Issues: (i) Whether the consultancy receipts could be brought to tax as unexplained income under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the claim of expenditure supported by self-made vouchers and additional material could be disallowed in full or only to a restricted extent.

Issue (i): Whether the consultancy receipts could be brought to tax as unexplained income under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessee had entered into a one-time consultancy arrangement in relation to redevelopment projects and had placed memoranda of understanding and banking evidence on record. A part of the receipts had been routed through banking channels, lending prima facie credibility to the transaction. The existence of the activity and the receipt of income therefrom could not, therefore, be ignored in entirety.

Conclusion: The entire receipts could not be treated as unexplained income under section 69.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim of expenditure supported by self-made vouchers and additional material could be disallowed in full or only to a restricted extent.

Analysis: The assessee failed to substantiate the expenditure with cogent and verifiable evidence before the Assessing Officer. The self-made vouchers and related materials were sought to be introduced at the appellate stage without satisfying the conditions for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. At the same time, the nature of the activity and the assessee's concession justified only a limited disallowance for unverifiable expenses.

Conclusion: The expenditure disallowance was to be restricted to Rs. 10,00,000, and the balance disallowance was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The addition was sustained only to a limited extent for unverifiable expenditure, and the assessee obtained relief on the balance of the disputed amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Where documentary material and banking evidence establish a prima facie genuine business receipt, the entire receipt cannot be taxed as unexplained income merely because part of the expenditure remains unverified; however, unverifiable expenditure may still be disallowed to a reasonable extent, and additional evidence is not admissible unless the conditions of Rule 46A are satisfied.

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271D was leviable where cash sale consideration for transfer of immovable property was received through a subsisting General Power of Attorney and the transaction did not amount to acceptance of loan or deposit under section 269SS.

Analysis: The appeal turned on whether the receipt of cash in connection with sale of immovable property attracted the prohibition in section 269SS and the consequential penalty under section 271D. The transfer was effected through a General Power of Attorney that had not been cancelled, and the reasoning adopted by the lower authorities on the basis of alleged infirmity in the GPA transaction was not accepted. Following the view taken in co-ordinate bench decisions, receipt of sale consideration in cash in the facts of the case was held not to constitute the kind of loan or deposit transaction targeted by section 269SS, and therefore the penal provision could not be invoked.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271D was not exigible and was deleted; the assessee succeeded.

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order was liable to be quashed for failure to grant the statutory opportunity of personal hearing mandated by Section 75(4) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the authority to afford three opportunities of personal hearing before passing an adverse order. The record showed that the petitioner was not granted the full hearing mandated by law, and the option of declining personal hearing in the reply could not override the statutory command. Where the reply was not accepted, the authority was bound to provide the further hearings contemplated by the provision. The denial of the mandated hearing amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not stand and was liable to be quashed. The matter was required to be remanded for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were set aside for breach of the statutory hearing requirement and natural justice, with a direction for fresh decision-making by the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute mandates multiple opportunities of personal hearing before an adverse adjudication, the authority must strictly comply with that mandate, and an order passed without such compliance is vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Issues: Whether the impugned order was liable to be quashed for breach of principles of natural justice for want of hearing and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The notice issued to the petitioner expressly required appearance on a future date and also called for a representation with supporting evidence. The impugned order, however, was passed before that scheduled hearing date and without affording the petitioner an opportunity to reply or be heard. On these facts, the procedural safeguard of hearing was not observed, and the order could not be sustained. The appropriate course was to set aside the order and remit the proceedings to the authority for fresh decision after granting hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside and the proceedings were remanded for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner-company could be permitted to repatriate dividend to its foreign shareholders despite pending tax demands and earlier restraint orders, and on what conditions; (ii) whether the income-tax refund for the relevant assessment year could be adjusted against the outstanding demand and whether the lien on the existing fixed deposit receipts could be lifted.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner-company could be permitted to repatriate dividend to its foreign shareholders despite pending tax demands and earlier restraint orders, and on what conditions.

Analysis: The accumulated dividend could not be withheld indefinitely merely because the Department had earlier frozen accounts on apprehension of demand, particularly when the assessed demands were under challenge and stood stayed by the appellate forum or the Court. The Court balanced the competing interests by recognising the shareholders' entitlement to receive dividend while safeguarding the Department through a security mechanism linked to the amount proposed to be repatriated.

Conclusion: The petitioner-company was permitted to declare and repatriate dividend in accordance with law and foreign remittance requirements, subject to deduction of tax at source and furnishing an auto-renewable interest-bearing fixed deposit receipt of equal amount in a nationalized bank.

Issue (ii): whether the income-tax refund for the relevant assessment year could be adjusted against the outstanding demand and whether the lien on the existing fixed deposit receipts could be lifted.

Analysis: Since the demand had already crystallised and the refund was available with the Department, adjustment of the refund against another outstanding demand was permitted. The Court also removed the lien on the earlier fixed deposit receipts, leaving it open to the petitioner-company to withdraw them if so desired.

