Issues: Whether the addition of hardship compensation of Rs. 33,70,773 received under a redevelopment arrangement was sustainable in the assessment year when the amount had already been offered to tax on a proportionate basis in the relevant later assessment years.

Analysis: The assessee had received hardship compensation and corpus fund under the redevelopment agreement. The corpus fund and the hardship compensation pertaining to the assessment year in question were offered to tax, while the balance hardship compensation was deferred and returned in the subsequent assessment years on a proportionate basis. The legal character of hardship compensation received from a builder in a redevelopment transaction was treated as settled in favour of the assessee as a capital receipt not liable to tax. On the facts, the same amount of Rs. 33,70,773 had already been subjected to tax in the later years, and taxing it again in the impugned year would result in double taxation.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 33,70,773 was not sustainable and was deleted; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment addition was set aside because the disputed receipt had already been accounted for in the subsequent years and could not be brought to tax again in the impugned year.

Ratio Decidendi: Hardship compensation received under a redevelopment agreement, when already taxed on a proportionate basis in the relevant years, cannot be taxed again in the same amount in the impugned year, as such duplication is impermissible and the receipt is treated as capital in nature.

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner's supply of frozen meat was covered by the GST exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.06.2017; and (ii) whether, in view of the advance rulings, the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the GST paid.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner's supply of frozen meat was covered by the GST exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.06.2017.

Analysis: The advance ruling authorities had already determined that the goods were supplied in unit containers, were branded and sold on actual rate basis, and therefore attracted GST at five per cent. The authorities also held that the supplies did not fall within the claimed exemption entry under the 2017 notification. That determination was treated as conclusive for the petitioner's liability.

Conclusion: The supply was not exempt from GST.

Issue (ii): whether, in view of the advance rulings, the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the GST paid.

Analysis: Under Section 103 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the advance rulings were binding on the petitioner. Since the petitioner was required to discharge GST on the supplies and had in fact deposited the tax, the respondents had no basis to withhold reimbursement on the premise of exemption.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the GST paid.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed, the binding advance rulings governed the petitioner's tax liability, and the respondents were required to reimburse the balance GST amount with the stipulated consequence for delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an advance ruling conclusively determines that goods are not exempt and such ruling is binding on the taxpayer, the payer is entitled to reimbursement of GST actually discharged from the counterparty that withheld payment on the mistaken premise of exemption.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment in the distribution segment could be sustained by treating channel and content owner entities as comparables instead of software distribution entities. (ii) Whether notional interest could be imputed on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment in the distribution segment could be sustained by treating channel and content owner entities as comparables instead of software distribution entities.

Analysis: The distribution segment and the ancillary production or related service segment were found to be separate and independently benchmarked transactions. The channel and content owner companies operated as full-fledged entrepreneurial channel businesses with materially different functions, assets and risks, and therefore lacked functional similarity with the assessee's distribution activity. The Tribunal also relied on the settled view in the assessee's own earlier years and on the affirmance by the High Court. Software distribution companies were recognised as acceptable comparables where direct channel-distribution comparables were unavailable.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment in the distribution segment was deleted by excluding the seven channel/content owner comparables and retaining the software distribution comparables.

Issue (ii): Whether notional interest could be imputed on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises.

Analysis: The receivables issue was governed by the principle that, where working capital adjustment is granted, the impact of receivables and payables is subsumed in the benchmarking exercise. Following the binding precedent applied in the assessee's own case, no separate interest adjustment was warranted on the outstanding receivables.

Conclusion: The adjustment on account of notional interest on receivables was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the transfer pricing grounds and the addition was set aside in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Comparable entities in transfer pricing must satisfy functional similarity, and where working capital adjustment is applied, separate notional interest adjustment on receivables is not warranted if the receivables are already subsumed in the benchmarking analysis.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing Form No. 67 for claiming foreign tax credit under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 could be condoned and the matter restored for verification of the assessee's entitlement to foreign tax credit.

Analysis: The assessee had filed the return within the due date under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and had disclosed the foreign assets, but the foreign income and corresponding foreign tax credit claim were omitted in the original return and later reflected through a revised computation during assessment. Form No. 67 was filed during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal followed the view that the time limit for filing Form No. 67 is directory and not mandatory, and that procedural non-compliance should not defeat substantive relief where the treaty entitlement is otherwise available. It noted that the earlier denial of credit rested only on belated filing and that the claim required verification on merits.

