Issues: (i) Whether section 154 rectification could levy interest under sections 234B and 234C through an order giving effect under sections 251/143(3), absent an apparent mistake identified in the statutory notice. (ii) Whether interest under section 234C was rectifiable where its chargeability was debatable under proviso (c) to section 234C(1)(b).

Issue (i): Whether section 154 rectification could levy interest under sections 234B and 234C through an order giving effect under sections 251/143(3), absent an apparent mistake identified in the statutory notice.

Analysis: The scope of rectification proceedings is confined to a mistake apparent from the record of the order sought to be rectified and cannot travel beyond the grounds communicated in the notice. The notice alleged non-consideration of interest stated in the return, but did not identify any failure to implement the appellate direction concerning section 234B. Interest under section 234B had been the subject of appellate adjudication and was governed by the doctrine of merger. Further, the appeal-effect order contained no issue relating to section 234C; any purported omission concerning that interest pertained to the original assessment order, not the order passed to give effect to the appellate directions.

Conclusion: The rectification under section 154, and its appellate confirmation, for levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C from the appeal-effect order were invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under section 234C was rectifiable where its chargeability was debatable under proviso (c) to section 234C(1)(b).

Analysis: The applicability of the statutory proviso to income disclosed after the close of the financial year required examination of the relevant facts and law. Such chargeability was a debatable issue and did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record capable of correction under section 154.

Conclusion: Interest under section 234C could not be imposed through rectification, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rectification and its confirmation were legally unsustainable, and the additional legal grounds succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction cannot be used to decide a debatable question or to rectify an appeal-effect order on a matter not constituting an apparent mistake in that order and not disclosed in the rectification notice.

Issues: Whether a penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars survives after settlement of the quantum dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, conferring statutory immunity from penalty.

Analysis: Section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 bars the institution of proceedings and the imposition or levy of penalty under the Income-tax Act in respect of a tax arrear covered by a settlement. Form No. 5 evidenced the full and final settlement of the quantum dispute. The continuing penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were incompatible with the statutory immunity, and the refusal to admit the first appeal on delay despite that settlement could not sustain the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable and stands quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the receipt of Rs. 3 crore from the assignee of an earlier loan could be treated as unexplained cash credit.

Analysis: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires the assessee to satisfactorily establish the nature and source of a credit. The amount received represented repayment of a loan earlier advanced through banking channels from the assessee's recorded capital and subsequently assigned under a loan-assignment agreement. Bank statements, ledger accounts, interest payment with tax deduction at source, and the assignment documentation substantiated the transaction. The allegation that the payer was a shell entity was unsupported by independent material; the entity was filing returns, paying taxes, and had been assessed. The documentary evidence discharged the assessee's initial burden, while no evidence established that its own unaccounted funds had been routed back.

Conclusion: The receipt was a genuine repayment of an earlier loan and could not be added as unexplained cash credit; the deletion of the Rs. 3 crore addition is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether depreciation on realised foreign exchange loss capitalised to the cost of capital assets was allowable under Section 43A.

Analysis: The foreign exchange difference arose on actual settlement of foreign-currency liabilities incurred for acquiring capital assets and was consistently capitalised to the respective assets. The asset-wise and foreign-exchange ledgers substantiated the transactions and established that no separate revenue deduction for the exchange loss had been claimed. Capitalisation of the realised exchange loss formed part of the adjusted actual cost of the assets under Section 43A; consequently, disallowance of depreciation on that adjusted cost was unsustainable.

Conclusion: Depreciation on the capitalised realised foreign exchange loss was allowable, and the disallowance was directed to be deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded appellate jurisdiction by remitting regular assessment issues merely because the assessment had followed a transfer-pricing determination; (ii) Whether the allowability of interest expenditure required fresh examination and recomputation under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) Whether the claim for interest expenditure previously disallowed required factual verification under the first proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iv) Whether the additional disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could exceed the exempt income earned during the year.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded appellate jurisdiction by remitting regular assessment issues merely because the assessment had followed a transfer-pricing determination.

