Issues: (i) whether the assessee acquired goodwill along with the business and the valuation of such goodwill could be restricted to nil; (ii) whether depreciation on goodwill is allowable as an intangible asset under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the years under consideration.

Issue (i): whether the assessee acquired goodwill along with the business and the valuation of such goodwill could be restricted to nil.

Analysis: The dispute on goodwill valuation was examined in the context of the assessee's own earlier orders and the co-ordinate bench view that the business was acquired along with goodwill, with the valuation accepted as correct. The Tribunal followed the earlier consistent approach and found no basis to disregard the cost of goodwill.

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

Issue (ii): whether depreciation on goodwill is allowable as an intangible asset under the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the years under consideration.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled position that goodwill qualifies as an intangible asset for depreciation purposes under section 32(1)(ii) for the relevant assessment years. It relied on the assessee's own earlier years and on the principle that the later amendment excluding goodwill from depreciation is prospective and does not govern the years in question.

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

Final Conclusion: The grounds relating to goodwill and depreciation thereon succeeded, and the assessee obtained complete relief on the recalled issues.

Ratio Decidendi: For assessment years prior to the prospective amendment, goodwill acquired in the course of business is eligible for depreciation as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the amendment excluding goodwill does not apply retrospectively.

Issues: Whether the assessee could be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and charged interest under section 201(1A), for non-deduction of tax at source on leave fare/travel concession payments during the period when binding interim judicial directions were operating.

Analysis: The dispute on the merits of exemption under section 10(5) had already stood concluded against the assessee by the Supreme Court. The limited controversy was whether the assessee's failure to deduct tax at source could still attract section 201 consequences when, during the relevant period, it was acting under binding interim directions of the High Court that restrained deduction on such payments. The Tribunal followed the coordinate bench decision and the allied High Court authorities holding that the obligation to deduct tax cannot be enforced in a manner inconsistent with binding judicial orders, and that non-deduction in compliance with such directions does not amount to default under section 201(1).

Conclusion: The assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1), and the interest under section 201(1A) also did not survive.

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint disclosed a real cause of action and was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by the benami law; (ii) Whether the claimed fiduciary relationship brought the transaction within the statutory exception to the benami prohibition; (iii) Whether the arrangements reflected in the plaint and supporting documents were illegal and void for defeating the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Indian Contract Act, 1872; (iv) Whether the plaintiff was disentitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased in view of the disqualification against a murderer under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint disclosed a real cause of action and was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by the benami law.

Analysis: A plaint must be read as a whole in a meaningful manner and the Court may look at the plaint along with the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. If the averments, taken at face value, disclose that the real foundation of the claim is a benami arrangement, the Court is not bound by the labels used in the pleading. The statutory bar under the benami law can arise from the substance of the plaint even if the word "benami" is not expressly used. Where the plaint itself reveals that consideration was provided by the plaintiff and the property stood in another's name, the suit falls within the mischief of the prohibition and the bar to enforcement of rights in respect of benami property.

Conclusion: The plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the claimed fiduciary relationship brought the transaction within the statutory exception to the benami prohibition.

Analysis: The exception for property held in a fiduciary capacity is not to be enlarged by mere assertion of trust or confidence. The expression must receive a controlled construction and cannot be extended to every commercial or employment-based arrangement. An employer-employee relationship, without more, does not answer the statutory conception of fiduciary capacity for purposes of the benami law. A contractual arrangement supported by consideration and reciprocal obligations is not transformed into a fiduciary holding merely because one party claims confidence in the other. The recognized statutory exception was therefore unavailable on the pleadings.

Conclusion: The transaction did not fall within the fiduciary exception.

Issue (iii): Whether the arrangements reflected in the plaint and supporting documents were illegal and void for defeating the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Analysis: An agreement whose object is to defeat statutory restrictions is unlawful and void. The pleadings and documents showed an arrangement devised to circumvent land purchase restrictions by using another's name while the plaintiff allegedly supplied the funds, followed by conversion and transfer in his favour. Such an arrangement offends the law and cannot be enforced through civil proceedings. The Court must look to the substance of the transaction and not permit indirect enforcement of what the statute prohibits directly.

Conclusion: The underlying arrangements were illegal and void, and they could not sustain the suit.