Conclusion: The delay in filing Form No. 67 was condoned and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the Form No. 67 and a fresh decision in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the interim order maintaining status quo on shareholding and directorship and regulating bank account operations called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The appeal challenged an interim arrangement intended to preserve the existing position of the parties pending adjudication of the company petition. The order was passed to protect the subject matter of the dispute and to prevent prejudice arising from the rival allegations concerning management, shareholding, and alleged diversion of funds. The tribunal also noted that the earlier protective order had not been challenged.

Conclusion: No interference with the interim order was warranted, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The interim protection granted by the tribunal was allowed to continue, and the appellate challenge was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate forum will not interfere with a reasoned interim order preserving the status quo and protecting the subject matter of the lis unless a clear error or prejudice is shown.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deserved condonation. (ii) Whether the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 was exempt as retrenchment compensation under section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deserved condonation.

Analysis: The appeal before the first appellate authority had been dismissed in limine for delay without examination on merits. The explanation for the delay was found to be bona fide, and the dispute involved a substantive claim already accepted in several coordinate bench decisions. In such circumstances, substantial justice was held to prevail over the procedural lapse.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 was exempt as retrenchment compensation under section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The compensation was treated as retrenchment compensation arising from the BSNL voluntary retirement scheme and not as ordinary taxable salary income. Following consistent coordinate bench rulings, the receipt was regarded as a capital receipt falling within section 10(10B), with consequential exemption and refund relief available on verification of revised computation.

Conclusion: The compensation was held to be exempt under section 10(10B) and the claim was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the assessee was granted the exemption claim with consequential relief, including verification-based refund, if due.

Ratio Decidendi: When a delay in appeal is shown to arise from bona fide reasons and the underlying exemption claim is supported by consistent coordinate bench authority, procedural delay should not defeat adjudication on merits and BSNL VRS compensation of the relevant nature is to be treated as retrenchment compensation exempt under section 10(10B).

Issues: Whether the addition made on account of alleged on-money payment / unexplained investment in purchase of land was sustainable when the co-owner's similar transaction had already been accepted by the Revenue.

Analysis: The appeal was decided on the merits of the addition. The assessee's case was found to be on the same footing as the co-owner's case, and no material was brought by the Revenue to distinguish the two or to displace the prior acceptance of the same transaction in the co-owner's hands. Following the principle that similarly placed parties in respect of the same transaction should receive similar treatment, the addition could not be sustained. Once relief was granted on this substantive issue, the additional legal grounds were rendered academic and did not require adjudication.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged unexplained investment / on-money payment was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the substantive tax addition, and the ancillary legal objections were left undecided as they had become academic.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue has accepted the same transaction in the hands of a co-owner, another similarly situated co-owner cannot be singled out for a different tax treatment without a distinguishing basis.

Issues: Whether an ad hoc disallowance out of cash expenses could be sustained where the assessee's business was carried on in forest areas with practical difficulty in using banking channels, the books of account were not rejected under section 145(3), and no independent enquiry was made at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The assessee was engaged in trade of tendu leaves in forest and tribal where cash payments to labourers and others were stated to be unavoidable due to absence of banking facilities. The authorities accepted the genuineness of the books and the underlying transactions, yet made and sustained an estimated disallowance without invoking rejection of books. In such circumstances, an ad hoc addition over and above the recorded transactions was held impermissible. The appellate authority was also found not to have conducted the necessary independent enquiry contemplated by section 250(4) and section 250(6), while still confirming part of the disallowance.

Conclusion: The ad hoc disallowance was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition made as unexplained money under section 69A, on account of cash found in a locker in the assessee's name, was sustainable when the surrounding material showed that the cash formed part of the cash balance of a group company and no contrary material was brought to disprove that explanation.

Analysis: The cash balance reflected in the seized books and post-search chart was not uniformly attributed by the Assessing Officer, and the working of the amount treated as belonging to the assessee was found to be inconsistent. The explanation that the cash kept in the locker represented cash in hand of the group company was supported by its cash book and related records, and that company's cash balance had not been doubted in its own assessment. In the absence of any contrary evidence showing that the cash belonged exclusively to the assessee, the addition could not be sustained merely because the locker stood in the assessee's name.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was deleted and the assessee succeeded on the issue.