Analysis: The matters remitted concerned the allowability and quantification of interest expenditure, verification of tax-deduction compliance, and the consequential disallowance under Section 14A. No transfer-pricing adjustment or determination of arm's length price formed the subject matter of the appellate directions. The limited directions for examination of regular assessment issues therefore did not constitute an impermissible setting aside of a transfer-pricing determination.

Conclusion: The limited remand was within the appellate jurisdiction and was not barred by the transfer-pricing origin of the assessment, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the allowability of interest expenditure required fresh examination and recomputation under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: No outright deduction was granted. The interest claim was directed to be examined under the methodology previously applicable on materially similar facts: interest relatable to advances made in earlier years, advances during the relevant year, and taxable interest income was to be identified. Where a direct nexus was unavailable, the claim was to be considered on a proportionate basis under Section 36(1)(iii).

Conclusion: Fresh examination and recomputation of the interest claim under the prescribed methodology was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim for interest expenditure previously disallowed required factual verification under the first proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The claim depended on verification of whether tax deducted at source had been deposited during the relevant previous year and whether the expenditure thereby became deductible under the statutory proviso. The earlier rejection had occurred without the necessary factual verification.

Conclusion: The direction for factual verification of the claim in accordance with law was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the additional disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could exceed the exempt income earned during the year.

Analysis: The exempt dividend income was substantially lower than the additional disallowance, and a voluntary disallowance had already been made. The applicable settled position confined the disallowance to the exempt income earned. The amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022 was prospective and did not govern the relevant assessment year.

Conclusion: The additional disallowance exceeding the exempt income was correctly deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The directions for verification and recomputation of the interest claims, along with the deletion of the excess disallowance relating to exempt income, remain operative.

Issues: Whether an assessment founded solely on a summary show cause notice, without issuance of the separate notice required under Section 73, is valid.

Analysis: Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires the proper officer to specify the grounds for determination of unpaid or short-paid tax, erroneous refund, or wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit. Rule 142 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires the statutory show cause notice to be accompanied by its summary in the prescribed form. The record showed that only the summary notice was served and the assessment was made on that basis. The mandatory statutory requirement of issuing the substantive show cause notice was therefore not met.

Conclusion: The summary notice and consequential assessment order were quashed, with liberty to the competent authority to issue a fresh show cause notice along with its summary in accordance with Section 73 and Rule 142.

Issues: (i) Validity of the reassessments under sections 147 and 148 based on search-and-seizure material; (ii) Sustainability of gross-profit additions for alleged suppression of Pan Masala sales; (iii) Sustainability of estimated profit from alleged undisclosed coupon sales; (iv) Sustainability of additions founded solely on retracted statements, uncorroborated loose papers, and WhatsApp chats; (v) Sustainability of additions for bank deposits, unsecured loans, sundry creditors, cash found in search, and stock; (vi) Sustainability of DVO-based additions for alleged unexplained construction investment; (vii) Whether MCX margin money can be treated as unexplained expenditure; (viii) Proper income estimation from rough business working sheets; (ix) Sustainability of land-purchase cash-payment additions based on draft agreements; (x) Proper course where property-valuation addition was made without notice or hearing; (xi) Validity of deletion of unpaid GST liability on additional evidence admitted under Rule 46A.

Issue (i): Validity of the reassessments under sections 147 and 148 based on search-and-seizure material.

Analysis: Incriminating documents were found during the search, and the reopening was founded on searched and seized material rather than on general statements alone. This supplied the requisite material nexus for reassessment.

Conclusion: The reassessments were validly initiated; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of gross-profit additions for alleged suppression of Pan Masala sales.

Analysis: The gross-profit estimates rested on retracted statements and unverified assumptions, including extrapolation from material not shown to relate to the relevant year. No unaccounted purchases, parallel records, stock discrepancy, or other corroborative material was established. The regular books and quantitative records were not rejected under section 145(3), and estimation of profits without rejection of books was impermissible.

Conclusion: The residual gross-profit additions sustained by the appellate authority were deleted, and the Revenue's challenges to the larger deletions failed; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Sustainability of estimated profit from alleged undisclosed coupon sales.

