Issues: Whether the assessee's belatedly raised claim regarding the taxability of distribution fee and the associated request for appellate consideration on merits warranted restoration of the matter to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.

Analysis: The claim was raised for the first time before the appellate authority after the return had already been processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted the earlier favourable decisions in the assessee's own case and accepted the submission that the controversy required examination on merits, particularly in the light of the principle that only legitimate tax is to be assessed and collected. In the interests of justice, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter for fresh consideration after affording due opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The matter was restored for denovo consideration by the Assessing Officer, and the assessee obtained relief to that extent.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand founded on alleged undervaluation was sustainable on the basis of the mobile-phone note and contemporaneous import data; and (ii) whether the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether the demand founded on alleged undervaluation was sustainable on the basis of the mobile-phone note and contemporaneous import data.

Analysis: The valuation dispute turned on whether the declared transaction value could be rejected on the strength of the note recovered from the mobile phone and the stated comparable imports. The note was not treated as reliable evidence because its contents did not match the specifications and quantities of the impugned consignments, and the statutory requirements governing admissibility of electronic records were not shown to have been satisfied. The alleged comparable imports were also found not to be sufficiently similar in terms of grade, thickness, width, and commercial characteristics so as to form a valid basis for rejection of the declared value under the valuation rules.

Conclusion: The allegation of undervaluation was not sustained and the declared transaction value was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked.

Analysis: The notice was founded on material already furnished by the importers at the time of import, and the case did not establish suppression, collusion, or other ingredients necessary to attract the extended limitation period. As the notice itself rested on the import documents and mill test certificates supplied by the importers, the foundation for alleging deliberate concealment was not made out.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on valuation and limitation, with consequential relief granted, and the confiscation, duty, interest, and penalty consequences founded on the impugned demand could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for differential customs duty cannot be sustained on unverified electronic extracts or dissimilar import data, and the extended period of limitation is unavailable where the notice is based on disclosures already made by the importer without proof of suppression or wilful misdeclaration.

Issues: Whether a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be used to enforce a final money decree and recover a disputed decretal amount against a solvent corporate debtor.

Analysis: The operative question was not whether any liability existed in the abstract, but whether the insolvency forum could be invoked as a substitute for execution of a civil decree. The Court reiterated that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a revival and resolution statute, not a recovery legislation. Where a decree holder has the ordinary and efficacious remedy of execution, and the real dispute concerns the computation and quantification of the amount due, resort to Section 7 proceedings is impermissible if it functions only as a coercive debt recovery tool. The Court also noted the respondent's inconsistent stands on the amount due, the pendency of execution-related proceedings before the High Court, and the solvent and functioning nature of the appellant.

Conclusion: The Section 7 proceedings were an abuse of the insolvency process and could not be maintained as a recovery mechanism for a money decree. The impugned admission order was unsustainable and the dismissal of the Section 7 application was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Insolvency jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be invoked as a substitute for execution of a money decree, particularly where the dispute is essentially about quantification of the decretal amount and the corporate debtor is not shown to be genuinely insolvent.

Issues: Whether the rejection of the declared export value and finalisation of assessment were sustainable when the relied-upon material was not disclosed and the procedure under the valuation rules was not followed.

Analysis: The declared value of export goods is the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and it can be rejected only in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 require the proper officer, when doubting the declared value, to seek further information, intimate the grounds for doubt in writing, and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking a final decision. The relied-upon material was not furnished to the exporter, and the assessment was finalised without disclosure of the basis for doubting the declared value. In such circumstances, rejection of the declared transaction value and enhancement on the basis of undisclosed contemporaneous data could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared export value was held unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was set aside and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration after complying with the prescribed valuation procedure and natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared export value cannot be rejected or enhanced unless the proper officer complies with the statutory valuation procedure, discloses the grounds and material relied upon, and grants a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the wide prayer for inspection of claim forms and supporting documents in the corporate insolvency resolution process could be granted as made; (ii) Whether the pending interlocutory applications questioning admitted claims and the constitution of the committee of creditors should be considered before approval of the resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether the wide prayer for inspection of claim forms and supporting documents in the corporate insolvency resolution process could be granted as made.

Analysis: The prayer sought in the application was considered overly broad. The relief as framed was not found fit for acceptance in that form.

Conclusion: The request for inspection was not accepted as prayed for.

Issue (ii): Whether the pending interlocutory applications questioning admitted claims and the constitution of the committee of creditors should be considered before approval of the resolution plan.

Analysis: Since related interlocutory applications raising objections to admitted claims and the constitution of the committee of creditors were already pending, those applications were required to be dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority before moving ahead with approval of the resolution plan.

