Issues: Whether Cenvat credit of Rs. 70.67 lakhs was admissible when the amount paid by the appellant under the Settlement Commission order was claimed to represent countervailing duty on imports made under Notification No. 79/95-Cus.

Analysis: The amount in dispute arose from imports covered by advance licences and was examined in the light of the Settlement Commission's final order under Section 127C(7) of the Customs Act, 1962. The record showed that, for imports under Notification No. 30/97-Cus, both basic customs duty and CVD were exempt, whereas under Notification No. 79/95-Cus only basic customs duty was exempt. On the facts recorded by the lower authority and accepted by the Tribunal, the Settlement Commission's computation did not reflect any CVD component as having been assessed or paid for the 23 advance licences covered by Notification No. 79/95-Cus. The amount of Rs. 70.67 lakhs was therefore not shown to be payment of CVD, and credit could not be allowed merely because it formed part of the overall settlement payment.

Conclusion: The claim for Cenvat credit of Rs. 70.67 lakhs was not admissible and the denial of credit was upheld, in favour of Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit is allowable only to the extent the disputed sum is shown to be duty actually payable and paid; where the settlement record does not establish that the amount represents CVD, credit cannot be claimed on that payment.

Issues: Whether the penalties imposed under sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, called for interference on merits and whether the quantum of penalty required reduction on proportionality grounds.

Analysis: The appellant admitted participation in arranging third-party shipping bills to project fulfilment of EPCG export obligations, and the relevant EPCG licences were later cancelled, supporting the finding of fraud. On these facts, the act of the appellant rendered the goods liable to confiscation and attracted section 112(a), while knowingly using false or incorrect shipping documents attracted section 114AA. However, in fixing the amount of penalty, the extent of the appellant's role and the penalty already imposed on the main noticee before the Settlement Commission were relevant circumstances. The penalty was therefore examined on the touchstone of proportionality.

Conclusion: The finding of liability under sections 112(a) and 114AA was upheld, but the penalties were reduced to Rs. 50,000 each, resulting in an aggregate penalty of Rs. 1,00,000.

Ratio Decidendi: Where liability under the Customs Act is established, the quantum of penalty may still be moderated to maintain proportionality having regard to the nature of participation and comparative culpability.

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value of the imported computer cabinet systems could be rejected and the assessable value re-determined on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's report and contemporaneous imports; (ii) whether the goods could be treated as incomplete or prohibited computer systems so as to sustain confiscation and penalties.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported computer cabinet systems could be rejected and the assessable value re-determined on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's report and contemporaneous imports.

Analysis: The declared values were sought to be displaced solely on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's estimate of USD 25 per piece. The recorded findings did not disclose supporting material showing imports of comparable goods at the adopted value, nor any evidence of extra consideration having been paid over and above the invoice price. The report was found to be lacking in supporting evidence and, by itself, insufficient to justify rejection of the declared value.

Conclusion: The re-determination of assessable value was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods could be treated as incomplete or prohibited computer systems so as to sustain confiscation and penalties.

Analysis: The goods were treated by the authorities as barebone or incomplete systems, but no adequate technical basis was recorded to show that cabinet cases with motherboard and fan, without CPU, had acquired the essential character of a computer system. The Tribunal held that the use of the terms computer cabinet cases and barebone systems interchangeably was insufficient, and that in the absence of technical opinion on record the importer's declaration could not be brushed aside. As the classification premise failed, the consequential confiscation and penalty orders also could not stand.

Conclusion: The finding of incomplete or prohibited goods was not sustained and the confiscation and penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned orders could not be sustained on either valuation or classification, with consequential relief following in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared import value cannot be rejected and enhanced in the absence of supporting evidence of undervaluation or contemporaneous comparable imports, and confiscation on the theory of incomplete or prohibited goods cannot be upheld without a sound technical basis establishing the goods' essential character.

Issues: Whether the request for amendment of the Bill of Entry could be treated as a request under the Customs Act to enable reassessment on the basis of existing documentary evidence and, if so, whether consequential refund could follow.