Issue (iv): Whether the plaintiff was disentitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased in view of the disqualification against a murderer under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Analysis: The disqualification under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to succession, including testamentary succession, because the statutory bar rests on the principle that no person may profit from his own wrong. Conviction is not a condition precedent for the civil consequence to operate; the Court may examine the matter on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The plaint also suffered from suppression of the material fact that the plaintiff was accused in connection with the murder of the deceased, which by itself weakened the claim for relief.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was disentitled to claim succession to the deceased's estate on the pleaded facts.

Final Conclusion: The statutory bar against benami claims applied, the alleged fiduciary exception was unavailable, the supporting arrangements were void, and the plaintiff could not found a claim to the property or the deceased's estate on the pleaded basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint that, on a meaningful reading of its own averments and relied-upon documents, discloses an unenforceable benami arrangement and no applicable statutory exception is liable to rejection at the threshold; a fiduciary exception cannot be expanded to ordinary commercial or employment relations, and illegality or disqualification apparent from the pleadings defeats the suit.

Issues: Whether interest on the refunded customs duty was payable from three months after the original refund applications were filed, or only from a later date when supporting documents and clarifications were finally furnished.

Analysis: The refund applications had been filed in 2004 and were acknowledged by the Department. The applications were kept pending for years and were not returned within the statutory time in the manner contemplated for a deficient application. Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates payment of interest where refund is not granted within three months from the date of receipt of the application, and the Department could not defer the commencement of interest by treating later clarifications or resubmissions as the effective date of the claim when the original applications had already been received.

Conclusion: Interest was payable from three months after 02.06.2004, the date of filing of the refund applications, and not from 20.12.2017.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in obtaining interest on the refunded amount for the full statutory period commencing three months after the original refund claims were filed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, interest on refund runs from the expiry of three months after receipt of the refund application where the claim is not disposed of within that period, unless the application is duly returned as deficient in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure of gold satisfied the statutory requirement of reasonable belief under Section 110; (ii) whether the presumption under Section 123 was correctly invoked; (iii) whether foreign markings on gold were sufficient to treat the gold as smuggled; (iv) whether confiscation under Section 111 without specifying the relevant clause was valid; (v) whether absolute confiscation of gold was legally justified; (vi) whether confiscation of currency under Section 121 was sustainable; (vii) whether penalty under Section 112 was legally tenable.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure of gold satisfied the statutory requirement of reasonable belief under Section 110.

Analysis: Section 110 requires the proper officer to have objective material forming a reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation before seizure. The record disclosed only a general recital in the panchnama and no separate recorded reasons prior to seizure. The requirement of recording reasons before seizure is mandatory, and absence of such material vitiates the seizure.

Conclusion: The seizure did not satisfy the statutory requirement of reasonable belief and was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the presumption under Section 123 was correctly invoked.

Analysis: The burden under Section 123 can shift only when the initial seizure is valid and based on a lawful reason to believe. Since the seizure itself was held defective, the statutory presumption could not be invoked. In any event, the appellant offered a local-market explanation for possession of the gold.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 123 was not correctly invoked.

Issue (iii): Whether foreign markings on gold were sufficient to treat the gold as smuggled.

Analysis: Foreign markings by themselves do not establish smuggled origin. No investigation linked the gold to any act of smuggling, and no corroborative evidence established illegal import. Mere suspicion cannot replace proof.

Conclusion: Foreign markings alone were insufficient to hold the gold as smuggled.

Issue (iv): Whether confiscation under Section 111 without specifying the relevant clause was valid.

Analysis: The impugned order ordered confiscation under Section 111 without identifying the specific clause attracted by the facts. A confiscation order must put the noticee on clear notice of the exact statutory basis of liability, and failure to specify the relevant clause is a serious defect.

Conclusion: Confiscation under Section 111 without specifying the applicable clause was invalid.

Issue (v): Whether absolute confiscation of gold was legally justified.

Analysis: Gold is not treated as a prohibited item in ordinary cases, and redemption under Section 125 is ordinarily required unless exceptional circumstances exist. No such exceptional circumstances were shown. Therefore, absolute confiscation was disproportionate and contrary to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Absolute confiscation of gold was not legally justified.

Issue (vi): Whether confiscation of currency under Section 121 was sustainable.