Conclusion: The pending applications are to be considered and decided before the resolution plan approval application is taken up.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with a limited direction that the pending objections be considered before any decision on plan approval, while the broader inspection relief was declined in the form sought.

Issues: Whether compensation received under BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 was eligible for exemption and the consequential refund was admissible.

Analysis: The appeal involved no change in the factual matrix or legal position from the Tribunal's earlier decision on the same scheme. The compensation under the voluntary retirement scheme was treated as falling within the exemption provision relied upon by the assessee, and the claim for refund flowed from the income being non-taxable.

Conclusion: The claim for exemption was accepted and the consequential refund was held admissible.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the substantive tax claim, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation received under BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, where the governing conditions are satisfied, is exempt and cannot be brought to tax, with consequential entitlement to refund of tax deducted at source.

Issues: Whether reimbursement of expatriate employee costs by the Indian associated enterprise to the Japanese assessee was taxable as fees for technical services.

Analysis: No material showed any factual distinction from the assessee's earlier year. The seconded expatriates worked under the Indian associated enterprise's control and supervision, which was their real and economic employer during secondment. The Indian associated enterprise paid their salaries, withheld tax under the applicable salary provisions, and the expatriates offered the salary income to tax. The reimbursement represented actual salary cost without any income element, and no evidence established that the assessee rendered managerial, technical, or consultancy services through those employees. Contractual labels could not displace the demonstrated employment and reimbursement arrangement.

Conclusion: The employee-cost reimbursement was not taxable in India as fees for technical services; the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether service tax under reverse charge mechanism was payable by the importer on ocean freight for transportation of goods by vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in India, in view of the impugned notifications and the binding effect of the prior High Court decisions.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the levy of service tax on ocean freight had been introduced through amendments to the service tax regime by the relevant notifications, making the importer liable in specified import transactions. It further noted that the validity of those notifications had already been struck down by the High Courts in the cited decisions, holding that the importer could not be fastened with liability on ocean freight and that the impugned notifications lacked legal basis. The Tribunal also observed that one of those decisions had been affirmed by the Supreme Court and the other had not been stayed, and therefore judicial discipline required those rulings to be followed.

Conclusion: The importer was not liable to pay service tax on ocean freight under reverse charge mechanism, and the demand was correctly dropped; the departmental appeal failed.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of the earlier appellate direction, and the consequential reassessment orders, were valid in law.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of the earlier Tribunal decision expunging the appellate direction that had formed the basis for reopening, and on the limitation embedded in section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the Department accepted that the earlier decision on identical facts had attained finality and that no appeal had been filed against it. Following that binding decision, the Tribunal held that the direction to reopen the completed assessment for the earlier year could not survive. Once the foundation for issuance of notice under section 148 disappeared, the notice itself became time-barred and void ab initio, and the reassessment framed on that notice also failed.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and the reassessment orders were held to be void ab initio, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed.

Issues: Whether the assessee validly exercised the option under section 115BAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by filing Form 10-IC within the prescribed time so as to exclude computation of tax under section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessee had filed Form 10-IC on 30.11.2022 for assessment year 2022-23 and claimed the concessional regime under section 115BAA. The dispute turned on whether the applicable due date under section 139(1) was 30.11.2022, as claimed by the assessee, or 07.11.2022, as applied by the revenue authorities on the footing that the assessee was not a section 92E case. The Tribunal held that the due date for filing the return could not be altered merely because the assessee had not furnished Form 3CEB earlier or had selected an incorrect audit status in the return. It further held that once the assessee fell within the class of assessees entitled to the later due date, the filing of Form 10-IC on 30.11.2022 was within time, and the benefit of section 115BAA could not be denied on the basis of alleged procedural lapse or clerical error. In that view, computation under section 115JB was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The option under section 115BAA was validly exercised, the MAT computation under section 115JB was not applicable, and the assessee's claim for concessional taxation was accepted.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment and assessment proceedings were vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity of hearing; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment and assessment proceedings were vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The record showed issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filing of replies by the assessee, supply of material along with the notice, and consideration of the assessee's submissions, including the later reply on merits, before completion of assessment under Sections 142(1) and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On those facts, the grievance of denial of hearing was not accepted.

Conclusion: The assessment was not held to be vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, and this contention failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: In tax matters, the ordinary rule is that the assessee should be relegated to the statutory remedy where an efficacious appeal is available. Since the assessment challenge could be pursued before the appellate authority under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not invoked.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained in view of the alternative statutory remedy, and the contention was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment did not succeed, and the assessee was left to pursue the available appellate remedy under the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax matters, where notice and replies are duly considered and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be used to interfere with the assessment.

