Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority deserved condonation; (ii) Whether the addition made as unexplained investment under section 69 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority deserved condonation.

Analysis: The explanation showed that the assessee was a homemaker, had no independent source of income, depended on tax consultants, and offered a bona fide cause for the delay. In such circumstances, a justice-oriented approach was warranted and the appeal ought not to have been thrown out on a technical ground.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made as unexplained investment under section 69 was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee produced the sale deed, bank statements and payment trail showing direct remittance from the father's disclosed bank account to the seller. Once the primary onus was discharged, the burden shifted to the Revenue, which failed to bring any adverse material to show that the assessee herself made the investment from undisclosed sources. The addition rested on suspicion, including the absence of a formal gift deed and enquiry into the father's credits, which was insufficient to sustain the addition in the assessee's hands. The surrounding family circumstances and banking evidence supported the explanation.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69 was held to be unsustainable and was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the impugned addition was deleted in full after condoning the appellate delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee produces reliable documentary evidence showing that the investment was made directly by a close relative from a disclosed bank account, the primary onus stands discharged and an addition under section 69 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or on the ground that the relative's source of credits was not separately examined.

Issues: Whether the appellant's act of moving the bus while passengers were alighting amounted to rash or negligent driving attracting conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The evidence of the bus conductor showed that the bus was stopped on his whistle, the passengers alighted, and only thereafter he signalled the driver to move the bus. On these facts, the driver acted on the conductor's instructions and could not reasonably be said to have driven in a rash, reckless, or culpably negligent manner. The Court found no basis to infer criminal negligence merely because the deceased fell while getting down, and held that the incident did not satisfy the ingredients of the offences charged.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Issues: Whether the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment or deemed permanent establishment in India so as to bring the offshore supply receipts to tax under section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the facts for the year under appeal were materially identical to the earlier assessment year already decided in the assessee's favour. It noted that the Revenue had failed to bring any fresh material to establish the existence of a permanent establishment in India, and that the burden to prove such existence lay on the Revenue. Following the coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal held that offshore supply receipts could not be subjected to presumptive taxation under section 44BB in the absence of a permanent establishment in India.

Conclusion: The assessee did not have a permanent establishment in India, and the addition made by applying section 44BB on offshore supply receipts was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether capital gains arising from transfer of immovable property were taxable in A.Y. 2014-15 on execution and registration of the sale deed, despite alleged non-receipt of full consideration and retention of possession; (ii) whether, if the same capital gain had already been offered to tax in A.Y. 2016-17, consequential relief was required to prevent double taxation.

Issue (i): Whether capital gains arising from transfer of immovable property were taxable in A.Y. 2014-15 on execution and registration of the sale deed, despite alleged non-receipt of full consideration and retention of possession.

Analysis: The registered sale deeds executed on 12.04.2013 transferred ownership rights in favour of the purchasers. For the purposes of section 45 read with section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, transfer stood completed on registration of the sale deed. Non-realisation of part of the consideration, dishonour of cheques, delayed payment, or subsequent disputes did not defer the incidence of capital gains taxation, and the registered conveyances were neither cancelled nor annulled.

Conclusion: The capital gain was rightly held taxable in A.Y. 2014-15, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether, if the same capital gain had already been offered to tax in A.Y. 2016-17, consequential relief was required to prevent double taxation.

Analysis: The Revenue cannot tax the same income twice. If the impugned capital gain was already offered and assessed in A.Y. 2016-17, the assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 required suitable adjustment after verification of the earlier year's tax treatment.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the assessment in A.Y. 2016-17 and grant appropriate consequential relief, if warranted, to avoid double taxation.

Final Conclusion: The addition was sustained on the issue of the year of taxability, but limited relief was granted to ensure that the same capital gain is not taxed twice, resulting in a partly successful appeal for statistical purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: For capital gains purposes, a valid registered sale deed effecting transfer of ownership completes the transfer under section 2(47), and later disputes over consideration or possession do not postpone taxability unless the conveyance is cancelled or legally rescinded.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment initiated under section 147 could survive when the final assessment travelled beyond the reason recorded for reopening; (ii) Whether the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) could stand once the reassessment failed.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment initiated under section 147 could survive when the final assessment travelled beyond the reason recorded for reopening.

