Issues: Whether a single composite show cause notice and a single composite assessment order could validly cover multiple assessment years or tax periods under the GST enactments.

Analysis: The Court followed the binding interpretation that the expressions used in Sections 73 and 74 contemplate notices and assessments with reference to a tax period, and that a composite proceeding covering more than one assessment year is unsustainable. The challenged proceedings related to multiple years, and the respondents did not dispute that the issue was covered by the earlier Division Bench ruling. Since the impugned notice and assessment order were issued as composite proceedings for different assessment years, they could not be sustained in law.

Conclusion: The composite notice and composite assessment order were held invalid, and the petitioner succeeded.

Issues: (i) Whether refund of the amount deposited as a pre-condition for maintaining the appeal was governed by Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or fell within Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as "any other amount"; (ii) Whether rejection of the refund application solely on the basis of an alleged pending SFIO investigation could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether refund of the amount deposited as a pre-condition for maintaining the appeal was governed by Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or fell within Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as "any other amount".

Analysis: The amount in question was not a tax refund in the strict sense, but a pre-deposit made to maintain the appeal. Such a deposit does not acquire the character of tax, interest, penalty, or fee. Consequently, the limitation and refund machinery under Section 54(1) was held inapplicable. The broader language of Rule 89, which also covers "any other amount" due and payable, was treated as the proper procedural route. The references to Section 56 and Section 115 were found misplaced in the context of this refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund application was not governed by Section 54(1) and had to be considered under Rule 89 as a claim for "any other amount".

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the refund application solely on the basis of an alleged pending SFIO investigation could be sustained.

Analysis: The authorities had rejected the application only because of a communication suggesting that no refund should be processed during a supposed SFIO investigation. The subsequent material placed before the Court showed that no investigation was pending, initiated, or completed against the petitioner. Once that premise disappeared, the sole foundation of the rejection collapsed and the order ceased to be legally sustainable.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund on the ground of SFIO investigation was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection was set aside and the competent authority was directed to release the amount, with the refund claim to be kept alive for the limited purpose of consequential processing and interest, if otherwise payable.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit made for maintaining an appeal is not a refund of tax under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but is refundable as "any other amount" under Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and a rejection founded solely on a non-existent investigation cannot stand.

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 50C of the Income-tax Act could be sustained when the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation and requested reference to the Valuation Officer, but no effective reference or valuation report existed before completion of the assessment.

Analysis: The assessment was completed on the basis of the stamp valuation because the valuation report was not received, yet the record and the RTI reply showed that no effective reference to the Valuation Officer was available. The assessee had specifically objected to the stamp valuation and sought reference for determination of fair market value. In such a situation, the statutory scheme required the Assessing Officer to act on the assessee's objection and obtain valuation assistance before substituting the stamp value. Section 155(15) was held inapplicable because there was no existing DVO valuation to revise. The delay and failure in obtaining a valuation report could not be shifted onto the assessee, and restoring the matter would in effect extend the limitation period for completion of assessment.

Conclusion: The addition under section 50C was not sustainable and was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee disputes stamp valuation and seeks reference to the Valuation Officer, an addition based on stamp value cannot survive if no effective valuation reference is made and no valuation report exists before completion of the assessment.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate remedy against the impugned GST assessment order with a condition of pre-deposit, and whether recovery should remain in abeyance upon compliance.

Analysis: The impugned order sustained certain demands and dropped others. The writ court did not undertake a merits adjudication of the tax demands, but granted liberty to invoke the appellate remedy. The appellate recourse was made conditional on depositing 50% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time, and the appeal was to be decided on merits in accordance with law upon such compliance. The order also protected the petitioner from further recovery action so long as the stipulated pre-deposit and filing requirement were satisfied.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to pursue the statutory appeal subject to 50% pre-deposit, and further recovery under the impugned order was kept in abeyance on compliance.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy under conditional pre-deposit, without any merits determination on the tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious appellate remedy is available, the writ court may permit recourse to that remedy subject to a stipulated pre-deposit and may protect the assessee from coercive recovery upon compliance.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been condoned and the appeal heard on merits.

Analysis: The explanation for delay rested on the appellant's reliance on its tax consultant to take the necessary steps, which was treated as self-serving and not supported by convincing material. At the same time, the matter involved substantial legal issues on the merits, including the applicability of the cited precedents and the claimed benefit under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the appellant should not be denied the first appellate remedy solely on the ground of delay in the peculiar facts of the case.

