genuine homebuyers and maintain information concerning attached assets, and whether the insolvency professional could participate in that process; and (iii) Whether immediate liquidation or restoration of the attached assets should be directed.

Issue (i): Whether the Special Court's order directing restoration of attached properties to the insolvency professional on an association's application was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 permits restoration only to a claimant having a legitimate interest and a quantifiable loss. Rule 2(b) and Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016 require a qualifying claimant, framing of charge before restoration during trial, and an opportunity of hearing to the owner. The association was not itself a homebuyer, had not suffered a quantifiable loss, and could not satisfy the statutory requirements of a claimant.

Analysis: The attached assets belonged to former promoters and other persons or entities, and not to the corporate debtor undergoing insolvency proceedings. An insolvency-regulator circular and the insolvency professional's undertaking could not displace the statutory scheme under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 or confer a role upon the insolvency professional in relation to non-corporate-debtor assets. The undertaking recorded in proceedings concerning an individual homebuyer was not an undertaking in rem for all homebuyers.

Conclusion: The Special Court's restoration order was set aside. The related interim orders founded upon that order were recalled and vacated.

Issue (ii): Whether a monitoring committee should be constituted to verify genuine homebuyers and maintain information concerning attached assets, and whether the insolvency professional could participate in that process.

Analysis: The number of affected purchasers, competing claims over attached assets, and the need for an expeditious and transparent verification process warranted an independent supervisory mechanism. The insolvency and money-laundering regimes concern distinct asset pools. The committee's work cannot interfere with the ongoing corporate insolvency resolution process, and the insolvency professional has no role before it because the attached assets are not assets of the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: A monitoring committee was constituted to verify genuine homebuyers irrespective of whether payment was made to either developer, and to maintain updated particulars, attachment status, pending challenges, and valuations of attached assets. The insolvency professional was excluded from the committee's process.

Issue (iii): Whether immediate liquidation or restoration of the attached assets should be directed.

Analysis: Restoration of attached property during trial remains governed by section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 and Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016. Challenges to individual attachments and appellate remedies remained pending; the statutory scheme recognises a deemed embargo on restoration while such remedies are unresolved. Detailed directions on restitution were deferred until a comprehensive record regarding claimants and asset status becomes available.

Conclusion: No immediate liquidation or restoration of the attached properties was directed; further directions were reserved for a subsequent stage.

Final Conclusion: The statutory process for dealing with attached property is preserved, while an independent verification and asset-information mechanism is established to facilitate future consideration of relief for genuine homebuyers without affecting rights in the ongoing insolvency proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Restoration of attached property under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 must conform to the statutory requirements for a qualifying claimant and the conditions prescribed for restoration during trial; an insolvency undertaking cannot substitute those requirements or extend to assets that do not belong to the corporate debtor.

Issues: (i) Whether a 100% penalty under Section 129 could be imposed solely because Part-B of the e-way bill was not populated before movement, despite genuine invoices, Part-A particulars and no proof of intent to evade tax; and (ii) Whether failure to issue a final speaking order in Form GST MOV-09 under Section 129(3) vitiated the penalty demand.

Issue (i): Whether a 100% penalty under Section 129 could be imposed solely because Part-B of the e-way bill was not populated before movement, despite genuine invoices, Part-A particulars and no proof of intent to evade tax.

Analysis: Section 129 was construed as penal in character and not as imposing mechanical liability for every documentation lapse. A technical omission in Part-B cannot by itself establish an intention to evade tax. The genuine invoices, valid Part-A particulars, identifiable destination, tax-paid transaction and absence of evidence of diversion or evasion demonstrated that the lapse was inadvertent. Legacy check-post decisions applying absolute statutory regimes were distinguished from the GST framework, in which penalties require examination of the surrounding facts and deliberate tax evasion.

Conclusion: The 100% penalty under Section 129 was unsustainable in the absence of proven intent to evade tax and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to issue a final speaking order in Form GST MOV-09 under Section 129(3) vitiated the penalty demand.