Issues: Whether the free/drawback shipping bills could be converted to the advance authorisation scheme on the basis of the documents on record, despite the absence of physical examination at the time of export.

Analysis: The prior remand had required the authority to examine the appellant's documents on merits, the earlier objection of limitation having been found unsustainable. The rejection in the impugned order rested substantially on the fact that the exports had moved under RMS and were not subjected to physical examination. The documents placed on record included certificates issued by the Central Excise authorities and by a Chartered Accountant, both linked to the relevant shipping bills and advance authorisation particulars. In the absence of contrary evidence, and in light of the remand directions, physical verification was not treated as a necessary condition for deciding the request for conversion.

Conclusion: The request for conversion of the shipping bills was allowed on the basis of the documentary evidence produced by the appellant.

Issues: Whether interest income earned by a co-operative bank under liquidation was taxable in its hands or stood diverted at source in favour of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation of India by virtue of the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The assessee was a co-operative bank under liquidation, and the realizations from advances and fixed deposits were subject to the mandatory application of funds under section 21(2) of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961. The Tribunal followed the binding decision in the assessee's own case and held that all funds realized by the bank under liquidation were required to be applied towards the DICGCI liability first, leaving no dominion or discretion with the assessee over such receipts. On that basis, the income was treated as diverted at source by overriding title and not as income that accrued to the assessee.

Conclusion: The interest income did not constitute taxable income in the hands of the assessee, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the first appellate authority was sustained, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory obligation creates an overriding title in favour of a third party over realizations received during liquidation, the amounts are diverted at source and do not accrue as taxable income to the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69A on account of bank credits aggregating to Rs. 1,64,02,358 should be sustained, or whether the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication in view of the assessee's request for one more opportunity and the requirement of proper verification.

Analysis: The assessment had been framed under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B on account of complete non-compliance by the assessee, and the addition was sustained by the appellate authority for want of any explanation regarding the source of credits. At the same time, the Tribunal noted that the addition represented the entire bank credits and that such credits may include business receipts, circulating funds, or otherwise explainable transactions, which required proper verification. Though the assessee had earlier failed to cooperate, the Tribunal held that principles of natural justice and substantial justice warranted one more effective opportunity to explain the transactions and produce supporting evidence.

Conclusion: The addition was not finally sustained or deleted at this stage and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after granting adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Issues: (i) whether the impugned cost recoveries for intra-group services, including recruitment, information, IT, travel, health and advisory functions, constituted fees for technical services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands tax treaty without satisfying the "make available" condition; (ii) whether surcharge and education cess could be levied over and above the treaty rate on royalty/fees for technical services; (iii) whether receipts claimed as mere cost allocation or reimbursement were chargeable to tax.

Issue (i): whether the impugned cost recoveries for intra-group services, including recruitment, information, IT, travel, health and advisory functions, constituted fees for technical services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands tax treaty without satisfying the "make available" condition.

Analysis: The services were examined as technical or consultancy services, but the decisive treaty requirement was whether they made available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to the Indian recipients. Applying the earlier coordinate-bench decisions in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal found no material to show that the recipients were enabled to perform the services independently in future without recourse to the assessee. The mere rendering of services, even if technical in character, was held insufficient unless the "make available" threshold under the treaty was satisfied.

Conclusion: The services did not qualify as fees for technical services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands tax treaty, and the related grounds were allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether surcharge and education cess could be levied over and above the treaty rate on royalty/fees for technical services.

Analysis: The treaty rate of tax on royalty and fees for technical services was treated as a composite ceiling, and the definition of tax under the treaty included surcharge. On that basis, surcharge and cess were held not to be leviable in addition to the specified treaty rate.

Conclusion: Levy of surcharge and cess over and above the treaty rate was held impermissible and this ground was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether receipts claimed as mere cost allocation or reimbursement were chargeable to tax.

Analysis: The assessee's plea that the amounts were only reimbursement of costs without markup was not accepted on the facts, and the issue was decided consistently with the earlier years against the assessee.

Conclusion: The reimbursement and cost-allocation plea was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded substantially on the treaty-based non-taxability of the impugned service receipts and on the surcharge/cess issue, while the reimbursement plea failed and the remaining computational matters were sent back for verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the India-Netherlands tax treaty, technical or consultancy services are taxable as fees for technical services only if they make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to the recipient so that the recipient can use them independently in future.

Issues: Whether depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was allowable for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, and whether the Revenue could disallow the claim on the footing that the goodwill was not separately paid for or that the Finance Act, 2021 amendments applied to the years in question.