Analysis: The reopening was founded on one proposed basis, but the assessment order ultimately proceeded on a different footing and brought to tax a different set of additions. Since the final assessment deviated from the recorded reason, the foundation of the reassessment ceased to match the basis on which jurisdiction had been assumed.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held to be unsustainable and was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) could stand once the reassessment failed.

Analysis: The penalty was purely consequential to the reassessment and depended on the validity of the addition made in the reassessment order. Once the reassessment itself was annulled, the penalty could not independently survive.

Conclusion: The penalty proceedings were set aside as consequential to the invalid reassessment.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in both appeals, with the reassessment quashed and the associated penalty appeal also failing on consequence.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment cannot survive where the completed assessment departs from the recorded reasons that supplied the jurisdictional basis for reopening, and any penalty founded solely on such reassessment falls with it.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises was sustainable; (ii) Whether deduction under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be denied merely because the donation formed part of corporate social responsibility expenditure, and whether the matter required factual verification; (iii) Whether the claim for refund of excess dividend distribution tax required fresh adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises was sustainable.

Analysis: The outstanding receivables arose from the principal sale transaction and did not constitute an independent financing arrangement. The international transactions were benchmarked under TNMM, and working capital adjustment had already been granted. On those facts, the impact of delayed receivables stood subsumed in the profitability analysis, and no separate adjustment for notional interest survived.

Conclusion: The adjustment on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be denied merely because the donation formed part of corporate social responsibility expenditure, and whether the matter required factual verification.

Analysis: Deduction under section 80G is available for eligible donations subject to statutory conditions, and a contribution is not disqualified solely because it is made in the course of CSR compliance. The matter, however, required verification of the approval status of the recipient institutions and compliance with the other conditions governing section 80G.

Conclusion: The disallowance was not sustained as a matter of principle, and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision in accordance with law.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim for refund of excess dividend distribution tax required fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The claim had not been examined by the lower authorities and required consideration of the statutory provision and the applicable treaty position on the facts.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the transfer pricing issue, while the remaining substantive claims were sent back for reconsideration, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where international transactions are benchmarked under TNMM and a working capital adjustment has already been granted, delayed receivables are ordinarily subsumed in the arm's length analysis and do not warrant a separate notional interest adjustment absent proof of an independent financing arrangement.

Issues: Whether the land sold by the assessee retained its agricultural character and fell outside the ambit of capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so that the transfer could not be brought to tax as capital gains merely because no substantial agricultural income or intensive cultivation was shown.

Analysis: The statutory scheme after the Finance Act, 1970 was held to rest on objective geographical and municipal criteria under section 2(14)(iii), while the requirement of actual agricultural use is expressly found in provisions such as section 54B and section 10(37). The absence of those words in section 2(14)(iii) was treated as deliberate. The Court further held that agricultural character must be determined on a cumulative consideration of the surrounding circumstances, with revenue records, 7/12 extracts, absence of non-agricultural conversion, location beyond municipal limits, and contemporaneous cultivation entries carrying significant weight. The mere absence of reflected agricultural income or personal cultivation was held insufficient to convert rural agricultural land into a capital asset.

Conclusion: The land was held to be agricultural land outside section 2(14)(iii), and the capital gains addition was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the disallowance on account of alleged bogus purchases from accommodation entry providers should be sustained in full or restricted to the profit element embedded in such purchases.

Analysis: The purchases were traced to entities found to be non-genuine accommodation entry providers, but the corresponding sales were not disputed and the assessee had produced purchase and sales records, stock details, delivery challans and banking evidence. On the factual matrix, it was not possible to accept that no purchases were made at all, though the genuineness of the suppliers was not conclusively established. In such circumstances, the possibility of grey market purchases could not be ruled out and only the profit element embedded in the purchases was liable to taxation.

Conclusion: The addition was restricted to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases and the balance disallowance was deleted, thereby granting partial relief to the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were liable to be treated as unexplained income in full under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or as turnover with profit estimated at 5 per cent. (ii) Whether the appellate authority violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by considering additional evidence.