Analysis: The claim arose from a self-assessed import where the importer later sought correction of the Bill of Entry to extend the benefit of an available exemption notification. The earlier refusal to reassess was founded on a strict view that refund could not be entertained without prior appeal against the assessment. The governing approach accepted by the Court was that, in the self-assessment framework, the statutory machinery for alteration of the assessment is not confined to appeal alone and may be worked through the amendment provision, provided the evidence existed at the time of clearance. The Court also noted the binding effect of the jurisdictional High Court's view and held that a hyper-technical refusal would defeat the corrective mechanism intended by the statute.

Conclusion: The request dated 23.09.2013 was to be treated as an application for amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, to be processed on the basis of contemporaneous documents, followed by re-assessment and any consequential refund in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a self-assessment regime, a request supported by contemporaneous material may be processed under the statutory amendment machinery to permit correction of assessment and consequential refund, and the presence of an unchallenged original assessment does not by itself bar such relief.

Issues: (i) Whether the leasehold lands held by subsidiary companies could be treated as the assets of the corporate debtor in the insolvency process and dealt with under the resolution plans without the lessor's prior consent; (ii) Whether the lessor authority was entitled to levy penal interest, penal charges and time-extension penalties, and whether the resolution plans could be implemented only after recalculation of dues and restoration of the plans; (iii) Whether the corporate veil ought to be lifted on the facts to treat the group companies as one economic entity for the purpose of the resolution process.

Issue (i): Whether the leasehold lands held by subsidiary companies could be treated as the assets of the corporate debtor in the insolvency process and dealt with under the resolution plans without the lessor's prior consent.

Analysis: The subsidiary companies were separate legal entities, but the Court found that the factual matrix showed that the corporate debtor was the real driving force behind the projects. The lease deeds, the consortium arrangement, the role of the special purpose company, the development agreements and the conduct of the parties showed that the projects were being executed by the corporate debtor, while the subsidiaries were only holding companies in form. The relevant statutory scheme under the insolvency law did not justify allowing the resolution plans to transfer the lessor's land contrary to the lease conditions, but the Court held that the narrow corporate structure could not defeat the substance of the transaction where the group entities functioned as one concern.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of treating the projects as part of the corporate debtor's insolvency resolution on the facts of the case, subject to the lessor's dues being protected and the land not being sold free of the lessor's rights.

Issue (ii): Whether the lessor authority was entitled to levy penal interest, penal charges and time-extension penalties, and whether the resolution plans could be implemented only after recalculation of dues and restoration of the plans.

Analysis: The Court held that the lessor had remained inactive for long periods despite repeated defaults and repeated knowledge of the stalled projects. It had not monitored the development with due diligence, had not promptly pursued recovery, and had contributed materially to the unresolved state of the projects. For that reason, the Court agreed that penal interest, penal charges and time-extension penalties could not be insisted upon at this stage. At the same time, the principal dues of the lessor remained recoverable. The Court also balanced the interests of homebuyers and the successful resolution applicants by restoring the resolution plans and directing payment of the recalculated principal dues over a fixed period without burdening the buyers.

Conclusion: The lessor's claim to penal interest, penal charges and time-extension penalties was rejected, but its principal dues were directed to be recalculated and paid under the restored resolution plans.

Issue (iii): Whether the corporate veil ought to be lifted on the facts to treat the group companies as one economic entity for the purpose of the resolution process.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that the corporate veil may be lifted where associated companies are inextricably connected and the corporate form is being used in a manner that defeats the real substance of the arrangement. The record showed common control, majority ownership, common management features, and actual execution of the projects by the corporate debtor. In that setting, the subsidiaries could not be treated as entirely independent for the limited purpose of the insolvency resolution. The Court therefore disagreed with the view that the group structure prevented the resolution process from encompassing the project lands and related development rights.

Conclusion: The corporate veil was held liable to be lifted on the facts, and the group companies were treated as part of one economic concern for the limited purpose of the resolution process.

Final Conclusion: The resolution plans were restored, the lessor's principal dues were preserved but penal components were disallowed, and the appeals were disposed of by granting substantive relief to the successful resolution applicants while protecting the lessor's recoverable principal claims and the interests of the allottees.