Issues: Whether, after a search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer could validly complete the year's assessment under section 143(3) without issuing notice under section 148 and obtaining the requisite approval under section 148B.

Analysis: The assessment year was already pending when the search took place. The decision proceeds on the footing that, once search material existed relating to the assessee, the assessment could not continue as a normal scrutiny under section 143(3). The special reassessment route under section 148, with prior approval under section 148B, was treated as the mandatory statutory channel. On that reasoning, continuation of proceedings under section 143(3) was held to be without valid jurisdiction, and the assessment was quashed. Since the legal ground succeeded, the remaining grounds on merits were treated as academic.

Conclusion: The assessment under section 143(3) was invalid for want of proper jurisdiction after the search, and the assessee succeeded on the legal ground.

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the restoration application for non-appearance was liable to be set aside on the ground that the appellant had shown sufficient explanation for the absence of counsel and sought an opportunity to contest the matter.

Analysis: The record showed that counsel had not appeared on the relevant dates, but the explanation offered was that he was engaged before the Supreme Court on one date and was also absent on an earlier date due to ill health. The Tribunal accepted the service position, noted the supporting material, and found the explanation for non-appearance to be genuine and sufficient. It further considered that the appellant intended to contest the matter bona fide and that no prejudice would be caused by restoring the matter for fresh consideration after hearing both sides.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the restoration application was revived, and the matter was directed to be decided afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

Issues: (i) Whether the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated on the basis of claims arising from a single real estate project should be confined to that project alone; (ii) Whether stakeholders of other projects of the corporate debtor can pursue their claims independently and whether the resolution professional should invite and update claims project-wise.

Issue (i): Whether the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated on the basis of claims arising from a single real estate project should be confined to that project alone.

Analysis: The claims before the adjudicating authority arose from allottees of one identified project. The settled approach in real estate insolvency is that where financial creditors in a class invoke Section 7 on the basis of default in a particular project, the resolution process should ordinarily remain project-specific so that solvent or unrelated projects are not brought within the same insolvency umbrella. That approach protects homebuyers of the concerned project while avoiding collateral prejudice to stakeholders of other projects.

Conclusion: The corporate insolvency resolution process was required to be confined to the specific project concerned, namely Krishna Housing Scheme, and not to the corporate debtor as a whole.

Issue (ii): Whether stakeholders of other projects of the corporate debtor can pursue their claims independently and whether the resolution professional should invite and update claims project-wise.

Analysis: Since the insolvency was confined to one project, claims had to be collated and updated in relation to that project alone. Other stakeholders and financial institutions asserting rights in respect of different projects were not required to be absorbed into this project-specific process and were free to pursue their own proceedings in accordance with law. The resolution professional was therefore required to issue a corrigendum inviting claims only for the concerned project and to update the claims already received, including payments made under the court's interim directions.

Conclusion: Other project-wise stakeholders were left free to proceed independently, and the resolution professional was directed to handle claims only for Krishna Housing Scheme.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the insolvency process was narrowed to the concerned real estate project, with consequential directions for project-specific claim collation and preservation of remedies of stakeholders of other projects.

Ratio Decidendi: In a real estate insolvency initiated by allottees or financial creditors of one project, the corporate insolvency resolution process should ordinarily be confined to that project alone and should not extend to other independent projects of the same corporate debtor.

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in a GST prosecution where the allegations rest primarily on documentary material, the investigation is substantially complete, and no further custodial interrogation is shown to be necessary.

Analysis: The allegations related to fraudulent availment and passing on of input tax credit under the GST law. The material on record was chiefly documentary, including tax records, banking data, electronic evidence and summons-based records. The complaint had already been filed and, in relation to the applicant, the investigation appeared substantially complete. The Court found no specific basis to conclude that custodial interrogation was still required or that release on bail would lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, particularly when the evidence was largely in documentary form and the applicant had remained in custody since 29.01.2026.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a GST prosecution is substantially supported by documentary evidence and the investigation is complete or near completion, continued custody is not justified in the absence of a demonstrated need for custodial interrogation or a concrete apprehension of interference with the trial.