Analysis: Section 129(3) requires a final speaking adjudication quantifying tax and penalty after considering objections and affording an opportunity of hearing. Non-issuance of Form GST MOV-09 bypassed this mandatory adjudicatory safeguard and prejudiced the assessee's statutory rights.

Conclusion: Failure to issue the mandatory final order in Form GST MOV-09 vitiated the penalty demand and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A penalty for an unfilled Part-B of the e-way bill cannot be sustained where intentional tax evasion is unproved and the mandatory statutory adjudication procedure has not been followed.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 129 requires proof of an intention to evade tax; a bona fide technical documentation lapse, unsupported by such proof, cannot attract penal consequences.

Issues: Whether non-updation of Part-B of an e-way bill, despite genuine transaction documents and absence of evidence of intended tax evasion, can independently justify penalty under Section 129(3).

Analysis: Section 129(3) was applied in the context of the digital GST framework as a measure directed against intentional tax evasion, not an inadvertent clerical or portal-related documentation lapse. Precedents arising from manual check-post regimes were distinguished. Where the tax invoice, Part-A e-way bill, goods particulars and underlying transaction were genuine and accounted for, an unupdated Part-B did not establish an attempt to evade tax. The burden lay on the Revenue to record and support a positive finding of such intent before imposing the penal consequence.

Conclusion: In the absence of a positive finding or evidence of intent to evade tax, non-updating of Part-B alone cannot attract penalty under Section 129(3); the penalty order and its appellate confirmation were legally unsustainable.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was justified where the e-way bill had expired owing to an erroneous entry of the consignor's pin code.

Analysis: Section 129 is a machinery provision intended to prevent tax evasion; mens rea must therefore be established before imposing penalty for a breach during transit. The binding departmental instructions distinguish substantive violations from minor or procedural lapses. The consignment was accompanied by an e-way bill and delivery challan, physical verification matched the goods with the documents, and the incorrect pin code reduced the e-way bill validity by recording a shorter distance. No intention to evade tax was alleged or established.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 129 and the consequential penalty were invalid and unjustified; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the deduction claimed by an export-oriented unit under Section 10B could be reduced by a turnover-based allocation of expenditure between export-oriented and non-export-oriented units.

Analysis: The export-oriented unit maintained separate audited accounts, registration, factory facilities and production arrangements. Its product mix, fixed-asset base, manufacturing process, power consumption, interest burden and tax incidence differed from those of the other units. No discrepancy in the unit-wise allocation was identified. The profitability of the export-oriented unit was also broadly consistent with the preceding year, and the earlier concern relating to senior-management salary allocation had been addressed through allocation based on turnover. A pro-rata allocation of all expenditure solely by reference to sales turnover was therefore unsupported.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from the findings sustaining the deduction under Section 10B as claimed.

Issues: Whether a fresh scrutiny proceeding under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be initiated on the basis of a modified return furnished under Section 170A(2)(a), where the original return had been processed under Section 143(1) and no assessment or reassessment proceeding was pending.

Analysis: Section 170A distinguishes between a completed assessment and a pending assessment. Under Section 170A(2)(a), the exercise is confined to modifying the total income already determined to give effect to the business-reorganisation order and the modified return; Section 170A(2)(b), in contrast, permits assessment or reassessment where proceedings remain pending. A modified return derives its existence from Section 170A and is not deemed to be a return under Section 139 for initiating a fresh scrutiny. Section 170A(3) cannot be used to override this specific statutory distinction or to confer a jurisdiction otherwise absent. Limited information may be sought to verify whether effect has correctly been given to the business reorganisation, but a de novo assessment is impermissible. Since no assessment proceeding was pending when the modified return was furnished, the transfer-pricing proceedings founded on the invalid scrutiny proceeding had no independent jurisdictional basis.