Analysis: Confiscation under Section 121 requires proof that the currency represents sale proceeds of smuggled goods. No nexus was established between the seized cash and any proved smuggled gold, and the Department failed to prove the essential ingredients of the provision.

Conclusion: Confiscation of currency under Section 121 was not sustainable.

Issue (vii): Whether penalty under Section 112 was legally tenable.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 112 requires clear statutory foundation and supporting findings. The order did not specify the applicable clause or establish conscious involvement in smuggling, and the retracted statement was unsupported by independent corroboration.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112 was not legally tenable.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were set aside because the seizure was vitiated, the statutory presumptions and confiscatory provisions were not properly established, and the evidence did not prove smuggling or a nexus between the currency and any contraband activity.

Ratio Decidendi: Seizure and confiscation under the Customs Act require recorded objective reasons, proved statutory ingredients, and corroborated evidence; foreign markings or an uncorroborated retracted statement cannot by themselves sustain confiscation, currency forfeiture, or penalty.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from service tax as a governmental authority carrying out activities in relation to functions entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution, and whether the demand was therefore unsustainable.

Analysis: The appellant was established by the Government of Kerala for training in the field of local governance, with more than 90% governmental control and financial support. Under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, as expanded by Notification No. 2/2014-ST dated 30.01.2014, a body established by Government with requisite control, carrying out functions entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W, qualifies as a governmental authority eligible for exemption. The appellant's training activities fell within that description, and the demand could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the exemption and the service tax demand was unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether, after remand, the adjudicating authority complied with the Tribunal's direction by verifying only the lorry receipts in the name of the appellant and permitting inspection of the originals; (ii) whether clandestine manufacture and removal of Gutka could be sustained merely on the basis of receipts of one raw material and a theoretical consumption formula; and (iii) whether the penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether, after remand, the adjudicating authority complied with the Tribunal's direction by verifying only the lorry receipts in the name of the appellant and permitting inspection of the originals.

Analysis: The remand was confined to adjudication of the lorry receipts standing in the appellant's name. The adjudicating authority was required to verify those receipts and determine the duty, but instead relied on re-quantification by the investigating agency. The request for inspection of the originals could not be rejected on the ground of delay, particularly when only photocopies had been supplied as relied upon documents and the receipts were not recovered from the appellant's premises.

Conclusion: The remand directions were not properly implemented, and the refusal to permit inspection of the original lorry receipts was unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether clandestine manufacture and removal of Gutka could be sustained merely on the basis of receipts of one raw material and a theoretical consumption formula.

Analysis: Clandestine manufacture and removal require positive and corroborative evidence. Receipt of one raw material, without evidence of the required quantities of other essential raw materials and without proper evidentiary verification, does not conclusively prove manufacture and clearance of the finished product. A mathematical or hypothetical formula based only on one input could not substitute for proof of clandestine activity.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine manufacture and the resulting duty demand were unsustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable.

Analysis: Penalty under section 11AC depends on a sustainable duty demand for short levy or non-levy. Once the duty demand failed, the penalty could not survive. Rule 26 penalty also could not be sustained because the goods were not held liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: Both penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the connected appeals succeeded, with all duty and penalty demands falling.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine manufacture and removal in excise matters must be proved by positive corroborative evidence, and a demand cannot rest solely on receipt of a single raw material or on a theoretical consumption formula; penalties based on such an unsustainable demand cannot survive.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against a customs house agent when the record did not show knowledge of concealment of undeclared goods and no proceedings had been initiated under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.

Analysis: The appellant's role was recorded as limited to assistance in preparation of documents and the bill of entry was filed on self basis by the importer. No corroborative material was brought on record to show that the appellant had prior knowledge of the concealment of memory cards in the imported consignment. The Tribunal also noted that proceedings had not been initiated against the appellant under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, and relied on the view that penalty under Section 112(a) is not sustainable against a customs broker in the absence of such proceedings and supporting evidence of conscious involvement.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable against the appellant and was set aside. The appeal was allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether a separate penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed on a partner when the partnership firm had already been penalized; (ii) whether the penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable in full or liable to reduction.

Issue (i): Whether a separate penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed on a partner when the partnership firm had already been penalized.

Analysis: The settled legal position applied was that a partnership firm is not a separate legal entity distinct from its partners for the purpose of penalty, and once the firm has been penalized for the relevant contravention, a separate penalty on the partner for the same conduct is not warranted. The decision relied on the principle that the statutory scheme does not treat the firm and partner as distinct entities for such penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(a) was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable in full or liable to reduction.

