Issues: Whether ANZ Support Services India Private Limited could be retained as a comparable for benchmarking the arm's length price of the assessee's learner support and customer care services under the TNMM, particularly in view of the related party transactions filter and functional comparability.

Analysis: The assessee confined its challenge to the inclusion of ANZ as a comparable. The Tribunal noted that the TPO had adopted a related party transactions filter excluding companies where such transactions exceeded 25% of sales, and that the DRP had directed inclusion of ANZ only if it satisfied the functional similarity criteria and the quantitative filters applied by the TPO. On the financial material produced, the Tribunal found that ANZ's related party transactions, on the figures examined, were above the 25% threshold and therefore attracted the very filter applied by the TPO. Since this contention had not been verified by the lower authorities, the Tribunal held that the factual position required examination by the TPO.

Conclusion: The issue of ANZ's inclusion as a comparable was restored for verification, and if the assessee's objection on the related party transactions filter is found correct, ANZ must be excluded from the comparable set.

Issues: Whether the assessment and appellate orders were liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's claim to presumptive taxation under section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 instead of section 44AE.

Analysis: The assessee had not furnished supporting material before the Assessing Officer, while additional evidence was filed before the first appellate authority but not effectively examined. The factual claim regarding the nature of the business, the number of trucks operated, the source of bank deposits, and the eligibility to opt for presumptive taxation had not been scrutinised on merits. In these circumstances, and to ensure compliance with natural justice, the assessment was required to be redone after admitting and considering the evidence. The assessee was also to be permitted to establish eligibility for the presumptive scheme under section 44AD, and the question of consistency was held to depend on the facts and statutory conditions for each year.

Conclusion: The assessment and appellate orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo assessment, with an opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence and to claim presumptive taxation under section 44AD if otherwise eligible.

Issues: Whether the works contract services rendered for Periyar Maniammai University and Periyar Teacher Training Institute were liable to service tax as services to private educational institutions, and whether the Revenue's appeal against deletion of the demand was maintainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that in the appellant's own earlier appeal arising from the same order, the demand relating to construction services for private educational institutions had already been set aside. That earlier decision had treated construction of educational institutions as non-taxable on the footing of the Board's circular clarifying that such construction, when used solely for educational purposes and not for profit, is not commercial in nature. In the present appeal, the Department sought to treat the two institutions as private educational institutions, but no material was shown to establish that they were not used principally or solely for education. The Tribunal held that, once the demand for similar services to private educational institutions had already been held unsustainable in the appellant's own case, the Department's challenge to deletion of demand for these institutions could not succeed.

Conclusion: The service tax demand on the works contract services rendered to Periyar Maniammai University and Periyar Teacher Training Institute was not sustainable, and the Department's appeal failed.

Issues: (i) Whether refund could be denied on the ground that Cenvat credit on input services had been availed, despite its subsequent reversal; (ii) Whether refund could be rejected for non-filing or delayed filing of the prescribed declaration under the exemption notification.

Issue (i): Whether refund could be denied on the ground that Cenvat credit on input services had been availed, despite its subsequent reversal.

Analysis: The refund notification required that no Cenvat credit be availed on the inputs and input services for which rebate was claimed. The record showed that the credit earlier taken had been reversed and the reversal was communicated to the Department, and the lower authorities did not effectively dispute the appellant's assertion that the tax audit report also reflected non-availment. In such a situation, reversal of credit was treated as placing the assessee in the position of having not taken the credit for the purpose of the exemption condition.

Conclusion: The denial of refund on the ground of availed Cenvat credit was unsustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund could be rejected for non-filing or delayed filing of the prescribed declaration under the exemption notification.

Analysis: The declaration requirement was treated as a procedural condition intended to furnish verifiable details of the inputs and input services used for export. Since the exports and tax payment on the relevant services were not in dispute and the facts were verifiable from records, the omission was held to be a technical lapse. The governing approach was that a beneficial exemption should not be denied for mere procedural non-compliance when the substantive requirements stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The refund could not be rejected merely for the declaration lapse, and this issue was also decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of the refund claims was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For a beneficial exemption or refund scheme, reversal of wrongly taken Cenvat credit may satisfy the condition of non-availment, and a procedural default such as non-filing or belated filing of a declaration cannot defeat relief where the substantive entitlement is otherwise established.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled, at the pre-trial stage, to an interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with its assets in India on the basis of a foreign judgment, and whether the foreign judgment could be treated as conclusive evidence under Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A foreign judgment is conclusive only if it is not hit by any of the exceptions under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the presumption of competence under Section 14 is rebuttable. At the interim stage, the court must be prima facie satisfied that the foreign court was competent and that the judgment does not suffer from any disqualifying defect before treating it as conclusive support for a money claim. Here, the parties' arbitration agreement, the plaintiff's participation in international arbitration over the same dispute, and the rival reliance on Article 248.1 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation created a serious doubt about the Moscow court's competence. The objections based on natural justice and the circumstances in which the Russian proceedings were conducted also prevented the judgment from being accepted as absolute and conclusive evidence at this stage. In the absence of a reliable prima facie foundation for the underlying claim, the apprehension that assets may be transferred out of India was insufficient to justify discretionary injunctive relief.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to interim injunction relief, and the foreign judgment could not be treated as conclusive evidence for that purpose at this stage.