Conclusion: In the absence of pending assessment or reassessment proceedings, Section 170A(2)(a) did not permit initiation of fresh scrutiny under Section 143(2); the consequential transfer-pricing proceedings were also without jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) Whether unsecured loan credits were liable to be treated as unexplained cash credits; (ii) Whether interest expenditure could be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) on alleged diversion of borrowed funds to non-business purposes, including a borrowing used to refinance an earlier loan; (iii) Whether brokerage, commission, professional and loan-processing expenses incurred for raising borrowings were disallowable on an ad hoc allegation of non-business deployment; (iv) Whether interest and legal or professional charges relating to loans could be treated as unexplained or disallowed solely because the underlying section 68 additions had been deleted; (v) Whether receipts reflected in Form No. 26AS were taxable as unrecorded income despite reconciliation with the books; and (vi) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was correctly made.

Issue (i): Whether unsecured loan credits were liable to be treated as unexplained cash credits.

Analysis: Section 68 requires satisfactory proof of the creditor's identity and creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. Confirmations, ledger accounts, bank statements, income-tax particulars, financial statements and corporate records established these elements. The loan receipts and repayments were through banking channels, and no material showed accommodation entries, suspicious cash deposits, or routing of the assessee's own money. Non-response or delayed response to notices under section 133(6), and an incorrect assumption regarding a lender's corporate status, did not displace the documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The loans were satisfactorily explained and the additions under section 68 were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest expenditure could be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) on alleged diversion of borrowed funds to non-business purposes, including a borrowing used to refinance an earlier loan.

Analysis: The fund positions showed that interest-free funds exceeded the interest-free advances, investments, personal assets and other disputed deployments, while business assets and interest-bearing advances absorbed the interest-bearing funds. No specific borrowing was traced to a non-business application. A broad comparison of aggregate borrowings with advances, or a notional interest rate applied to investments, did not establish diversion. A bank borrowing used to repay an earlier loan did not become non-business merely because the earlier lender was a relative; no evidence identified a personal use of the original borrowing. The contention of double disallowance with section 14A was rejected because the applicable Rule 8D computation contained no separate interest component.

Conclusion: The disputed interest disallowances under section 36(1)(iii) were deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether brokerage, commission, professional and loan-processing expenses incurred for raising borrowings were disallowable on an ad hoc allegation of non-business deployment.

Analysis: The proportionate disallowances were founded on the same unproved allegation that part of the borrowings had been diverted for non-business purposes. No particular borrowing was linked to a particular non-business application, and no specific item of brokerage, commission, professional expenditure or processing charge was shown to relate to such use. The genuineness of the expenditure was not independently disputed. Processing charges incurred to obtain a borrowing connected with the financing business did not create a capital asset or enduring advantage.

Conclusion: The ad hoc and proportionate disallowances of borrowing-related expenditure were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest and legal or professional charges relating to loans could be treated as unexplained or disallowed solely because the underlying section 68 additions had been deleted.

Analysis: The treatment of interest and legal or professional charges as unexplained expenditure was entirely consequential to the section 68 additions concerning the underlying loans. Once those loans, including loans considered in earlier assessment years, stood accepted as genuine, the foundation for the related disallowances ceased. No independent finding established that the interest was unpaid, non-business, or otherwise inadmissible.

Conclusion: The consequential disallowances of interest and loan-related legal or professional charges could not survive, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether receipts reflected in Form No. 26AS were taxable as unrecorded income despite reconciliation with the books.

Analysis: The reconciliation established that receipts reflected in Form No. 26AS in the names of proprietors were recorded in the books under the names of their respective proprietary concerns. The entries represented the same interest income that had already been offered to tax, and no defect in the reconciliation was identified.

Conclusion: The addition would result in double taxation of the same income and was rightly deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was correctly made.

Analysis: For the earlier assessment years, the Assessing Officer did not objectively test the basis of the assessee's suo motu disallowance with reference to the accounts before applying Rule 8D, while the appellate deletion also did not test whether that suo motu disallowance had a reasonable and discernible basis. The matters therefore required limited fresh verification. If Rule 8D is invoked after recording proper dissatisfaction, the investment base must be restricted to investments that actually yielded exempt income, with credit for the amount already disallowed by the assessee.