Analysis: Loose sheets recovered from an employee did not prove that coupon figures represented completed sales or undisclosed turnover. There was no linkage with purchasers, stock movement, delivery, consideration, cash, bank deposits, or unrecorded purchases. The assumed coupon-to-turnover ratios and estimated gross-profit rates lacked evidentiary support; the evidentiary value of loose sheets, without corroboration, was insufficient.

Conclusion: The additions, including the residual estimated profit from alleged coupon sales, were deleted; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Sustainability of additions founded solely on retracted statements, uncorroborated loose papers, and WhatsApp chats.

Analysis: Third-party statements had been retracted or were not confronted to the assessee for cross-examination. The documents and chats did not establish actual payment, receipt, expenditure, or accrual of income, and no independent cash trail, bank trail, confirmation, stock discrepancy, or supporting record was produced. Principles of natural justice and the right to cross-examination required that adverse third-party material be proved and confronted before it could be relied upon.

Conclusion: Additions based solely on such unsupported material, including residual profit estimates derived from it, were deleted; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Sustainability of additions for bank deposits, unsecured loans, sundry creditors, cash found in search, and stock.

Analysis: Bank deposits were reconciled with GST collections and recovery of trade debtors. The unsecured loan was supported by lender confirmation, PAN, returns, audited financials, and banking records, satisfying identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. Creditor balances were furnished without any further verification by the Assessing Officer; cash found was recorded in the HUF books; and no discrepancy in stock was found during search.

Conclusion: The deletions of these additions were upheld; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Sustainability of DVO-based additions for alleged unexplained construction investment.

Analysis: For the relevant construction investment, the valuation relied on current market rates rather than historical costs and disregarded documented bulk-purchase discounts, while the audited books were accepted without identified defects. A DVO estimate by itself did not establish unexplained investment. For the later year, the Revenue did not establish grounds to disturb the partial relief already granted from the valuation-based addition.

Conclusion: The DVO-based addition for the earlier year was deleted and the Revenue's challenge to partial relief for the later year failed; this issue is substantially in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vii): Whether MCX margin money can be treated as unexplained expenditure.

Analysis: Margin money in commodity trading is a temporary and recyclable security deposit; it is not, by itself, expenditure or income. Taxability turns on the net outcome after square-off of trades. No material proved actual unexplained expenditure, while the audited accounts recording trading results were not rejected. The real income theory precluded taxation of gross assumed margins as expenditure.

Conclusion: The additions sustained for alleged unexplained MCX margin money were deleted; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): Proper income estimation from rough business working sheets.

Analysis: The working sheets contained overlapping entries, repeated opening balances, and repetitive deposit and withdrawal entries, and could not be treated as reliable evidence of gross undisclosed receipts. Although taxation of the entire figure was rejected, the appellate estimate of 25 percent was also unsupported by material.

Conclusion: The addition was restricted to Rs.6,85,530; this issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ix): Sustainability of land-purchase cash-payment additions based on draft agreements.

Analysis: Unsigned and unexecuted draft agreements, without a registered transaction, cash trail, receipt, or other corroboration, could not prove that alleged cash consideration was actually paid. However, in one separate property transaction, an actual cash payment of Rs.5,00,000 was found to remain unexplained.

Conclusion: Additions founded only on unexecuted drafts were deleted, but the unexplained cash payment of Rs.5,00,000 was sustained; this issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (x): Proper course where property-valuation addition was made without notice or hearing.

Analysis: The property-valuation addition was introduced in the assessment order without a specific show-cause notice, opportunity to explain the registered purchase, or meaningful hearing. Compliance with principles of natural justice required fresh adjudication after confronting the assessee with the proposed basis.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after affording proper opportunity to the assessee.

Issue (xi): Validity of deletion of unpaid GST liability on additional evidence admitted under Rule 46A.

Analysis: The deletion was based on additional evidence asserting payment of GST after the year-end, without the required verification procedure under Rule 46A. Verification of the payment evidence was necessary before deciding the allowability of the liability.