Issue (i): Whether cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were liable to be treated as unexplained income in full under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or as turnover with profit estimated at 5 per cent.

Analysis: The assessee's business as a transport commission agent was not disputed. The appellate authority had called for a remand report, and the assessment record as well as the remand report showed that the assessee had relied on a comparable case where commission income was estimated at 5 per cent on freight receipts. The affidavits, cash-flow statement and banking material supported the view that the cash deposits represented business receipts routed through the bank and that only the profit element was exigible to tax. The finding that the deposits constituted turnover and that only estimated profit should be brought to tax was, therefore, upheld.

Conclusion: The estimate of income at 5 per cent of the cash deposits was sustained and the challenge to the restriction of the addition failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by considering additional evidence.

Analysis: The appellate authority had specifically sought a remand report from the Assessing Officer before considering the additional material. The remand report was furnished, and the additional evidence was examined in that process. On these facts, there was no procedural breach of Rule 46A.

Conclusion: No violation of Rule 46A was found.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order sustaining estimated taxation of the business receipts and rejecting the procedural objection was affirmed, with both the Revenue appeal and the cross objection failing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where bank deposits are shown, on the basis of surrounding material and remand proceedings, to represent business receipts of a commission agent, only the profit element may be estimated to tax, and Rule 46A is not breached when additional evidence is considered after calling for a remand report.

Issues: Whether delay in filing Form 10-IC could justify denial of the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA despite the assessee having opted for the regime in the return of income and otherwise satisfying the substantive conditions.

Analysis: The assessee had reflected its choice under section 115BAA in the return, and the controversy arose only because the prescribed form was filed belatedly. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions holding that the filing of the form is a procedural requirement and that procedural non-compliance should not defeat a substantive statutory benefit when the assessee's eligibility is otherwise undisputed. Applying the principle of beneficial interpretation, the Tribunal treated the delay as a curable irregularity and condoned it.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 115BAA, and the denial of concessional taxation merely on account of delayed filing of Form 10-IC was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether reimbursement of salary cost of seconded employees received by the assessee from its Indian group company was liable to be treated as fee for technical services.

Analysis: The secondment agreement showed that the seconded employees were released from the foreign entity, integrated with the Indian company for the period of secondment, and worked solely under the Indian company's control, direction and supervision. The Indian company bore the salary cost, had the right to evaluate, discipline and terminate the seconded employees, and the reimbursement was on a cost-to-cost basis without markup. On these facts, the relationship during secondment was that of employer and employee with the Indian company, and the payment represented salary reimbursement rather than consideration for technical services. The Tribunal followed its earlier coordinate bench decisions distinguishing cases where the foreign entity itself rendered technical services through secondees.

Conclusion: The reimbursement could not be treated as fee for technical services and the addition was liable to be deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether the definitions of core auto components and non-core auto components in the Safe Harbour Rules could be used as a guiding reference in comparability analysis despite the assessee not having opted for those rules; (ii) whether the identified comparables in the manufacturing segment, namely helmet manufacturers, a plastic auto-components manufacturer with high related-party transactions, a two-wheeler and commercial vehicle manufacturer, and a railway-locomotive products manufacturer, were functionally comparable to the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the definitions of core auto components and non-core auto components in the Safe Harbour Rules could be used as a guiding reference in comparability analysis despite the assessee not having opted for those rules.

Analysis: The distinction between core and non-core auto components was treated as relevant to FAR analysis. Even though the assessee had not opted for the Safe Harbour regime, the statutory definitions were held to be a permissible guide for understanding product character, pricing dynamics, and functional differences in the automobile component industry. The core versus non-core distinction was found to have direct bearing on comparability under the TNMM framework.

Conclusion: The reference to the Safe Harbour definitions was held to be permissible as a guiding factor, and the assessee's core-auto-component profile was accepted for comparability purposes.

Issue (ii): Whether the identified comparables in the manufacturing segment, namely helmet manufacturers, a plastic auto-components manufacturer with high related-party transactions, a two-wheeler and commercial vehicle manufacturer, and a railway-locomotive products manufacturer, were functionally comparable to the assessee.