Conclusion: The delay objection was not accepted as a ground to finally shut out the appeal, and the matter was directed to be considered by the Tribunal on merits after hearing both sides.

Issues: Whether the seized imported goods were liable to be provisionally released on conditions while preserving the customs authorities' right to continue adjudication.

Analysis: The petition concerned a seizure memo and sought interim release of imported goods. The Court followed its earlier orders in similar matters and held that provisional release could be granted subject to payment of the enhanced duty amount, prompt quantification by Customs, furnishing of a bank guarantee of 10% of the total value of the goods, and maintenance of transaction details if the goods were sold after release. The Court also clarified that the customs adjudication proceedings would continue in accordance with law and would not be influenced by the release order.

Conclusion: Provisional release of the goods was ordered on specified conditions, and the writ petition was allowed.

Issues: Whether the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiates the continuation of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 at the present stage.

Analysis: The protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only where there is a reasonable nexus between the alleged act and the discharge of official duty. Where public office merely furnishes the occasion or opportunity to commit offences such as illegal gratification, possession of disproportionate assets, or laundering of proceeds of crime, the acts are not treated as acts done in discharge of official functions. The question of sanction may also be examined at a later stage on the evidence, but on the facts alleged there is no such nexus with official duty.

Conclusion: The absence of prior sanction does not vitiate the proceedings at this stage, and the writ petition is not maintainable on that ground.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice and proceedings were barred by limitation under the extended time regime and the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. (ii) Whether the notice issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was invalid for want of approval by the correct specified authority under section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice and proceedings were barred by limitation under the extended time regime and the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.

Analysis: The notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 29.07.2022, after the period governed by the relaxation provisions relied upon for reopening proceedings. The Tribunal followed the binding view that the notices issued in the relevant period, when tested against the statutory limitation framework and the relaxation legislation, could not survive.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were held to be barred by limitation and invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was invalid for want of approval by the correct specified authority under section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Since the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, prior approval had to be obtained from the higher specified authority mandated by section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Approval by the Principal Commissioner, instead of the competent higher authority, did not satisfy the statutory requirement, rendering the initiation defective.

Conclusion: The notice and the proceedings founded on it were quashed for lack of approval by the competent specified authority.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was set aside in both appeals, and the remaining grounds were rendered academic.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued beyond the statutory time threshold is unsustainable unless it is preceded by approval from the exact authority prescribed by section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and proceedings failing that requirement are liable to be quashed.

Issues: Whether the assessment order under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 required interference and remand for fresh consideration in view of the assessee's claim that supporting documents had been produced or could be produced item-wise.

Analysis: The assessment was founded on alleged discrepancies arising from mismatch, hypothetical supplies and double taxation, and the authority proceeded on the basis that supporting documentary proof had not been furnished. The assessee asserted that the relevant materials had already been filed and that the tax demand would not survive if the documents were duly considered. In these circumstances, instead of driving the assessee to the appellate remedy, the matter was found fit to be sent back to the original authority so that the documents could be produced item-wise, verified and the issues reconsidered afresh.

Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration after receipt and verification of the supporting documents.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained procedural relief by securing a de novo examination of the disputed tax demand before the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment turns on documentary proof and the assessee is afforded an opportunity to place or identify the supporting records item-wise, the matter may be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication.

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned adjudication order was vitiated for denial of a real and effective opportunity of hearing and breach of natural justice; (ii) Whether the availability of an appellate remedy barred interference under writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned adjudication order was vitiated for denial of a real and effective opportunity of hearing and breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The respondent issued a reminder requiring additional material within a truncated period, leaving the petitioner less than one effective working day to assemble voluminous records, while the request for adjournment was not shown to have been considered. Mere participation in the personal hearing did not cure the defect, because the opportunity under the statutory hearing provisions had to be real, reasonable and effective. Passing the order on the very day the hearing concluded reinforced the inference that the material may not have been adequately considered.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was held to be vitiated by breach of natural justice and was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an appellate remedy barred interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: An alternate remedy does not preclude writ intervention where the impugned order is alleged to have been made in violation of natural justice. Since the defect went to the fairness of the adjudicatory process itself, the appellate remedy was not treated as an effective bar.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after setting aside the impugned order, with directions to afford a proper hearing and consider all contentions in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: When an adjudication under the GST regime is passed after granting only an illusory opportunity of hearing and in undue haste, the order is liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether a penalty order under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be revised under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite the order being appealable. (ii) Whether penalty for under-reporting of income was leviable on the disallowance relating to employees' contribution to PF/ESI.