Ratio Decidendi: Where group companies are in substance one economic concern and the corporate structure is used to control and execute the same projects, the corporate veil may be lifted in insolvency proceedings to give effect to a workable resolution, while protecting the rights of the lessor to recover lawful principal dues but not penal levies arising from prolonged inaction.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of with a direction to decide the rectification application within eight weeks.

Issues: Whether additional profits could be attributed to a dependent agent permanent establishment where the dependent agent had received arm's length remuneration for its functions, assets and risks.

Analysis: The assessment enhancement was founded exclusively on a revision order under section 263 that had already been quashed. The dependent agent's cost-plus remuneration had been accepted as arm's length, with no transfer-pricing adjustment or finding that relevant functions or risks had not been priced. Under the applicable principle for a dependent agent permanent establishment, arm's length remuneration that captures all functions, assets and risks exhausts the profits attributable in India; further attribution is permissible only where the arm's length analysis is deficient. The assessee's voluntarily offered profit under the dual taxpayer approach remained chargeable.

Conclusion: No further profit could be attributed to the dependent agent permanent establishment beyond the arm's length remuneration, and the enhanced attribution was unsustainable. The 24% attribution voluntarily offered by the assessee was to be accepted.

Issues: (i) determination of the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981 for computing long-term capital gains; (ii) whether capital gains on one parcel of land were taxable in A.Y. 2013-14 or in the earlier assessment year based on the date of transfer; (iii) whether the claim for exemption under Section 54F could be entertained and required fresh examination.

Issue (i): determination of the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981 for computing long-term capital gains.

Analysis: The valuation adopted by the revenue authorities showed a material inconsistency, with the District Valuation Officer determining markedly different figures at different stages. The comparable sale instances relied upon in the valuation exercise themselves reflected a higher range than the final figure accepted by the appellate authority. In the absence of reconciliation of that inconsistency, and considering the location and characteristics of the property, the accepted valuation could not be sustained as such. At the same time, the assessee's claimed value was also found to require moderation for want of complete supporting material. On a balanced appraisal of the comparable instances and surrounding circumstances, an estimated fair market value was fixed.

Conclusion: The fair market value as on 01.04.1981 was fixed at Rs. 350 per sq. ft.; this issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether capital gains on one parcel of land were taxable in A.Y. 2013-14 or in the earlier assessment year based on the date of transfer.

Analysis: The document executed on 31.12.2011 was treated only as an agreement, whereas registration took place on 30.04.2012. No material was produced to establish handing over of possession in part performance or satisfaction of the conditions necessary to attract the statutory concept of transfer prior to registration. In that evidentiary background, the registered conveyance date governed the year of taxability.

Conclusion: The capital gains were taxable in A.Y. 2013-14; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the claim for exemption under Section 54F could be entertained and required fresh examination.

Analysis: The appellate forum accepted the legal position that an additional claim can be entertained at the appellate stage even if not allowed in the original assessment, subject to verification of the foundational facts. Since the factual requirements for the Section 54F claim had not been examined by the Assessing Officer, adjudication on merits was not possible at that stage.

Conclusion: The claim under Section 54F was permitted to be examined and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification in accordance with law; this issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The valuation dispute was partly resolved by substituting a higher historical cost base, the challenge to the year of taxability failed, and the exemption claim was reopened for factual verification by remand.

Issues: Whether the requisition for opening the Look Out Circular and the consequential Look Out Circular issued at the instance of the bank were sustainable in the absence of a cognizable offence or any criminal proceeding against the petitioner, and whether the restrictive action could be justified merely as a recovery measure in a loan default case.

Analysis: The request for issuance of the Look Out Circular was founded on the petitioner's association with the borrower company, its defaulted loan account, and the pending recovery proceedings. The materials showed that the bank had already resorted to recovery mechanisms under the SARFAESI regime and before the DRT, while no charge-sheet had been filed against the petitioner in the criminal case and no fresh material was shown to bring the case within the exceptional grounds for restriction under the LOC guidelines. The Court found that the requisition did not disclose any legally sustainable ground fitting the governing criteria for issuance of an LOC and that the continuation of the LOC operated as a coercive device for debt recovery.