Issues: Whether the enhanced limit of exemption for leave encashment under section 10(10AA) applied retrospectively to a non-government employee who retired before 01.04.2023.

Analysis: The exemption for leave encashment was limited to Rs. 3,00,000 under the earlier notification and was later enhanced to Rs. 25,00,000 by Notification No. 31/2023, which was stated to operate from 01.04.2023. The claim for retrospective application was rejected in view of the authoritative Kerala High Court decision holding that revision of the upper limit is a matter within executive domain and that the later notification could not be applied retrospectively to employees who had retired before its commencement. The contrary reliance on another decision was not accepted as no final order was shown.

Conclusion: The enhanced limit did not apply retrospectively to the assessee, and the restriction of exemption to Rs. 3,00,000 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim beyond Rs. 3,00,000 failed, and the addition sustained below remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification enhancing the ceiling for leave encashment exemption operates prospectively from its stated effective date and cannot be applied retrospectively in the absence of a binding mandate to do so.

Issues: (i) Whether, after remand of some issues by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer, the Assessing Officer was required to first issue a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act before passing the final order.

Analysis: The dispute concerned an assessment order passed directly after implementation of directions from the Tribunal, the Transfer Pricing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel, without a draft order being issued to the assessee. It was held that where issues are restored to the Assessing Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer, the statutory scheme under section 144C(1) requires a draft assessment order at the initial stage so that the assessee may avail the prescribed mechanism before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The omission to follow that procedure renders the assessment vulnerable. The distinction noted for matters restored only to the Dispute Resolution Panel did not assist the Revenue on the facts, because the remand in the present case included the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer as well.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer was obliged to issue a draft assessment order, and the final assessment order passed without doing so was unsustainable and had to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: When issues are remanded to the Assessing Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer in proceedings governed by section 144C of the Income-tax Act, the draft assessment order mechanism is mandatory before final assessment.

Issues: Whether the final assessment orders for the two assessment years were liable to be quashed for failure to first pass draft assessment orders under the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The assessment orders were passed against an eligible assessee without issuance of draft assessment orders. The prior directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel had treated the pending proceedings as infructuous and required fresh consideration of the non-BAPA issues, but the Assessing Officer nevertheless proceeded directly to finalise the assessments. The Tribunal followed the binding Delhi High Court decision in the assessee's own case and held that, in such circumstances, compliance with the draft-assessment procedure is mandatory. A final assessment passed in breach of that procedure is invalid in law and cannot stand.

Conclusion: The final assessment orders for both years were quashed as void ab initio, and the other grounds were left open as academic.

Issues: (i) whether the appellate authorities were justified in rejecting the appeals as time-barred under the statutory limitation scheme governing customs appeals; (ii) whether the High Court could, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, condone the delay and restore the appeals for decision on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authorities were justified in rejecting the appeals as time-barred under the statutory limitation scheme governing customs appeals.

Analysis: The appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed for filing a customs appeal, and the statute permits condonation only within the further limited period expressly provided. Once that outer limit expires, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or extend limitation by invoking equitable or inherent powers. The rejection of the appeals on limitation, therefore, accorded with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeals by the appellate authorities on the ground of limitation was legally sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, condone the delay and restore the appeals for decision on merits.

Analysis: Although the statutory authorities could not go beyond the prescribed limitation, the High Court held that its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 could be invoked in appropriate cases to prevent technicalities from defeating substantive justice. The delay, though beyond the condonable period, was not found to be deliberate or mala fide, and the underlying dispute had not been examined on merits by the appellate authority. To avoid foreclosing the statutory remedy altogether, the Court intervened and granted conditional relief by restoring the matter to the appellate stage.

Conclusion: The High Court was competent to grant conditional writ relief, condone the delay, and remit the appeals for fresh adjudication on merits.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of securing restoration of the appeals after conditional condonation of delay, while the statutory position on limitation remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the outer limit expressly fixed by the statute, but the High Court may, in exceptional cases under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, grant conditional relief to prevent denial of substantive justice and restore the matter for merits-based adjudication.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail, including statutory bail, in view of prolonged custody and completion of more than one-third of the maximum sentence.