Analysis: The appellant's own admission linked him to the import arrangement and the concealment of the goods, which furnished sufficient basis for penalty. However, the adjudged amount was found excessive in relation to the appellant's admitted gain and the circumstances of the case, making reduction appropriate on proportionality grounds.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 114AA was upheld in principle but reduced to Rs. 2 lakh in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of deleting the penalty under Section 112(a) and reducing the penalty under Section 114AA, resulting in partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a partnership firm has already been penalized for a contravention, a separate penalty on the partner for the same misconduct is impermissible, and a penalty otherwise sustainable may be reduced if it is disproportionate to the proven role and benefit involved.

Issues: Whether car hire services provided to a unit in a Special Economic Zone are liable to service tax.

Analysis: Section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act provides a service tax exemption for taxable services supplied to a developer or unit for authorised operations. Section 51 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws. The adopted reasoning treated the location where services are rendered as immaterial to the exemption and did not require a separate notification under the Finance Act.

Conclusion: The car hire services supplied to the Special Economic Zone unit are exempt from service tax. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Taxable services provided to a Special Economic Zone developer or unit for authorised operations qualify for the statutory service tax exemption irrespective of where the services are rendered.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST penalty order should be entertained without exhaustion of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: A statutory appeal against the adjudication order is available before the Appellate Authority. No basis was found to bypass that remedy in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained; the petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal, with the period spent before the High Court excluded for limitation purposes.

Issues: (i) whether the transfer pricing adjustment made in the context of section 80-IA(10) could be sustained without establishing close connection, an arranged course of business and ordinary profits; (ii) whether the exclusion and inclusion of comparables, including Neysa Jewellery Ltd., Goldiam Jewellery Ltd. and Inter Gold (India) Pvt. Ltd., was justified; and (iii) whether the adjustment had to be given effect only while recomputing deduction under section 10AA rather than as an addition to total income.

Issue (i): whether the transfer pricing adjustment made in the context of section 80-IA(10) could be sustained without establishing close connection, an arranged course of business and ordinary profits.

Analysis: Section 80-IA(10) is an anti-abuse provision and its application requires foundational facts to be proved on objective material. The adjustment could not rest merely on the existence of transactions or on a comparison of margins. The record did not show reliable material to demonstrate that the course of business with the concerned overseas entities was so arranged as to yield more than ordinary profits or to establish what the ordinary profits in such business would be. The surrounding facts, including consistency of results across years, also supported the assessee.

Conclusion: The adjustment under section 80-IA(10) was unsustainable and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the exclusion and inclusion of comparables, including Neysa Jewellery Ltd., Goldiam Jewellery Ltd. and Inter Gold (India) Pvt. Ltd., was justified.

Analysis: Neysa Jewellery Ltd. was shown to be under abnormal financial stress, with defaults, settlement with bankers and adverse audit qualifications, and therefore did not reflect normal business conditions. Goldiam Jewellery Ltd. satisfied the export filter and no cogent basis for exclusion was established. Inter Gold (India) Pvt. Ltd., however, had significant related party transactions, and the related party filter was treated as a necessary comparability safeguard; the request to dilute that filter was declined. Laxmi Dia Jewels Pvt. Ltd. had already been rejected by the assessee itself and required no further adjudication.

Conclusion: Neysa Jewellery Ltd. was directed to be excluded, Goldiam Jewellery Ltd. was directed to be included, and the exclusion of Inter Gold (India) Pvt. Ltd. was upheld.

Issue (iii): whether the adjustment had to be given effect only while recomputing deduction under section 10AA rather than as an addition to total income.

Analysis: Any adjustment to the eligible profits of the SEZ undertaking had a direct bearing on the quantum of deduction under section 10AA. The assessment had therefore to be aligned with recomputation of the deduction in accordance with the transfer pricing result, rather than treated as a standalone addition without such linkage.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute deduction under section 10AA in accordance with law, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the core challenge to the transfer pricing adjustment and on the consequential treatment of deduction under section 10AA, while the comparability analysis was accepted only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjustment under section 80-IA(10) requires proof of close connection, a rearranged course of business, and excess profits on objective material; comparables affected by abnormal financial conditions are unreliable, while related party transactions remain a valid comparability concern.