Issues: Whether the COVID-19 limitation exclusion applied to the Department's statutory deadline for completing the assessment and disclosed a mistake apparent from record warranting recall of the order that had quashed the assessment as time-barred.

Analysis: Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates completion of the assessment in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel within the prescribed period. The final assessment was made after expiry of that period. The COVID-19 exclusion of time for limitation was confined to proceedings instituted by litigants before judicial or quasi-judicial forums and did not extend the Department's statutory obligation to complete an assessment within the time prescribed by the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The assessment remained barred by limitation, and no mistake apparent from record existed in the order quashing it; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalty for concealment could be imposed where the return was filed in response to notice for reassessment but the entire tax liability had been paid before issuance of that notice.

Analysis: Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) deems non-filing of the return within the prescribed period to be concealment in specified circumstances. However, Explanation 4(c) requires the tax sought to be evaded in such a case to be computed after reducing advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self-assessment tax paid before issuance of notice under Section 148. The returned income was accepted without variation, and the record established that the entire tax liability had already been discharged before the reassessment notice. Consequently, the tax sought to be evaded was nil.

Conclusion: No penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable, and the impugned penalty was deleted.

Issues: Whether the writ proceedings concerning reassessment notices should be remitted for fresh consideration in light of the subsequent statutory amendment and the directions of the Supreme Court.

Outcome: The writ appeal was allowed, the single judge's order was set aside, and the writ petition was remitted for fresh consideration with liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act.

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of business-promotion expenditure was sustainable; (ii) whether 50% of letter-of-credit charges could be disallowed as capital expenditure; (iii) whether software-development expenditure was capital in nature; (iv) whether foreign-currency fluctuation loss was allowable; (v) whether additions for accrued and undisclosed interest on fixed deposits were sustainable; (vi) whether ad hoc disallowances of engineering stores and printing-and-stationery expenditure were justified; (vii) whether unsupported expenditure could be allowed; (viii) whether provision for gratuity and tax payments were allowable.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of business-promotion expenditure was sustainable.

Analysis: Expenditure on award nights, exhibitions and golf tournaments appeared to have been incurred for business purposes, but full evidentiary substantiation was lacking. Likewise, day-to-day refreshment and snack expenses were business-related but not fully supported. A restricted disallowance was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The business-promotion disallowance was restricted to 10% for the larger claim and to Rs. 1,00,000 for the other claim, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether 50% of letter-of-credit charges could be disallowed as capital expenditure.

Analysis: The lower authorities had allowed only 50% of the charges by treating them partly as capital and partly as revenue without a specific sustainable basis.

Conclusion: The 50% disallowance of letter-of-credit charges was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether software-development expenditure was capital in nature.

Analysis: A one-time payment, without examination of the nature of the expenditure, could not by itself justify treating the expenditure as capital. The expenditure prima facie served business purposes.

Conclusion: The software-development expenditure disallowance was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether foreign-currency fluctuation loss was allowable.

Analysis: The claim was not explained with reference to the annual accounts and supporting details.

Conclusion: The disallowance of foreign-currency fluctuation loss was sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether additions for accrued and undisclosed interest on fixed deposits were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee did not reconcile its interest income with the corresponding tax deduction at source details. The second interest addition was consequential to the principal addition.

Conclusion: The additions for accrued and undisclosed fixed-deposit interest were sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether ad hoc disallowances of engineering stores and printing-and-stationery expenditure were justified.

Analysis: Although complete substantiation was not furnished, a 10% disallowance was excessive in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The disallowance was restricted from 10% to 5%, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vii): Whether unsupported expenditure could be allowed.