Conclusion: The GST-liability issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: Additions founded on uncorroborated statements, loose papers, digital chats, arbitrary profit estimates, or flawed valuation were largely unsustainable. The reassessments remained valid, a limited addition from rough working sheets and one explained-source failure were retained, and two discrete matters require fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Uncorroborated retracted statements, loose papers, and digital communications cannot sustain estimated income additions where no nexus with actual income is proved and the regular books have not been rejected.

Issues: Whether a contractor executing an ongoing contract awarded before the introduction of GST was entitled to reimbursement of the additional GST burden notwithstanding tender clauses requiring quoted rates to be inclusive of applicable taxes and a contrary pre-bid clarification concerning future taxes.

Analysis: The tender clauses required rates to include taxes applicable when the bid was submitted and did not extend to GST, which was not in existence when the work order was issued. The governmental circular and resolution concerning ongoing works recognised compensation of the net additional GST burden and contemplated a supplementary agreement. The respondents had also referred the reimbursement claim for chartered-accountant verification, making its subsequent rejection arbitrary. A pre-bid clarification inconsistent with the tender conditions could not supersede those conditions. Denial of reimbursement to the petitioner while similarly placed contractors received reimbursement would be arbitrary and offend the requirement of equal treatment under Article 14.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to GST reimbursement to the extent verified by the respondents' chartered accountant, and the communication rejecting that claim was quashed.

Issues: Whether a reassessment notice issued in the name of a deceased assessee, after the tax authority had been informed of the death, could be sustained.

Analysis: Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits proceedings initiated during the lifetime of an assessee to continue against the legal representative and permits proceedings that could have been initiated against the deceased to be initiated against the legal representative. The impugned reassessment notice was issued after the death of the assessee and in the deceased's name, notwithstanding prior intimation of death. The statutory machinery therefore required a fresh notice to the legal representatives.

Conclusion: The impugned notice could not be sustained in the name of the deceased assessee; the matter was remitted for issuance of a fresh notice to the legal representatives, with the specified period excluded in computing limitation.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2019-20 could be initiated on the basis of an undated and unverified complaint and material recovered from the mobile phone of a person unconnected with the assessee.

Analysis: The reassessment process under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires material having a direct nexus with the assessee and the alleged escapement of income. The undated complaint relied upon had not been investigated, its author had not been summoned, and the alleged cash-receipt image did not establish receipt or payment of cash by the assessee. The material was recovered from the phone of an employee of an entity with which the assessee had no connection. Statements subsequently recorded also did not support the alleged cash transaction. The reopening was therefore founded on unverified material, surmises and conjectures rather than a direct link to the assessee.

Conclusion: The initiation of reassessment was invalid for absence of verified material establishing a direct nexus between the assessee and the alleged escaped income.

Issues: Whether a homebuyers' association or its members may intervene in an ongoing corporate liquidation process to challenge the liquidator's proposed sale of assets.

Analysis: An association of homebuyers is not itself entitled to intervene at the adjudicatory stage as a creditor. However, the amended Section 21(11), made applicable to ongoing liquidation processes where no application for dissolution has been filed, enables the committee of creditors to supervise the liquidator's conduct. Members who are stakeholders may therefore independently seek intervention before the adjudicating authority on that statutory basis.

Conclusion: The association could not maintain the intervention sought in the writ petition; nevertheless, its individual member-stakeholders may file a fresh application before the NCLT under the amended insolvency framework.

Issues: Whether steel tubular transmission poles are classifiable as tubes and pipes under sub-heading 7306.90, and whether duty for July and August 2000 amounted to an impermissible retrospective levy.

Analysis: The governing classification had already been settled by binding precedent, under which the poles fall under sub-heading 7306.90 rather than sub-heading 7308.90. The subsequent departmental circular merely reiterated that settled position. As the show-cause notice was issued after that circular and the precedent pre-dated the relevant levy period, the demand did not operate retrospectively.

Conclusion: The poles are classifiable under sub-heading 7306.90, and the levy for July and August 2000 is not retrospective; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand for differential reversal of Cenvat credit on coal removed as such was sustainable; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether the demand for differential reversal of Cenvat credit on coal removed as such was sustainable.