Issue (i): Whether a penalty order under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be revised under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite the order being appealable.

Analysis: Section 264 confers wide revisional power over any subordinate order, subject only to the express restrictions in sub-section (4). An order is barred from revision only where an appeal lies and the time to appeal has not expired without waiver, or where an appeal is pending or has been filed. Outside those statutory exceptions, the mere fact that an order is appealable does not exclude revision. The assessee is entitled to choose between the appellate remedy under Section 246A and the revisional remedy under Section 264.

Conclusion: The revision application was maintainable, and the refusal to entertain it on the ground of availability of appeal was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty for under-reporting of income was leviable on the disallowance relating to employees' contribution to PF/ESI.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 270A is discretionary and is not automatic upon addition. Under-reporting, in the context of a return already processed under Section 143(1)(a), requires the assessed income to exceed the income determined in that processing. Here, the same disallowance had already been made at the processing stage and was merely reiterated in assessment, so the statutory ingredients of under-reporting were not satisfied. The claim was also made on the basis of then-prevailing jurisdictional law, the issue was debatable, and all material facts had been disclosed with a bona fide explanation.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 270A was not leviable and was liable to be deleted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the revisional rejection and penalty order were quashed, and the assessee obtained complete relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty order under the Income-tax Act may be revised under Section 264 unless expressly barred by sub-section (4), and penalty for under-reporting cannot be sustained where the same disallowance was already reflected in processing under Section 143(1)(a) and the claim was bona fide on a debatable legal issue fully disclosed by the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made on the basis of GST data was justified. (ii) Whether the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,68,17,674/- under section 69C was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the deletion of the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made on the basis of GST data was justified.

Analysis: The addition was founded on GST-related material, but the assessee denied the alleged payment. The record showed no payment, no claim of input tax credit, and no booking of corresponding expenditure. In the absence of evidence that any expenditure had actually been incurred, the basis for making an addition was not established.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,68,17,674/- under section 69C was justified.

Analysis: The assessee produced agreements, invoices, ledger accounts, bank statements, TDS records, confirmations and related material to support the impugned payments. The payments were found to have been made through banking channels and linked to the underlying business arrangement. Section 69C applies where expenditure is incurred but its source remains unexplained; it does not sustain an addition merely because vendors did not respond or third-party compliance was incomplete, when the assessee's own source of payment and business expenditure stand explained.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,68,17,674/- under section 69C was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to dislodge the factual findings recorded by the first appellate authority, and both additions were correctly deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 69C can be invoked only where actual expenditure is shown to have been incurred and its source remains unexplained; additions cannot rest solely on third-party non-compliance or suspicion when the assessee substantiates the transactions and source by documentary evidence.

Issues: Whether the margin agreed under the Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement could be adopted for determining the arm's length price of international transactions with associated enterprises not covered by that agreement.

Analysis: The assessee's non-US associated enterprise transactions formed only a small portion of total revenue, and no separate benchmarking was undertaken for those transactions. The record did not show any material difference in the functional, asset, and risk profile of the non-covered transactions vis-a -vis the transactions covered by the Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement. In such a situation, the agreed margin under the agreement was treated as a reliable and persuasive benchmark for determining the arm's length price, particularly where the same assessee had been subjected to a uniform transfer pricing approach and the principle of consistency supported adoption of the accepted margin.

Conclusion: The margin under the Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement was directed to be applied to the transactions with non-US associated enterprises, and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was reduced by applying the agreed APA/BAPA margin to the remaining international transactions, and all the connected appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where transactions not covered by an APA or BAPA are functionally indistinguishable from covered transactions and no separate benchmarking is carried out, the agreed APA or BAPA margin may be adopted as a persuasive arm's length benchmark on the principle of consistency.

Issues: (i) whether, for computing disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, only those investments which yielded exempt income during the year are to be considered; (ii) whether ESOP expenditure was allowable as a deduction under section 37(1); and (iii) whether the disallowance of sales incentive expenditure under Explanation 1 to section 37(1) was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether, for computing disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, only those investments which yielded exempt income during the year are to be considered.