Analysis: For the later assessment year, the recorded dissatisfaction was sufficient because the claim of no expenditure had been tested against the accounts. The applicable Rule 8D formula did not contain a separate interest component; therefore, the availability of own funds did not itself preclude the prescribed indirect-expenditure computation. However, only investments that yielded positive exempt income during the year, including the qualifying partnership investments and Public Provident Fund investment, could be included. Capital balances in partnership firms yielding no positive exempt income had to be excluded. Partnership losses could not be set off against positive exempt income from other firms for fixing the ceiling of disallowance.

Conclusion: The section 14A matters were restored for limited recomputation. The remand for the earlier years is in favour of the Revenue to that extent; for the later year, recomputation excluding non-yielding investments is partly in favour of the assessee, while the objections to the recorded satisfaction and the proposed netting of exempt partnership loss were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The cash-credit, interest, loan-related expenditure and Form No. 26AS additions were not sustainable; the section 14A computations require fresh determination within the specified statutory parameters.

Ratio Decidendi: Where interest-free funds are sufficient to cover alleged non-business deployment and no direct nexus between a specific interest-bearing borrowing and that deployment is established, interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) cannot be made.

Issues: (i) Whether additions for alleged unexplained cash loans or receipts under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and undisclosed interest income could rest on third-party electronic records and a retracted statement without independent corroboration and cross-examination; (ii) Whether alleged unaccounted cash consideration from flat sales could be assessed through a median-rate estimate and extrapolation despite unrejected books of account and absence of transaction-specific evidence.

Issue (i): Whether additions for alleged unexplained cash loans or receipts under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and undisclosed interest income could rest on third-party electronic records and a retracted statement without independent corroboration and cross-examination.

Analysis: The electronic records were recovered from the possession of a third party, were neither authored nor acknowledged by the assessee, and had no supporting evidence of cash movement, loan documentation, confirmation from the alleged counterparty, or corresponding records found during the search. The presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 operate against the person from whose possession or control the material is recovered and cannot, without an independently established nexus, be extended to another person merely named in the material.

Analysis: The requested cross-examination of the person from whose possession the electronic material was recovered was not afforded, impairing the evidentiary use of the disputed entries. The retracted statement did not establish the nature, direction, quantum, or year-wise occurrence of the alleged transactions and lacked independent corroboration. The foundational fact of an unrecorded investment, required for invoking Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was therefore not established; nor was the alleged accrual or receipt of interest independently proved.

Conclusion: The additions for alleged cash loans or receipts and undisclosed interest income were unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged unaccounted cash consideration from flat sales could be assessed through a median-rate estimate and extrapolation despite unrejected books of account and absence of transaction-specific evidence.

Analysis: No customer confirmation, buyer-wise cash receipt, parallel book, unaccounted cash, or other evidence directly established receipt of consideration beyond that recorded in registered sale deeds, customer agreements, ERP records, and banking channels. The employee statements had been retracted and were not supported by independent verification. WhatsApp communications, loose papers, and internal records did not establish completed cash transactions or a nexus with particular sales.

Analysis: The median selling rate was an inferred benchmark rather than evidence of the actual consideration in concluded transactions. The books of account were not rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, yet the recorded sale values were selectively substituted with estimated prices. The project-wide extrapolation and allocation were unsupported by transaction-specific seized material. The identical evidentiary foundation and methodology had also been rejected in a decision concerning another group entity, requiring consistent application in the absence of distinguishing evidence.

Conclusion: The median-rate based additions for alleged unaccounted cash receipts from flat sales were unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed additions lacked reliable evidence of actual unrecorded transactions and could not displace the recorded and supported financial results.

Ratio Decidendi: Tax additions require reliable and corroborated evidence of actual transactions; unverified third-party records, retracted statements, and estimated benchmarks cannot displace accepted books of account without an established nexus to the assessee and the alleged income or investment.