Conclusion: The requisition dated 30.03.2024 for issuance of the Look Out Circular was held unsustainable in law and was set aside, along with the consequential Look Out Circular.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, subject to undertakings and conditions imposed on the petitioner for cooperation with the bank in resolving the outstanding liabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: A Look Out Circular cannot be sustained merely to secure recovery of a civil debt where no cognizable offence or other legally recognized exceptional ground is shown and the bank has already pursued ordinary recovery remedies.

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained despite DSIR certification; (ii) whether the disallowance of expenditure relating to transactions with MRF SG under sections 40A(2)(b) and 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified; (iii) whether the disallowance of the provision for litigation and related disputes required fresh verification; (iv) whether the short credit of TDS and the ad hoc Chapter VI-A disallowance required verification; (v) whether interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was chargeable; and (vi) whether the penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with sections 271(1)(c) and 271AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were premature.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained despite DSIR certification.

Analysis: The deduction claimed for the in-house R&D unit was supported by Form 3CL issued by the DSIR. The survey statements relied upon by the Assessing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel could not override the statutory role of the prescribed authority. The Tribunal followed the co-ordinate bench decisions in the assessee's own cases and held that the tax authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction in rejecting the DSIR-quantified claim merely on the basis of survey material.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 35(2AB) was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of expenditure relating to transactions with MRF SG under sections 40A(2)(b) and 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified.

Analysis: The transfer pricing adjustment in relation to the same transactions had already been examined. The further corporate-tax disallowance was held to amount to an impermissible second-level disallowance on the same expenditure. The allegation that the arrangement was sham was not supported by cogent material.

Conclusion: The disallowance under sections 40A(2)(b) and 37 was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance of the provision for litigation and related disputes required fresh verification.

Analysis: The assessee had produced sample invoices and had asserted that part of the liability had crystallised and part had been reversed or discharged in a later year. The record, however, was incomplete on the year-wise break-up and supporting evidence for the entire claim, so the matter required verification by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

Issue (iv): Whether the short credit of TDS and the ad hoc Chapter VI-A disallowance required verification.

Analysis: The assessee's claim for full TDS credit and the grievance regarding the Chapter VI-A disallowance were treated as matters needing verification from the assessment record.

Conclusion: Relief on these matters was directed to be considered by the Assessing Officer on verification.

Issue (v): Whether interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was chargeable.

Analysis: The levy of interest was treated as consequential to the reassessment outcome and did not call for an independent substantive adjudication on the facts recorded.

Conclusion: The levy of interest was sustained as consequential.

Issue (vi): Whether the penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with sections 271(1)(c) and 271AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were premature.

Analysis: The penalty matter was only at the stage of initiation and had not culminated in a final penalty determination.

Conclusion: The penalty issue was held to be premature.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed only to the extent of deleting the major disallowances under section 35(2AB) and sections 40A(2)(b) and 37, while other grievances were either remitted for verification or treated as consequential or premature.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a deduction is quantified and certified by the prescribed statutory authority, the tax authorities cannot disregard that certification and substitute their own view merely on the basis of survey statements; and where the same expenditure has already been examined under transfer pricing, a second disallowance on the same amount under general deduction provisions is impermissible.

Issues: Whether working capital adjustment was to be allowed in the freight forwarding segment; whether the exclusion or inclusion of selected comparables in the freight forwarding segment was justified on the facts found; whether the arm's length price of corporate overhead charges paid to the overseas associated enterprise could be taken at nil without proper benchmarking; and whether notional interest on outstanding trade receivables from associated enterprises could be separately imputed.

Issue: Working capital adjustment in transfer pricing comparability analysis for the freight forwarding segment.

Analysis: The assessee demonstrated a material difference in working capital position vis-a -vis the selected comparables, and the earlier co-ordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case had already treated such differences as relevant for comparability. The authorities were found to have erred in rejecting the adjustment despite the effect of working capital on operating margins under the transfer pricing comparability framework.

Conclusion: The working capital adjustment was directed to be granted in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Inclusion of AP Logistics and Dimension Logistics as comparables.