Analysis: No supporting particulars for the expenditure were produced either before the lower authorities or before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The disallowance of unsupported expenditure was sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (viii): Whether provision for gratuity and tax payments were allowable.

Analysis: Despite adequate opportunity, proof of payment was not furnished for either the gratuity provision or the tax payments claimed.

Conclusion: The disallowances relating to gratuity provision and tax payments were sustained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The taxable income requires recomputation by allowing the deleted claims and giving effect to the restricted disallowances, while retaining the disallowances not substantiated by supporting material.

Issues: (i) Whether consultancy income already offered to tax on accrual basis in the preceding year could be added again because the corresponding tax deduction appeared in Form 26AS in the relevant year; (ii) Whether transfer charges and commission incurred for sale of property were deductible while computing capital gains; (iii) Whether professional fees incurred for arranging working-capital funding were allowable as business expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether consultancy income already offered to tax on accrual basis in the preceding year could be added again because the corresponding tax deduction appeared in Form 26AS in the relevant year.

Analysis: The reconciliation established that four invoices relating to completed consultancy work had been recognised as income in the preceding financial year, whereas the related tax credit was reflected in Form 26AS in the subsequent year. Recognition of income on completion of services and invoicing was distinct from the timing of tax deduction and deposit by the payer. The same income could not be required to be offered again merely because it appeared in Form 26AS in the relevant year.

Conclusion: The addition for mismatch between declared receipts and Form 26AS was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether transfer charges and commission incurred for sale of property were deductible while computing capital gains.

Analysis: The expenses were directly connected with transfer of the property. Though not allowable under the head business income, they were allowable in computing capital gains; the treatment was revenue-neutral for computation of total income for the year.

Conclusion: The transfer charges and sale commission were directed to be allowed while computing capital gains, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether professional fees incurred for arranging working-capital funding were allowable as business expenditure.

Analysis: Although an invoice for consultancy concerning working-capital funding was produced, the business utility and substantiation of the expenditure were not fully established. A partial disallowance was therefore considered appropriate.

Conclusion: Fifty percent of the professional fees was disallowed; the balance was allowed, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Income recognised on accrual cannot be subjected to tax again solely due to later reflection of related tax deduction in Form 26AS; property-transfer expenses are deductible in the capital-gains computation, while inadequately substantiated funding consultancy expenditure warrants proportionate disallowance.

Ratio Decidendi: The timing of tax deduction reflected in Form 26AS does not override income recognition on accrual basis or justify taxation of income already offered in an earlier year.

Issues: Whether reassessment under Section 147 could be sustained where the information and recorded reasons did not identify the entities allegedly involved in accommodation entries and lacked tangible material establishing the alleged transactions.

Analysis: The reassessment approval material, statutory notices and assessment order did not specify the entities with which the assessee had allegedly transacted. The information was general, and the Assessing Officer did not establish the genuineness or credibility of the alleged accommodation-entry information through tangible material. The assessee's bank records and audited financial statements did not show transactions, borrowings or repayments with the alleged entities. Reassessment requires valid recorded reasons founded on tangible material and cannot rest on vague information or suspicion.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment were void ab initio and stood quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment notices issued for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The applicable limitation, after accounting for the surviving period and the statutory minimum period available following the assessee's reply to the show-cause notices, expired on 16.06.2022. The notices under Section 148 were issued thereafter, on 27.07.2022 and 29.07.2022. The governing interpretation of the amended reassessment regime and the relaxation legislation did not preserve the Revenue's authority to issue these notices after the applicable limitation had expired.

Conclusion: The notices under Section 148 were time-barred; consequently, the reassessment proceedings founded on them were void and were quashed.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction for debts written off as irrecoverable in its accounts where it carried on share-broking and settled clients' exchange dues.

Analysis: Section 36(1)(vii), read with section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, permits deduction of a bad debt written off as irrecoverable, provided the statutory conditions are met. In share-broking transactions, amounts receivable from clients, including amounts paid by the broker to settle transactions on their behalf, constitute debt where the brokerage component has been included in income. The assessee's regular write-offs reflected the peculiar nature of its business, in which clients settled agreed amounts and residual unrecoverable balances were written off. The departmental objection based on continuing dealings or receipts from clients did not displace the established pattern or the binding principle applicable to the assessee's identical business transactions.

Conclusion: The written-off client balances qualified for deduction as bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an addition for unexplained investment can be sustained solely on an unsigned third-party Excel sheet and statements obtained during a search of the seller group, without independent corroboration or an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon.