Issues: Whether GST registration could be retrospectively cancelled without a show-cause notice disclosing the proposed retrospective action.

Analysis: Section 29(2) permits retrospective cancellation only upon fulfilment of specified contingencies. The proposed action and its grounds, including the basis for giving cancellation retrospective effect, must be disclosed to the registered person through notice so as to afford an effective opportunity to respond. An order cancelling registration retrospectively must also record reasons supporting such effect.

Conclusion: Retrospective cancellation of GST registration without prior notice of the proposed retrospective action is illegal and violates principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether cash deposits made during the demonetisation period could be sustained as unexplained cash credits when claimed to represent cash sales recorded in the books and included in disclosed turnover, without verification of the supporting material.

Analysis: The e-proceeding material prima facie showed that tax-audit records and bank statements had been uploaded, while the assessment was made substantially on alleged non-compliance. The books of account, bank statements, cash-sales details and the linkage between the deposits and disclosed turnover had not been verified. Where sales are duly recorded and the corresponding receipts form part of turnover offered to tax, the same amount cannot again be assessed as unexplained cash credit, since that would result in double taxation. The factual correctness of the claimed linkage nevertheless required verification.

Conclusion: The addition requires fresh adjudication after verification of the books, bank records, cash sales and supporting evidence, with adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a property acquired before the scheduled offence may be attached as property of equivalent value when the proceeds of crime are unavailable; (ii) Whether disclosure of the source of funds for an asset defeats attachment as property of equivalent value; (iii) Whether attachment of a jointly held property impermissibly reaches the non-accused spouse's share.

Issue (i): Whether a property acquired before the scheduled offence may be attached as property of equivalent value when the proceeds of crime are unavailable.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 encompasses not only property derived or obtained from criminal activity, but also the value of such property. The expression concerning the value of such property permits attachment of an untainted asset of equivalent value where the actual proceeds have been siphoned off, vanished, or cannot be traced. This alternative category is not confined to assets acquired after the offence.

Conclusion: A pre-offence property may be attached as property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are unavailable. The issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether disclosure of the source of funds for an asset defeats attachment as property of equivalent value.

Analysis: Proof of a legitimate source is relevant where an asset is alleged to be directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity. It does not displace attachment where the asset is proceeded against solely as an equivalent-value asset in substitution for untraceable proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: Disclosure of the source of purchase does not defeat an attachment made for equivalent value. The issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether attachment of a jointly held property impermissibly reaches the non-accused spouse's share.

Analysis: The attachment was restricted to the quantified value of proceeds attributable to the appellant and was materially below the current value of the jointly held property. It therefore did not extend to the spouse's half share.

Conclusion: The restricted attachment does not encroach upon the non-accused spouse's share. The issue is decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed attachment validly operates as an equivalent-value measure limited to the quantified proceeds attributable to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where actual proceeds of crime are unavailable, Section 2(1)(u) permits attachment of any asset of equivalent value held by the accused, including an asset acquired before the scheduled offence, subject to the limit of the illicit gain.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment made on alleged brand-building and advertisement and sales promotion expenditure was sustainable in the absence of a demonstrable international transaction with the associated enterprise; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to set off brought-forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation after deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment made on alleged brand-building and advertisement and sales promotion expenditure was sustainable in the absence of a demonstrable international transaction with the associated enterprise.

Analysis: The expenditure was incurred in India for the assessee's own business through payments to unrelated third parties. No agreement, arrangement, or understanding with the foreign associated enterprise was shown to exist in relation to such expenditure. The governing principle applied was that Chapter X can operate only where an international transaction exists and its price can be benchmarked; a presumed or assumed transaction cannot be created merely because the expenditure may incidentally benefit the foreign brand owner. The decision also follows the settled view that transfer pricing provisions permit substitution of the price of an existing transaction with arm's length price, not a quantitative adjustment based on perceived excess spend.

Conclusion: The adjustment on advertisement and sales promotion expenditure was not sustainable and was deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to set off brought-forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation after deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment.

Analysis: Once the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted, the assessed income was required to be recomputed in accordance with law, and the assessee's claim for carry-forward set off of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation had to be examined on that basis.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to the set off, subject to computation in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the core transfer pricing dispute and the consequential recomputation issue, resulting in relief to the assessee on the substantive additions.