Analysis: Cenvat credit on coal used in the manufacture of dutiable finished goods was undisputed. The Revenue treated all coal cleared as such as domestically procured coal requiring reversal at the higher rate, without corroborative evidence. Purchase orders and sale invoices identified the cleared coal as South African-origin imported coal, and the corresponding duty payments were reflected in ER-1 returns. The documentary record supported the assessee's claim that imported coal alone was cleared as such and that credit had been reversed at the applicable rate.

Conclusion: The differential credit-reversal demand was unsustainable on merits, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: Details of coal cleared as such had been furnished to the departmental authorities in 2014, while the statutory ER-1 and ER-6 returns disclosed the clearances and reversal particulars. The show-cause notice issued in December 2018 was not supported by material establishing suppression by the assessee.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed recovery of differential Cenvat credit, interest and penalty could not survive either on the evidentiary merits or on limitation, with consequential relief available in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory returns and contemporaneous transactional documents disclose removal of inputs as such, a higher reversal liability cannot be imposed without corroborative evidence, and such disclosure negates suppression for invoking the extended limitation period.

Issues: (i) Whether additions in unabated assessment years under Section 153C could survive without being founded on incriminating material seized during search; (ii) Whether the assessments were valid where the satisfaction recorded under Section 153C did not conform to the statutory requirements regarding material belonging to the third party and its bearing on determination of total income.

Issue (i): Whether additions in unabated assessment years under Section 153C could survive without being founded on incriminating material seized during search.

Analysis: The additions for the unabated years were found not to be based on any specific seized or incriminating material. The absence of such material rendered the additions impermissible in assessments initiated pursuant to search.

Conclusion: The additions for the unabated years were unsustainable and stood deleted, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessments were valid where the satisfaction recorded under Section 153C did not conform to the statutory requirements regarding material belonging to the third party and its bearing on determination of total income.

Analysis: Section 153C distinguishes between seized assets that belong to a third party and seized books, documents or information that pertain to or relate to that party; these statutory categories cannot be treated as interchangeable. Further, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer's satisfaction did not expressly record that the seized material had a bearing on determination of the assessees' total income. Such satisfaction was deficient under the statutory jurisdictional conditions.

Conclusion: The Section 153C assessments for both abated and unabated years were invalid and were quashed, in favour of the assessees.

Final Conclusion: The search assessments were annulled, and the consequential challenges on factual additions and other legal grounds did not require adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C requires a statutory-compliant satisfaction identifying qualifying seized material and expressly recording its bearing on determination of the third party's total income; unabated-year additions additionally require incriminating material.

Issues: Whether penalty for under-reporting of income under section 270A could be sustained where a part of income was reclassified from capital gains to dividend income, but the returned and assessed total income remained identical and the reclassification reduced the tax liability.

Analysis: Section 270A(2) identifies circumstances constituting under-reporting. A mere change in the head under which an already disclosed receipt is assessed does not establish suppression or under-reporting of income. The assessee had disclosed the relevant income, the aggregate assessed income did not exceed the returned income, and the Revenue did not controvert that the reclassification resulted in lower tax liability. The explanation for reporting the receipt as capital gains was not found false, attracting the protection for a bona fide explanation supported by disclosure of material facts under section 270A(6)(a). Penalty under section 270A is discretionary and is not automatic merely because income is recharacterised.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 270A was not leviable on the reclassification of disclosed capital gains as dividend income; the penalty was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Special Leave Petitions should be entertained when the matter stood remanded to the Single Judge for determination of residual issues.

Analysis: The earlier dismissal of the departmental Special Leave Petition did not cause merger of the High Court decision with the Supreme Court order. Since residual grounds remained pending before the Single Judge, the exemption issue was not finally adjudicated. Any subsequent decision favourable to the assessee could be produced before the Single Judge and could govern the pending proceedings.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petitions were closed, reserving liberty to challenge the reference order after disposal of the matter by the Single Judge.