Analysis: The addition was founded solely on information from material seized from a third party. The Excel sheet neither bore the assessee's signature nor was authored by it, constituted its books of account, or was supported by a signed receipt or acknowledgment evidencing cash payment. No independent corroborative material linked the assessee to the alleged cash investment. The persons associated with the seller group whose statements were relied upon were not made available for cross-examination. In these circumstances, the assessee's denial could not be displaced by untested third-party material alone.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was unsustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer could adopt a net-profit rate of 30% of gross turnover by applying the assessee's average past profit margin where business income was declared under the presumptive-taxation scheme.

Analysis: The assessee's eligibility for presumptive taxation was accepted in the assessment and was not a matter arising from the assessment order. Although the Assessing Officer may examine the correctness of a claim under the presumptive scheme, an enhancement of the declared profit requires adverse material. Applying an average net-profit rate based solely on past years is not authorised where the receipts are subjected to presumptive taxation, absent contrary material discrediting the declared margin.

Conclusion: Adoption of a 30% net-profit rate on gross turnover was unjustified; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether absorbent cotton wool and cotton bandages manufactured as surgical dressings were classifiable under CTH 5601 or CTH 3005; (ii) Whether generic allopathic medicines qualified for the concessional rate under Entry 37 of Notification No. 1/2011-C.E. dated 01.03.2011 as amended; (iii) Whether suppression with intent to evade duty justified invocation of the extended limitation period.

Issue (i): Whether absorbent cotton wool and cotton bandages manufactured as surgical dressings were classifiable under CTH 5601 or CTH 3005.

Analysis: Chapter 30 covers wadding, gauze, bandages and similar articles put up for retail sale for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary purposes, whereas Chapter 56 concerns textile wadding and articles thereof. The goods were manufactured under a drug licence to prescribed standards for surgical dressings, packed in retail sizes with batch particulars, expiry dates and MRP, and supplied for medical use. The relevant section and chapter notes exclude goods falling under heading 3005 from textile headings. These characteristics made heading 3005 the specific applicable heading notwithstanding that absorbent cotton wool is also described in heading 5601.

Conclusion: Absorbent cotton wool and cotton bandages were correctly classifiable under CTH 3005 and were dutiable; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether generic allopathic medicines qualified for the concessional rate under Entry 37 of Notification No. 1/2011-C.E. dated 01.03.2011 as amended.

Analysis: Entry 37 covers medicaments, including those used in specified traditional and homeopathic systems. The expression "including" enlarges and does not restrict the scope of "medicaments"; accordingly, allopathic medicines are not excluded. The medicines were sold under their generic pharmacopoeial names and no Cenvat credit had been availed, while no material disproved compliance with the other notification conditions.

Conclusion: The allopathic medicines qualified for the concessional rate under the notification, and the demand denying that benefit was set aside; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether suppression with intent to evade duty justified invocation of the extended limitation period.

Analysis: The manufacturing activity for surgical medical products, the drug licence, and retail-pack declarations were not disclosed to the department. The undisclosed activity was detected during search, when substantial duty-unpaid finished goods were found, and a post-search payment was made. These facts established conscious concealment and evasion rather than a bona fide error.

Conclusion: Suppression with intent to evade duty was established and the extended limitation period was validly invoked; the finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Duty, interest and penalty relating to surgical absorbent cotton wool, cotton bandages, and the admitted other products remain sustainable, while the duty demand attributable to denial of the concessional rate for allopathic medicines cannot stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods put up and manufactured as retail surgical dressings for medical use fall under the medical-dressing tariff heading rather than the textile-wadding heading; an exemption for medicaments using inclusive language extends to allopathic medicaments when its stipulated conditions are fulfilled.

Issues: Whether the value of additional area comprised in a permanent alternate accommodation flat received on surrender of tenancy rights could be assessed as income from other sources under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Surrender of tenancy rights in the old tenanted premises constituted a transfer of a capital asset by extinguishment of rights. The replacement flat, including its full 830 sq. ft. area, was received from the developer pursuant to the direction for permanent alternate accommodation; the additional area was not a gratuitous receipt or an independently acquired immovable property for inadequate consideration. Any income arising from the surrender transaction was therefore chargeable, if at all, under the head capital gains and could not be brought under income from other sources through section 56(2)(x). Further, the consideration represented by the replacement flat stood invested in the new residential property, supporting eligibility for deduction under section 54F.