Analysis: Companies engaged in helmet manufacture were held to be non-core auto-component businesses and therefore functionally dissimilar. The two-wheeler and commercial vehicle manufacturer was also found dissimilar because its primary business and revenue base differed materially from the assessee's shock-absorber manufacturing. The railway-locomotive products manufacturer was held to be outside the auto-components segment altogether. One comparable manufacturing plastic auto-components for automobiles was not excluded on the core/non-core argument, but was directed to be excluded because it failed the related-party transactions filter. On these findings, the impugned set of comparables was substantially altered.

Conclusion: The challenged comparables were directed to be excluded to the extent found functionally dissimilar or filter-failing, resulting in deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment under the manufacturing segment.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was set aside and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing comparability for auto-component manufacturing, the Safe Harbour definitions of core and non-core components may be used as a guiding reference in FAR analysis, and functionally dissimilar non-core businesses cannot be treated as valid comparables under the TNMM method.

Issues: Whether the impugned directions requiring the Committee of Creditors to reconsider the approval of the appellant's appointment as Resolution Professional in the light of earlier observations, without finally deciding the appellant's rights, called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The directions under challenge did not finally determine the appellant's entitlement to continue as Resolution Professional. They only required the Committee of Creditors to take note of earlier observations made in connected liquidation proceedings and to reconsider the matter on its own merits before a final decision was taken. As the decision on approval of appointment under Section 22 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was still to be made by the Committee of Creditors, the orders were treated as precautionary and interlocutory in nature. Since no conclusive adjudication of rights had been made, the appeals were held not to merit interference at that stage.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were held to be interlocutory and non-final, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order that merely directs reconsideration by the Committee of Creditors and does not conclusively determine the rights of the parties is interlocutory and does not warrant appellate interference.

Issues: (i) Whether the temporary injunction ought to be modified to permit sale of the appellant's existing stock packed in red cartons through third-party distributors, franchisees, or retailers; (ii) Whether the empty cartons bearing the impugned trade dress were liable to be destroyed and restrained from further use.

Issue (i): Whether the temporary injunction ought to be modified to permit sale of the appellant's existing stock packed in red cartons through third-party distributors, franchisees, or retailers.

Analysis: The stock already in the hands of distributors, franchisees, and retailers was no longer in the appellant's custody or control. The Court also noted that there had been no production after the injunction order and that the last invoice and manufacture dates preceded the relevant restraint. On that basis, the existing stock could be marketed if packed in a package that was not red in colour or otherwise similar to the respondent's packaging.

Conclusion: The injunction was modified to permit sale of the existing stock through third parties in the manner indicated, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the empty cartons bearing the impugned trade dress were liable to be destroyed and restrained from further use.

Analysis: The empty cartons were found to carry the disputed trade dress and were capable of continued misuse. To preserve the effect of the temporary restraint, their destruction was directed and their utilisation was prohibited.

Conclusion: The empty cartons were ordered to be destroyed and not used, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The interim injunction was varied only to the limited extent of permitting disposal of the existing third-party stock, while the restraint on the impugned empty cartons continued.

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to bail in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery and conspiracy, where the prosecution material mainly comprised statements of co-accused and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Analysis: The applicants were not named in the FIR, and the prosecution sought to connect them chiefly through statements of co-accused. The Court noted the rival positions on the evidentiary value of such statements at the bail stage, including the distinction between witness statements and statements attributable to an accused. The Court also took note that the charge-sheet had been filed and assessed the nature of the offence, the material collected, the alleged complicity, the severity of punishment, and the overall circumstances bearing on bail.

Conclusion: The applicants were held entitled to bail and their applications were allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the arm's length price of intra-group services could be determined at nil and the transfer pricing adjustment sustained; (ii) whether the disallowance under section 37(1) could survive once the services were accepted as rendered; (iii) whether the assessee was entitled to verification and grant of interest under section 244A.

Issue (i): Whether the arm's length price of intra-group services could be determined at nil and the transfer pricing adjustment sustained.