Analysis: Exclusion of a comparable merely because related party transaction disclosure was not expressly reflected in the financial statements was held to be unsustainable where the company was otherwise functionally comparable and no material showed significant related party influence. The filter could not be applied on presumption or conjecture.

Conclusion: The two companies were directed to be included as comparables in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Determination of arm's length price of corporate overhead charges at nil.

Analysis: The record showed some receipt of services and some supporting evidence, and the assessee's lean structure indicated a need for support services. However, the material placed before the authorities was not sufficient to establish the exact nature and manner of receipt and payment. The matter therefore required fresh examination with proper substantiation rather than a final nil valuation without full benchmarking.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh consideration, resulting in no final deletion at this stage.

Issue: Separate transfer pricing adjustment on account of notional interest on trade receivables.

Analysis: The assessee was found to be debt free, with no interest expenditure debited in the profit and loss account and no interest charged on delayed payables or receivables. In such circumstances, the separate imputation of interest on trade receivables was held to be unsustainable following the cited coordinate bench view.

Conclusion: The adjustment for notional interest on trade receivables was directed to be deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The substantive transfer pricing disputes were substantially decided in favour of the assessee, with one issue remanded for fresh verification and the remaining contested adjustments granted relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Differences in working capital that materially affect margins must be factored into transfer pricing comparability analysis; a comparable cannot be rejected on mere absence of express related party disclosure; and notional interest on receivables is not separately imputable where the assessee is debt free and no interest expenditure is otherwise shown.

Issues: Whether the ex parte appellate order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustainable and whether the matter required restoration for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Analysis: The appellate order was passed after only one notice and without considering the assessee's reply, resulting in breach of the principles of natural justice. The order was also found to be inconsistent with the CBDT notification governing allocation of appeals arising from transfer pricing orders, under which the designated appellate authority was the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi-44, rather than NFAC, Delhi. In these circumstances, and in view of the parties' agreement that fresh adjudication was appropriate, the impugned appellate order was set aside and the matter was restored for de novo consideration after granting proper opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The ex parte appellate order was not sustained and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the applicant, facing proceedings arising from a cheque dishonour complaint, should be granted an opportunity to seek compounding through compromise and protection from coercive steps for a limited period.

Analysis: The application was disposed of with directions permitting the accused to appear before the trial court within one month, move an application for compounding on deposit of 10% of the cheque amount, and seek further opportunity for a limited period. The court below was directed to proceed in accordance with law and to decide the matter keeping in view the law governing compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, while no coercive measures were to be taken during the stipulated period or until the application was decided, whichever was earlier.

Outcome: Interim protection and time to pursue compromise were granted, and the application was disposed of.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal, and the Appellate Authority was directed to consider any delay condonation application in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the first appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred could be sustained when service of the original order was not duly established. (ii) Whether the service tax demand, penalties and interest could be sustained when the demand was raised on the basis of wrong address and without proper verification of the appellant's service tax records and jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the first appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred could be sustained when service of the original order was not duly established.

Analysis: The record showed a mismatch between the address used in the order-in-original and the postal particulars relied upon by the department. The dispatch and delivery of the order were not proved, and the assumption of service was drawn only because no response was received from the jurisdictional office. The appellant's case that the order was actually received only through email was found acceptable, and the appeal filed within two months of such receipt could not be treated as barred by limitation merely on an unverified presumption of postal service.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the service tax demand, penalties and interest could be sustained when the demand was raised on the basis of wrong address and without proper verification of the appellant's service tax records and jurisdiction.

Analysis: The demand was found to have been initiated without basic verification of the appellant's records, including the ST-3 return and reconciliation materials. The turnover on which demand was made was found to pertain to the GST period, while the appellant had already paid service tax for the relevant service-tax period and was registered in the proper jurisdiction. The notices and adjudication were held to have proceeded on an incorrect and non-existent address, and the proceedings were found to be without jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the demand, interest and penalties could not survive.

Conclusion: The service tax demand, interest and penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was found to be unsustainable both on limitation and on merits, and the assessee's appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax demand and appellate dismissal cannot be sustained where service of the order is not duly proved, the proceedings are founded on an incorrect address and jurisdictional defects, and the underlying demand is raised without proper verification of the relevant tax records.