Analysis: The assessee had earned exempt dividend income and made a suo motu disallowance, but the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance by taking all investments into account. The Tribunal followed the Special Bench ruling that, for Rule 8D computation, the relevant base is confined to investments which actually yielded exempt income during the year.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was to be recomputed by considering only investments that yielded exempt income, in favour of Revenue for statistical purposes.

Issue (ii): whether ESOP expenditure was allowable as a deduction under section 37(1).

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the binding High Court view that ESOP discount represents a real and ascertained business liability incurred over the vesting period and is not disallowed merely because the liability is quantified later. The expenditure was treated as incurred for the purposes of business and not as a contingent or capital outlay.

Conclusion: The deletion of the ESOP disallowance was upheld, against Revenue.

Issue (iii): whether the disallowance of sales incentive expenditure under Explanation 1 to section 37(1) was sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the claim required party-wise verification, including the nature of the recipients, the agreements, and whether any payment was in substance prohibited by law. As the factual inquiry was incomplete, the issue was restored for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer after examining each recipient and the supporting material.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, resulting in a limited allowance of Revenue's ground for statistical purposes.

Final Conclusion: The consolidated order granted Revenue relief on the section 14A computation issue, sustained the deletion of the ESOP disallowance, and sent the sales incentive issue back for fresh adjudication, leaving the appeals partly allowed or allowed for statistical purposes as recorded.

Ratio Decidendi: For Rule 8D computation under section 14A, only those investments that actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year can be taken into account.

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained on the basis that a part of the cause of action arose within Delhi, and whether the Court should decline jurisdiction on the ground of forum conveniens.

Analysis: The Court held that although some part of the cause of action arose within Delhi, that circumstance was not, by itself, determinative of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant consideration was the substance of the lis and the material, essential and integral facts giving rise to the dispute. Where the underlying events and operative injury were substantially connected outside Delhi, the mere location of the respondent-authority or the passing of the impugned order in Delhi did not justify entertaining the writ petition. The doctrine of forum conveniens could be invoked to decline exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner was relegated to the jurisdictional High Court.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertained in Delhi and was dismissed by declining to exercise territorial and discretionary writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The ruling affirms that a writ petition cannot be maintained merely because the impugned order was issued in Delhi when the real and dominant cause of action lies elsewhere.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Article 226, the mere situs of the respondent or the impugned order within the forum State is not decisive where the substantive and dominant facts arise outside that territory, and the Court may refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction on the ground of forum conveniens.

Issues: Whether the assessment order and notice of demand for Assessment Year 2023-24 were barred by limitation because they were digitally signed after the expiry of the period prescribed under section 153(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether an order can be said to be made only when it is signed by the competent authority.

Analysis: The assessment year in question attracted the twelve-month limitation under the fourth proviso to section 153(1), making 31 March 2025 the outer limit for completion of the assessment. The assessment order, computation sheet, and notice of demand were all dated 21 March 2025 but were digitally signed only on 25 December 2025, 24 December 2025, and 12 December 2025 respectively. The governing principle applied was that an assessment or other operative order is made only when it is signed and thereby ceases to remain within the authority's locus poenitentiae. The Court also relied on the statutory requirement that notices or documents issued under the Act must be signed, and treated the absence of timely signature as fatal to validity where the act is time-bound. On that basis, documents signed after the limitation period could not be regarded as having been made within time.

Conclusion: The assessment order, computation sheet, and notice of demand were held to be time-barred and invalid, and were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: For a time-limited assessment under section 153(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the order is made only upon signature by the competent authority, and any assessment-related document signed after expiry of the prescribed limitation is invalid.

Issues: Whether the short-term capital loss arising from sale of compulsorily convertible debentures was genuine and allowable for set-off against long-term capital gains, or whether the arrangement was a colourable device lacking commercial substance.

Analysis: The documentary record showed that the company had undertaken a real business project, had borrowed from banks for execution, and that the assessee had raised funds by mortgaging jointly owned property to meet the liabilities. The subscription to the debentures, their transfer, and the later sale were supported by loan documents, bank statements, the subscription agreement, and an independent valuation report by a SEBI-registered merchant banker. The record did not disclose any adverse material proving sham, collusion, or money flow back to the assessee. The mere fact that the debentures were subscribed at par, or that the transaction ultimately produced a loss set off against capital gains, did not by itself establish tax evasion. In the given distress-driven commercial setting, the test of human probabilities did not displace the otherwise credible and evidenced explanation.