Issues: Whether a consolidated show cause notice and consequential order covering multiple financial years are legally sustainable.

Analysis: Binding decisions of the High Court had established that proceedings for distinct assessment years cannot be initiated through a composite notice. The impugned notice and order covered the financial years 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 together and were therefore inconsistent with that principle.

Conclusion: The consolidated show cause notice and consequential order for multiple financial years were invalid and were quashed; separate notices may be issued for the respective assessment years, with the specified period excluded for limitation purposes.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants established that software was imported against the foreign-exchange remittances, so as to negate the alleged contravention; (ii) Whether the company's CEO and Director was personally liable for the company's contravention.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants established that software was imported against the foreign-exchange remittances, so as to negate the alleged contravention.

Analysis: For non-physical software imports, the applicable Master Circular required certification that the software had actually been received, apart from keeping Customs authorities informed. The intimation furnished to Customs was not proof of import or acceptance of its contents. The Chartered Accountant's report pre-dated the claimed import and was a valuation report for acquisition and financing, not a certificate of actual receipt. The later IT expert certificate, based on CDs supplied by the company, did not prove import at the relevant time and itself recorded that one program set was non-functional. The evidence therefore failed to establish import of software corresponding to the remitted amount. The absence of a specified cross-examination request or resulting prejudice also did not invalidate the proceedings.

Conclusion: The alleged import was not proved; the contravention by the company stood established, against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the company's CEO and Director was personally liable for the company's contravention.

Analysis: The individual appellant was CEO, Director, shareholder and joint authorised signatory for the company's bank accounts and outward-remittance documents. His statement acknowledged that the software received was without value. No evidence showed that he exercised due diligence to prevent the contravention.

Conclusion: The individual appellant was vicariously liable for the company's established contravention, against the individual appellant.

Final Conclusion: The finding of contravention and the individual appellant's liability were sustained, while the monetary penalties were substantially reduced in view of financial hardship.

Ratio Decidendi: In a non-physical import transaction, an intimation to Customs and documents not certifying actual receipt of the imported software do not discharge the importer's burden to prove import; an officer in charge of the company who authorised the remittances is liable absent proof of due diligence.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16, initiated through notices issued after 1 April 2021, were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Revenue's recorded concession applicable to Assessment Year 2015-16 required all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 to be dropped because they could not be completed within the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The original notice was issued on 21 June 2021 and the consequential notice on 21 May 2022. Binding decisions applying that concession treated such notices as time-barred.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices and consequential reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction; the reassessment order was quashed as bad in law, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For Assessment Year 2015-16, reassessment notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 are time-barred under the applicable limitation regime and cannot sustain reassessment proceedings.

Issues: (i) Whether attached assets forming part of an approved resolution plan could be restored to the Successful Resolution Applicants under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the Corporate Debtor was entitled to protection under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether attached assets forming part of an approved resolution plan could be restored to the Successful Resolution Applicants under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The parties agreed that Section 8(8) is intended to restore attached property to bona fide claimants having a legitimate interest. The Successful Resolution Applicants had assumed the position of the Corporate Debtor following successful completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process. A consensual restitution arrangement was therefore accepted under the second proviso to Section 8(8).

Conclusion: The attached bank balances and residential units covered by the resolution plan were directed to be restored and released to the Successful Resolution Applicants. The enforcement authority was held to have no right or lien over those assets or other assets forming part of the approved resolution plan.

Issue (ii): Whether the Corporate Debtor was entitled to protection under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The statutory protection was applied to the Corporate Debtor following resolution, while preserving proceedings against erstwhile directors, persons in control, conspirators and abettors. The protection remained conditional upon the Successful Resolution Applicants having no connection with the erstwhile management and not being beneficiaries of proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The Corporate Debtor was directed to be deleted from the prosecution complaint, subject to the statutory conditions under Section 32A; proceedings against the erstwhile management and other liable persons were to continue.

Final Conclusion: The consent-based restitution protected the assets transferred under the implemented resolution plan while preserving investigation and enforcement proceedings against the erstwhile management. Questions of law were expressly kept open and the order was not to operate as a precedent.