Analysis: The complaint was of 2019, but charges had not yet been framed and the trial was likely to take substantial time. The appellant had remained in judicial custody for about 3.5 years, was stated to be a first-time offender, and had already undergone more than one-third of the maximum sentence of 10 years prescribed under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. On these facts, the entitlement to statutory bail under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was made out.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to bail and the order refusing bail was set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal against admission of a corporate insolvency application could be filed in the name of the corporate debtor by a suspended director after appointment of the interim resolution professional and after expiry of the statutory limitation period.

Analysis: Once an interim resolution professional is appointed on admission of an application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the management of the corporate debtor vests in that professional. A suspended director therefore has no authority to prosecute an appeal in the name of the corporate debtor. An appeal so filed is not merely defective but is incompetent in its inception. The statutory scheme of limitation for appeals under the Code permits only the prescribed period and a limited condonable extension, and that time discipline cannot be bypassed by later changing the cause title so as to transform an incompetent filing into a maintainable appeal after limitation has expired.

Conclusion: The appeal in the name of the corporate debtor was not maintainable, could not be converted into a valid appeal by amendment after expiry of limitation, and was rightly dismissed.

Issues: (i) Whether the approved resolution plan was non-compliant because it capped CIRP costs and treated EPF dues by keeping them in escrow and allocating them from the secured financial creditors' share if unpaid. (ii) Whether extension of the e-voting period, and the obtaining of clarifications from resolution applicants, vitiated the CIRP as a material procedural irregularity. (iii) Whether the CoC was bound to adopt a Swiss Challenge or accept the highest bidder, and whether the Tribunal could interfere with the CoC's approval of the resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether the approved resolution plan was non-compliant because it capped CIRP costs and treated EPF dues by keeping them in escrow and allocating them from the secured financial creditors' share if unpaid.

Analysis: The plan stated that unpaid CIRP costs were payable at actuals and, if internal accruals and cash flows were insufficient, any amount beyond Rs. 25 lakhs would be met from the secured financial creditors' share. The record showed that the CoC was aware that no unpaid CIRP cost was then outstanding and accepted the treatment in its commercial wisdom. As to EPF dues, the plan specifically provided for a separate amount to be kept aside from the secured financial creditors' share, with the sum to be appropriated to them if the EPF liability did not crystallise. The issue was deliberated in the CoC, the liability was treated as sub judice, and the objecting dissenting creditor could not show prejudice because the amount would not come out of its own distribution.

Conclusion: The plan was held to be compliant on both CIRP costs and EPF treatment, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether extension of the e-voting period, and the obtaining of clarifications from resolution applicants, vitiated the CIRP as a material procedural irregularity.

Analysis: The voting window was extended after the Adjudicating Authority had directed completion of voting by 20.05.2025, but the outer CIRP period was extended up to 31.05.2025 and the voting concluded within that outer limit. The CoC members and resolution applicants were kept informed of the consequence of the extension, and no contemporaneous objection was raised by the participating applicants. Clarifications were sought from all relevant resolution applicants on common queries, and the responses did not alter the final plan value or amount to post-submission modification of the frozen plans. The Court therefore found no material irregularity or unfairness sufficient to invalidate the process.

Conclusion: The challenge based on voting extension and clarificatory communications was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the CoC was bound to adopt a Swiss Challenge or accept the highest bidder, and whether the Tribunal could interfere with the CoC's approval of the resolution plan.

Analysis: The RFRP reserved to the CoC the discretion to negotiate, to reject any plan without assigning reasons, and to declare a successful resolution applicant on the basis of commercial wisdom, even if that applicant was not the highest bidder. The applicants had already been given multiple rounds of opportunity to revise their offers, and later attempts to enhance bids after the deadline were impermissible post-submission modifications. The Tribunal reiterated that its jurisdiction under the insolvency framework is limited to checking compliance with the statutory requirements, and not to substituting its view for the CoC's commercial decision. The dissenting creditor also could not complain when the plan yielded more than the liquidation value.

Conclusion: No right to a Swiss Challenge or to insist on the highest bid was recognised, and no ground for interference with CoC approval was made out.

Final Conclusion: The resolution plan was found to satisfy the statutory requirements, the CoC's commercial decision was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In insolvency resolution, judicial interference is confined to statutory compliance under the Code, while matters of plan selection, valuation preference, negotiation method, and commercial acceptability remain within the CoC's commercial wisdom unless a clear breach of the mandatory provisions is shown.