Analysis: The assessee had produced service agreements, allocation keys, cost workings, emails, presentations and independent audit material to evidence receipt and use of central corporate, global business unit and information technology services. The revenue did not bring cogent material to disprove rendition of services. Once receipt of services was demonstrated, the arm's length price could not be fixed at nil merely on a subjective view of benefit.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment for intra-group services was deleted for both assessment years, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance under section 37(1) could survive once the services were accepted as rendered.

Analysis: The disallowance was consequential to the transfer pricing finding that no services had been availed. As that no longer survived after acceptance of actual receipt of services, the foundation for disallowance under section 37(1) ceased to exist.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 37(1) was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessee was entitled to verification and grant of interest under section 244A.

Analysis: The claim of short grant of refund interest required verification of computation and grant of statutory interest up to the date of actual refund, if any.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the computation and grant interest in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were accepted with deletion of the transfer pricing addition and the related disallowance, while the refund-interest claim was directed to be examined and granted as per law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contemporaneous documentary evidence establishes actual receipt of intra-group services and the revenue fails to rebut that evidence, the arm's length price cannot be substituted at nil on a mere subjective perception of benefit; a consequential disallowance based solely on that rejected premise also cannot stand.

Issues: (i) Whether the seized cash could be retained beyond six months under the first proviso to section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 without a valid, communicated order of extension passed by the competent authority; (ii) whether the post-expiry transfer of the cash to the Income Tax authorities could cure the illegality in retention; (iii) whether exemplary costs were warranted for the manner in which the customs authorities dealt with the seized cash during the pendency of the writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether the seized cash could be retained beyond six months under the first proviso to section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 without a valid, communicated order of extension passed by the competent authority.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits retention beyond six months only if the competent customs authority, for reasons recorded in writing, extends the period before expiry and informs the person from whom the goods were seized. The order-sheet relied upon by the department was found to be merely a signed note without disclosed reasons or demonstrable application of mind, and it had not been communicated to the petitioners before expiry of the six-month period. The Court held that the approval was mechanical and did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of section 110(2).

Conclusion: The extension of time was invalid, and the petitioners became entitled to return of the seized cash on expiry of the statutory period.

Issue (ii): Whether the post-expiry transfer of the cash to the Income Tax authorities could cure the illegality in retention.

Analysis: The cash had already crossed the statutory limit by the time the requisition from the Income Tax authorities was acted upon. The right to return had accrued to the petitioners before any such requisition was received, and the subsequent handing over of the cash could not validate an already unlawful retention. The Court treated the later transfer as incapable of defeating the petitioners' accrued entitlement.

Conclusion: The post-expiry transfer did not cure the illegality, and the petitioners' right to refund remained unaffected.

Issue (iii): Whether exemplary costs were warranted for the manner in which the customs authorities dealt with the seized cash during the pendency of the writ petition.

Analysis: The Court found that the authorities acted in disregard of the pending proceedings and attempted to overreach the judicial process. Although a subsequent affidavit and office order expressed regret and assured future compliance, the Court held that the petitioners had suffered loss due to the unlawful retention and the conduct of the officials warranted deterrent costs, later reduced on the basis of the assurance tendered.

Conclusion: Costs were justified, though the amount was reduced from the initially indicated figure to one lakh rupees.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in substance to the extent that the seizure could not lawfully be retained beyond the statutory period, the later transfer to income tax proceedings did not defeat the accrued right of return, and the authorities were saddled with reduced costs for their conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: Retention of seized goods or cash beyond the statutory period is impermissible unless the competent authority, before expiry, grants a reasoned extension in writing and communicates it to the person concerned; a mechanical or uncommunicated approval does not satisfy the mandate of section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issues: (i) whether the book profit computation under section 115JB could be recomputed by applying the correct figures of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses after ignoring prior book adjustments against capital reserves; (ii) whether the transfer pricing adjustment on intra-group services required fresh examination of the evidence and the arm's length price determination; and (iii) whether unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to assessment years prior to 2002-03 could be carried forward and set off beyond eight years.

Issue (i): whether the book profit computation under section 115JB could be recomputed by applying the correct figures of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses after ignoring prior book adjustments against capital reserves.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether notional book entries made pursuant to capital reduction and restructuring schemes could reduce the quantum of carried-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation for MAT purposes. The issue was examined in the context of section 115JB and the treatment of accumulated losses as reflected in the books of account. The earlier adjustments against share capital and securities premium were treated as not affecting the availability of the relevant loss figures for MAT computation.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the revised loss figures were accepted for MAT computation.