Analysis: The assessee acquired goodwill in the course of amalgamation under a court-approved composite scheme, with the excess of consideration over the net assets recognised as goodwill under the purchase method. The Tribunal noted that goodwill is an intangible asset falling within the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" for the purposes of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as settled by the Supreme Court in Smifs Securities. It further held that the restrictions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, including the exclusion of goodwill from depreciation-related treatment, operate prospectively from assessment year 2021-22 and could not govern the years under appeal. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue's objections regarding share consideration, valuation, and alleged factual distinctions did not displace the CIT(A)'s finding that the goodwill was acquired in the amalgamation and was eligible for depreciation under the pre-amendment law.

Conclusion: Depreciation on goodwill was allowable to the assessee for both years, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The disallowance of depreciation on goodwill was upheld by neither law nor facts for the years under appeal, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Goodwill acquired in amalgamation is a depreciable intangible asset under the unamended Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Finance Act, 2021 restrictions apply only prospectively.

Issues: Whether addition under section 69B read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of alleged on-money payment for purchase of land could be sustained on the basis of unsigned loose papers found from a third party and the untested statement of that third party.

Analysis: The seized loose papers did not bear the assessee's name, signature, or any direct particulars of the land transaction, and their contents did not clearly connect the assessee to the alleged cash payments. The dates recorded in the papers were also inconsistent with the registered sale deed, creating doubt about the alleged linkage. The addition rested substantially on the statement of the third party who was not subjected to cross-examination, although that statement was the only material sought to be used against the assessee. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, and where the material emanated from a third party without reliable nexus to the assessee, the presumption of truth could not be extended against the assessee. The burden to prove the alleged unexplained investment was not discharged.

Conclusion: The addition was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the post-Ashish Agarwal regime, were barred by limitation because they were issued beyond the surviving time available under the applicable transitional framework.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the original section 148 notices had been issued within the TOLA period, but the fresh notices, after supply of information under section 148A(b) and consideration of replies, were issued on dates later than the last permissible dates worked out on the basis of the surviving time principle explained by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, as followed by the jurisdictional High Court. On the admitted dates, the notices for the relevant assessment years were issued after the expiry of the limitation period computed under section 149 and the transitional directions governing such reassessments.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices were time-barred and invalid, the assumption of jurisdiction to reopen failed, and the reassessment orders were liable to be quashed.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 2,17,00,000/- under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of unsecured loans was sustainable where the assessee produced lender confirmation, PAN, bank statements, ITR, balance sheet, ledger, compliance to notice under section 133(6), and evidence of subsequent repayment through banking channels.

Analysis: The assessee discharged the primary burden by placing on record material establishing the identity of the lender, the genuineness of the loan transactions and the lender's creditworthiness. The transactions were routed through banking channels, were reflected in the books, and were followed by repayment in subsequent assessment years. The Revenue did not bring any cogent material to rebut these documents or to establish a live link showing that the transactions were fictitious or represented unexplained money. The authorities below also could not justify treating the transaction as an engineered or accommodation entry arrangement. The principles that once primary documents are produced the onus shifts to the Revenue, and that the assessee is not required to prove source of source in such circumstances, were applied.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier judgment dated 14 February 2025 contained a finding or direction sufficient to attract the extended consequences under the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier judgment dated 14 February 2025 contained a finding or direction sufficient to attract the extended consequences under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The statutory expression "finding" refers to a finding necessary for the disposal of the case and not to incidental observations. The earlier judgment only clarified that the Revenue was not precluded from proceeding in accordance with law against the successor entity and did not determine the assessee's liability in a manner required for invoking the extended machinery. Its observations did not amount to a direction or a binding finding on merits for the purpose of the later notices.

Conclusion: The earlier judgment did not contain a finding or direction attracting the extended operation of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The proviso to section 143(2) imposes a strict time limit for service of notice, and the Act does not create an exception permitting a fresh scrutiny notice beyond that limit merely because earlier proceedings were set aside. The impugned notices were issued beyond the statutory period, and the Revenue could not rely on the earlier judgment to overcome the bar of limitation. The notices were also issued in a manner that did not cure the jurisdictional defect arising from the earlier proceedings against non-existing entities.

Conclusion: The notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were invalid and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded and the impugned notices and consequential proceedings were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An earlier judgment will attract the extended assessment machinery only if it contains a finding or direction necessary for disposal of the matter, and a notice under section 143(2) cannot be sustained beyond the statutory time limit by relying on incidental observations or by invoking a supposed fresh opportunity contrary to the Act.