Conclusion: Section 56(2)(x) was inapplicable and the addition for the additional area was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A replacement flat received as permanent alternate accommodation upon surrender of tenancy rights is consideration for transfer of a capital asset and cannot be treated as a gratuitous receipt taxable as income from other sources under section 56(2)(x).

Issues: (i) whether the transfer pricing downward adjustment in respect of payment for global IT services required fresh examination in light of additional evidence showing the nature, rendition and cost allocation of services; (ii) whether deduction under section 80JJAA was required to be reworked by giving effect to the directions already issued and allowed as per law; (iii) whether the claim for TDS credit required verification and grant in accordance with law; (iv) whether levy of fee under section 234F and computation of interest under section 244A required verification and reconsideration in light of the extended due date and the assessee's computation claim.

Issue (i): whether the transfer pricing downward adjustment in respect of payment for global IT services required fresh examination in light of additional evidence showing the nature, rendition and cost allocation of services.

Analysis: The adjustment had been made principally on the basis that documentary evidence for need, benefit and actual rendition of services was insufficient, and because separate IT-related payments were viewed as potentially duplicative. Additional evidence placed on record included service agreements, invoices and third-party cost support relating to cloud infrastructure, connectivity, software licences, support and allied IT services. Since this material directly addressed the basis of the adjustment and went to the root of the controversy, it was admitted and the matter was considered fit for fresh examination by the transfer pricing authorities.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee to the extent that the adjustment on global IT services was remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration after examining the additional evidence in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): whether deduction under section 80JJAA was required to be reworked by giving effect to the directions already issued and allowed as per law.

Analysis: The deduction had been restricted despite the assessee's contention that the assessed income entitled it to a larger claim. As directions had already been issued to allow the deduction as per law, implementation of those directions required verification and proper effect by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee to the extent that the AO was directed to verify and grant deduction under section 80JJAA in accordance with law after giving effect to the earlier directions.

Issue (iii): whether the claim for TDS credit required verification and grant in accordance with law.

Analysis: The dispute related to short grant of tax deducted at source credit. The matter required factual verification of the credit available and corresponding adjustment in accordance with the statutory record.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee to the extent that the AO was directed to verify and grant TDS credit in accordance with law.

Issue (iv): whether levy of fee under section 234F and computation of interest under section 244A required verification and reconsideration in light of the extended due date and the assessee's computation claim.

Analysis: The claim against levy of fee under section 234F was founded on the assertion that the return had been filed within the extended due date recognized by Circular No. 1/2022 dated 11.01.2022. The claim for interest under section 244A was based on alleged incorrect computation. Both matters depended on verification of dates and numerical working, and therefore required reconsideration by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee to the extent that both the levy of fee under section 234F and the grant of interest under section 244A were remitted to the AO for verification and action in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The substantive disputes adjudicated were not concluded on final tax liability; the principal transfer pricing issue and allied computational claims were restored or directed for verification, while the appeal stood partly successful only to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where additional evidence directly addresses the factual basis of a transfer pricing adjustment or statutory computation dispute and is necessary for proper adjudication, the matter may be restored for fresh examination, and statutory deductions or credits already supported by existing directions must be verified and granted in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether an assessment order passed after the death of the registered person could be sustained, and whether the revenue could initiate fresh proceedings against the legal heirs after notice.

Analysis: The record showed that the assessee had died on 13.08.2020, long before the assessment order dated 29.07.2024 was issued. An order passed against a deceased person could not stand in law. At the same time, the entitlement of the revenue to proceed afresh against the legal representatives was preserved, provided notice was issued to all the legal heirs shown in the legal heir certificate.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment order was set aside. The respondent was permitted to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal representatives after issuing notice to all legal heirs.

Issues: Whether the assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were valid when the satisfaction note for the other person was recorded after 01.04.2021, thereby attracting the amended bar under section 153C(3).

Analysis: The assessment for a person other than the searched person proceeds on the basis of the date on which the seized material is received or the satisfaction note is recorded for that person. On the facts, the satisfaction note was recorded on 20.10.2021, which was after 01.04.2021. In view of the amended section 153C(3), proceedings under section 153C are not available where the search-related initiation for the other person is on or after 01.04.2021, and the assessment cannot be sustained under section 153C. The Tribunal followed the binding interpretation that the first proviso to section 153C(1) governs the relevant date for the other person and that initiation after the cut-off date bars section 153C proceedings.

Conclusion: The assessments under section 143(3) read with section 153C were held to be invalid, void ab initio, and quashed, while the remaining grounds were left open as academic.