Issue (ii): whether the transfer pricing adjustment on intra-group services required fresh examination of the evidence and the arm's length price determination.

Analysis: The controversy concerned the determination of arm's length price for intra-group services under the transfer pricing provisions, including the approach adopted by the TPO in treating the services as nil valued and the sufficiency of evidence produced by the assessee. The earlier remand in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, together with the principle that necessity of the service and commercial benefit are not decisive tests by themselves, supported reconsideration of the matter on the evidence already filed and the additional evidence placed on record. The adjustment was therefore not sustained on the existing material and required fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the TPO for fresh decision after examining the evidence and additional evidence, with opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to assessment years prior to 2002-03 could be carried forward and set off beyond eight years.

Analysis: The issue was governed by the amended section 32(2), as interpreted by binding precedents which held that unabsorbed depreciation available before the restriction period could be carried forward without being confined by the earlier eight-year limit. Applying that principle, the depreciation in question retained its eligibility for carry forward and set-off in subsequent years.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The cross appeals were disposed of by granting partial relief to the assessee, sustaining one matter in the assessee's favour, sending one transfer pricing issue back for fresh adjudication, and rejecting the Revenue's challenge on unabsorbed depreciation.

Ratio Decidendi: For MAT and depreciation computations, carried-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation must be determined according to the governing statutory scheme and binding precedent, while transfer pricing adjustments cannot be sustained merely by questioning the necessity or benefit of intra-group services without proper examination of the evidence.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was liable to be quashed for want of a proper opportunity of personal hearing before passing the adverse order.

Analysis: The order records that the petitioner was called upon to file replies to the show cause notice on multiple dates, but no separate or effective opportunity of personal hearing was granted before the adverse adjudication. Reliance was placed on the statutory requirement under Section 75(4) that hearing shall be granted where an adverse decision is contemplated, and the Court treated the requirement of personal hearing as a mandatory facet of fair adjudication under taxing statutes. In the absence of a valid hearing, the adjudicating authority could not sustain the order on merits.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was quashed. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment could be sustained by rejecting the assessee's entity-level TNMM and applying internal Cost Plus Method; (ii) whether the adjustment arising from the intimation under section 143(1) on reversal of provisions was sustainable; (iii) whether the short grant of TDS/TCS credit required verification and correction.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment could be sustained by rejecting the assessee's entity-level TNMM and applying internal Cost Plus Method.

Analysis: The assessee had adopted TNMM at entity level and the same approach had been accepted in its own case in earlier years on identical facts. No material change in the functional profile or factual matrix for the year under consideration was shown. The internal Cost Plus Method adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer was not supported by any distinguishing facts, and the approach of disregarding coordinate bench decisions merely because the issue was pending before higher forums was found unsustainable. Judicial discipline required following the consistent view already taken on identical facts.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was deleted and TNMM at entity level was held to be the most appropriate method, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjustment arising from the intimation under section 143(1) on reversal of provisions was sustainable.

Analysis: The disputed provisions had already been disallowed in the year of creation, and their reversal during the year could not again be brought to tax without resulting in double taxation. The assessee also placed a revised tax audit report and auditor's certificate to explain the mismatch, but the factual verification of the earlier disallowance and the reconciliation needed to be examined by the Assessing Officer. The proper course was therefore to restore the matter for limited verification and fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and was allowed for statistical purposes, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the short grant of TDS/TCS credit required verification and correction.

Analysis: Grant of credit for TDS and TCS was verification-based and consequential in nature. The claim required examination of Form 26AS/AIS and supporting evidence, and due credit was to be allowed after verification.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and was allowed for statistical purposes, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the transfer pricing issue and the remaining issues were sent back for verification, resulting in an overall disposal in favour of the assessee on a statistical basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where identical facts in the assessee's own case have been consistently decided in its favour, the Tribunal should follow the settled view in the absence of any material factual change; and an adjustment that would tax the same item twice cannot be sustained without verification of the underlying claim.