Ratio Decidendi: An arm's length price adjustment under Chapter X can be made only where the Revenue first establishes a real international transaction with an ascertainable price; an assumed or inferred AMP transaction based merely on incidental benefit to the foreign associated enterprise is insufficient.

Issues: Whether the bank could refuse to issue the sale certificate and deliver physical possession of the secured asset to the successful auction-purchaser merely because a securitisation application was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and an interim order stated that the auction would be subject to its final outcome.

Analysis: The sale had been confirmed and the auction-purchaser had deposited the entire consideration. In such a situation, the purchaser acquired a vested right to obtain the sale certificate, and the bank was duty-bound to complete the sale and deliver possession in the absence of any stay order restraining it from doing so. The pendency of proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, by itself, did not justify withholding the certificate or possession. The statutory scheme under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, as explained in the cited Supreme Court decision, requires the bank to act in accordance with the confirmed sale and the mandatory consequences flowing from it.

Conclusion: The objection based on pendency of the securitisation application was rejected. The bank was bound to issue the sale certificate and take steps to deliver physical possession to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the petitioner obtained a direction for issuance of the sale certificate and delivery of physical possession, while the relief remained subject to the final outcome of the pending securitisation application.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an auction sale is confirmed and the full sale price is paid, the secured creditor cannot withhold the sale certificate or possession merely because related proceedings are pending, unless there is a competent stay order preventing such action.

Issues: Whether a writ court should interfere with a direction to execute an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 when proceedings under Section 17 of the Act are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal but no interim stay has been granted.

Analysis: The order under Section 14 had not been stayed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The authorities acting under Section 14 perform a ministerial function and are bound to assist in taking possession of the secured asset. In the absence of interim protection from the Tribunal, pendency of the securitisation application does not by itself justify restraining execution of the Section 14 order.

Conclusion: The direction to execute the Section 14 order was held to be legal and no jurisdictional error or perversity was found warranting interference. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Pending proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 do not bar execution of an order under Section 14 of the Act unless the competent Tribunal has granted interim stay, because the authority under Section 14 performs a ministerial and non-adjudicatory function.

Issues: (i) Whether compulsorily convertible debentures could be re-characterised as equity for transfer pricing purposes so as to treat the arm's length interest as nil. (ii) Whether notional interest on delayed trade receivables from associated enterprises could be computed, and if so, whether a 90-day credit period should be allowed.

Issue (i): Whether compulsorily convertible debentures could be re-characterised as equity for transfer pricing purposes so as to treat the arm's length interest as nil.

Analysis: The CCDs remained shown as borrowings in the assessee's financials and interest had in fact been paid on them. The re-characterisation adopted by the transfer pricing authorities was found to be unsupported, with the instrument continuing to be debt until conversion. The reliance on FDI policy to treat the CCDs as equity was held to be inapposite for transfer pricing valuation.

Conclusion: The re-characterisation of the CCDs as equity was rejected and the nil arm's length interest determination was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether notional interest on delayed trade receivables from associated enterprises could be computed, and if so, whether a 90-day credit period should be allowed.

Analysis: The receivables adjustment required fresh examination on the facts, including the assessee's credit pattern and the appropriate credit period. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's alternate plea for a 90-day credit period and directed recomputation of the adjustment accordingly.

Conclusion: The upward adjustment on receivables was restored for recomputation after allowing a 90-day credit period.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the CCD adjustment was deleted in principle, while the receivables adjustment was sent back for fresh computation, resulting in a remand for statistical purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: A CCD cannot be re-characterised as equity for transfer pricing merely because it is compulsorily convertible, and notional interest on receivables must be determined on a fact-specific basis with a reasonable credit period.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Order-in-Appeal was maintainable when an appeal lay to the Appellate Tribunal under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the limitation for filing such appeal had not expired.

Analysis: The Order-in-Appeal was appealable under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Appellate Tribunal had started functioning at Guwahati, and by virtue of Notification No. S.O. 4220[E] dated 17.09.2025, an appeal in the relevant class of cases could be filed up to 30.06.2026. The grounds urged in the writ petition were held to be available in the statutory appeal.

Outcome: The writ petition was not entertained and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on or before 30.06.2026.