Conclusion: The short-term capital loss was held to be genuine, and the set-off and carry forward claimed by the assessee were upheld.

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was warranted on the facts of the case. (ii) Whether education cess, including secondary and higher education cess, was allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in view of Explanation 3 to section 40(a)(ii).

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was warranted on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The assessee accepted that the disallowance was computed in conformity with the earlier directions and that only investments yielding exempt income were considered. The finding of the first appellate authority sustaining the disallowance therefore required no interference.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether education cess, including secondary and higher education cess, was allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in view of Explanation 3 to section 40(a)(ii).

Analysis: Explanation 3 inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 clarifies that tax includes surcharge and cess for the purposes of section 40(a)(ii). Following the Supreme Court ruling that education cess is not allowable as an expenditure, the deduction claimed by the assessee could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The deduction of education cess, including secondary and higher education cess, was disallowed and the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's appeal failed, while the Revenue's appeal succeeded on the deduction of education cess.

Ratio Decidendi: Education cess and secondary and higher education cess are not deductible as business expenditure, and disallowance under section 14A is sustainable where the computation is confined to investments yielding exempt income.

Issues: Disallowance of labour charges paid to five parties was justified on an ad hoc basis.

Analysis: The assessee produced labour bills, confirmations, issue and receipt vouchers, bank records, and replies from the labour contractors to notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The books were not rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and no discrepancy was found in the stock records. Labour charges were found to be an integral part of the jewellery manufacturing business, and there was no evidence that the cash withdrawals by the contractors were returned to the assessee. The field verification reports were found to be flawed and could not, by themselves, sustain a conclusion of bogus expenditure. An ad hoc percentage disallowance, unsupported by a specific finding of inflated or non-business expenditure, was held to be arbitrary.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 16,71,940 was deleted and the assessee succeeded on the merits of the labour-charge issue.

Issues: (i) whether the transfer pricing adjustment on account of advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenditure, including the protective adjustment based on the bright line test, was sustainable; (ii) whether disallowance of daughter marriage fund expenditure was justified; (iii) whether foreign tax credit was to be allowed or restored for verification; (iv) whether deduction for the warranty-related unwinding of discount expenditure was to be admitted as an additional ground and examined afresh.

Issue (i): whether the transfer pricing adjustment on account of advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenditure, including the protective adjustment based on the bright line test, was sustainable.

Analysis: The adjustment was examined in the light of the settled position that AMP expenditure, by itself, does not constitute an international transaction in the absence of a demonstrated arrangement with the associated enterprise. The bright line test was also rejected as a basis for inferring such a transaction. On the facts, no material change was shown to justify a different view from the earlier years in the assessee's own case.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment and the protective adjustment on AMP expenditure were deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether disallowance of daughter marriage fund expenditure was justified.

Analysis: The expenditure was treated as a business-related employee welfare claim, and the matter had earlier been sent back in the assessee's own case for verification of details. The same approach was followed here, with the claim to be examined in accordance with the earlier directions.

Conclusion: The disallowance was not finally sustained and the issue was remitted for verification, with relief granted in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Issue (iii): whether foreign tax credit was to be allowed or restored for verification.

Analysis: The claim was considered to be capable of verification from the certificates and reconciliation statement, and the matter was treated as one requiring factual examination rather than outright rejection.

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

Issue (iv): whether deduction for the warranty-related unwinding of discount expenditure was to be admitted as an additional ground and examined afresh.

Analysis: The additional claim was treated as arising from the same warranty liability framework and from the assessee's mercantile method of accounting. The liability was regarded as an ascertained business liability, and the claim was not treated as a wholly new issue but as one requiring proper verification and computation.

Conclusion: The additional ground was admitted and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, with the issue sustained in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the AMP-related transfer pricing addition deleted and the remaining disputed claims either remitted or restored for verification.

Ratio Decidendi: AMP expenditure cannot be treated as an international transaction or adjusted by the bright line test without demonstrated material showing an arrangement with the associated enterprise, and deductible business claims requiring factual verification may be restored for fresh examination rather than rejected outright.