Issues: Whether the Government Salary Grant received by the assessee could be treated as income available for accumulation under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The scheme of section 11(1)(a) contemplates income derived from property held under trust and available at the disposal of the assessee for application or accumulation for charitable purposes. A receipt impressed with a specific and binding utilisation obligation does not acquire the character of income capable of discretionary application or accumulation. The Government Salary Grant was received under a scheme earmarked for payment of salaries, with no dominion or beneficial ownership in the assessee, and the assessee merely acted as a conduit for disbursement.

Conclusion: The Government Salary Grant could not be included in the base for computing accumulation under section 11(1)(a), and the exclusion of the grant was upheld.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal was available, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy.

Issues: (i) whether salary earned in Sweden and credited to a foreign bank account constituted undisclosed foreign income assessable under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 in AY 2016-17 and AY 2018-19; (ii) whether the proviso to section 3 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 required taxation only in the year of detection; and (iii) whether Article 15 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Sweden, read with section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prevented taxation in India.

Issue (i): Whether salary earned in Sweden and credited to a foreign bank account constituted undisclosed foreign income assessable under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 in AY 2016-17 and AY 2018-19.

Analysis: The salary was received in Sweden and credited to a bank account maintained there. The Tribunal read sections 2(12), 3 and 4 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 harmoniously and held that undisclosed foreign income and the foreign asset to which it is embedded cannot be artificially separated. On the facts, the foreign bank account was treated as a foreign asset and the income linked to it was considered within the statutory scheme of the Act.

Conclusion: The salary income was not liable to be sustained as taxable undisclosed foreign income in the impugned assessment years.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to section 3 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 required taxation only in the year of detection.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the information regarding the foreign income reached the Department only in November 2021. It concluded that, even assuming applicability of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, taxation could arise only in the year of detection and not in AY 2016-17. The addition for AY 2016-17 was therefore unsustainable, and the same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2018-19.

Conclusion: The addition could not be brought to tax in AY 2016-17 or AY 2018-19.

Issue (iii): Whether Article 15 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Sweden, read with section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prevented taxation in India.

Analysis: The assessee was a resident of India, but the employment was exercised in Sweden and the employer was a tax resident of Sweden. The Tribunal held that Article 15(1) applied and that the remuneration was taxable in Sweden. It further held that section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 gave effect to the more beneficial treaty position, and that income not chargeable in India under the treaty could not be brought to tax under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.

Conclusion: The income was not chargeable to tax in India under the treaty and section 90(2).

Final Conclusion: The additions made for both assessment years were deleted, and the assessee obtained complete relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where foreign salary is linked to a foreign bank account and the relevant treaty allocates taxing rights to the source State, the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 cannot be used to sustain taxation in India in the year of the original earning if the income is not chargeable in India under the treaty read with section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained in view of the final orders passed under the GST enactment and the availability of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The petition assailed search, seizure, attachment, suspension of registration, and related steps, but final adjudicatory orders had already been passed under the GST provisions. The Court noted that the petitioner had not challenged those final orders in the writ petition and that an appellate remedy under the statute was available. Since the reliefs sought in the writ petition could be agitated before the appellate forum, the writ jurisdiction was not invoked for interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where final GST adjudication orders have been passed and an effective statutory appeal is available, the writ court will ordinarily decline interference with the earlier procedural challenges.

Issues: Whether the property provisionally attached and confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority was shown to have been acquired out of proceeds of crime and was liable to attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the investigation revealed misappropriation over the relevant period and that the appellants' statements reflected transfer of unexplained funds from the principal accused to Ravi Kumar for purchase of land and construction of flats. The plea that the land had been purchased in 2010, before the initially stated crime period, was rejected because the investigation established that the criminal activity in fact commenced from 2010. The appellants did not substantiate an independent source for the purchase price or for the cash deposits and construction activity, and the material on record was held sufficient to show a link between the attached property and the tainted funds.

Conclusion: The property was held to bear a sufficient nexus with proceeds of crime, and the confirmation of provisional attachment was upheld.