Conclusion: The refund was allowed to be adjusted against the outstanding demand, and the lien on the existing fixed deposit receipts was lifted.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed in part by permitting dividend repatriation with security, while also permitting refund adjustment and lifting the lien on the existing security deposits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax demand is stayed without any security condition, interim restraint on dividend repatriation cannot be continued indefinitely; the proper course is to balance shareholder rights with departmental protection by permitting remittance subject to equivalent security and tax compliance.

Issues: Whether the petition should be entertained by the High Court when only a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction and the substantial factual foundation of the dispute lay outside Delhi.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction was not determined by the location of the respondent's head office alone. The summons, the ECIR, and the underlying FIR were all connected with Punjab, showing that the genesis of the controversy and the material facts giving rise to the grievance were outside Delhi. A small or incidental part of the cause of action within Delhi did not compel the Court to exercise writ jurisdiction, especially where the doctrine of forum conveniens applied and the dominant facts were elsewhere.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertained on territorial grounds and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere presence of a decision-making authority or a small part of the cause of action within the Court's territorial limits does not mandate exercise of writ jurisdiction where the dominant, material, and integral facts lie outside that territory, and the Court may decline to entertain the matter on the basis of forum conveniens.

Issues: Whether premium paid to LIC to secure a monthly annuity for a retiring employee constituted a contingent liability or an expenditure referable to an existing contractual liability and was therefore allowable as a deduction.

Analysis: The payment was made to discharge a contractual obligation under the partnership arrangement and the LIC policy. The liability to provide the annuity existed at the time of payment, while retirement or completion of service was only the condition for enjoyment of the benefit. A future event that may affect the discharge of the liability does not by itself make the liability contingent. On the facts, the premium was not paid to create a mere reserve for an uncertain future event, and the reasoning that treated it as a contingent outgo was inconsistent with the governing principles on accrued liabilities and deductible expenditure under mercantile accounting.

Conclusion: The payment was an allowable business expenditure and not a contingent liability; the assessee succeeded on the issue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's view was set aside and the appellate authority's order was restored, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A liability that has already accrued under a contractual obligation is not rendered contingent merely because its actual enjoyment or discharge depends on a future condition subsequent.

Issues: (i) Whether the arm's length price adjustment in respect of the international transaction, where the transaction value exceeded Rs. 5 crores, was required to be referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer.

Analysis: The matter involved determination of arm's length price of international transactions. The Tribunal found that the adjustment had not been referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer despite the transaction value exceeding the statutory threshold. Following the binding Supreme Court ruling relied upon in the order, the Tribunal held that the issue had to be sent back so that reference could be made to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer with a direction to refer the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh determination of the arm's length price.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the value of an international transaction exceeds the prescribed threshold, the arm's length price must be determined through reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, and failure to make such reference warrants remand for fresh adjudication.

Issues: (i) transfer pricing adjustment on royalty payment for use of trademark and trade name; (ii) transfer pricing adjustment on specified domestic transaction relating to passive infrastructure charges and rent; (iii) disallowance of depreciation on right to use 3G spectrum; (iv) disallowance of penalty paid to the Department of Telecommunication; (v) disallowance of depreciation on asset restoration cost; (vi) addition for liabilities written back; (vii) disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on discount extended to prepaid distributors; (viii) disallowance of license fee and related amortization claim; (ix) disallowance of payments made to IBM; (x) disallowance of royalty WPC expense; (xi) short credit of tax deducted at source and interest on refund.

Issue (i): transfer pricing adjustment on royalty payment for use of trademark and trade name.

Analysis: The royalty transaction was benchmarked by the assessee under CUP, while the transfer pricing authority substituted TNMM and adopted controlled arrangements as comparables. The Tribunal treated the controversy as covered by its earlier order in the assessee's own case for the preceding year and followed the same reasoning to test the comparability exercise.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment on royalty payment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): transfer pricing adjustment on specified domestic transaction relating to passive infrastructure charges and rent.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the specified domestic transaction adjustment had been omitted from the statute and relied on the effect of such omission to hold the reference and consequent adjustment unsustainable. It also accepted the revenue-neutral character of the transaction in the factual setting of the case.

Conclusion: The adjustment on passive infrastructure charges and rent was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): disallowance of depreciation on right to use 3G spectrum.

Analysis: The claim was examined in light of prior co-ordinate bench rulings in the assessee's own case and related group matters, where spectrum-related expenditure was treated as eligible for depreciation as an intangible asset rather than being confined to amortization under the competing provision relied upon by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The disallowance of depreciation on right to use 3G spectrum was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): disallowance of penalty paid to the Department of Telecommunication.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier view that the payment arose from breach of contractual obligations under the licence arrangement and not from an infraction of law attracting the bar on deduction. The same approach was applied to the analogous penalty relating to the Universal Service Obligation Fund.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the Department of Telecommunication penalty was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): disallowance of depreciation on asset restoration cost.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the earlier decision in the assessee's own case and the later High Court ruling recognising the allowability of the underlying obligation as revenue expenditure under section 37. On that basis, the assessee's claim was restored in substance, with verification of the expenditure directed at the assessment stage.

Conclusion: The claim relating to asset restoration cost was allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): addition for liabilities written back.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the liability written back related to capital equipment and that the issue had already been decided against the assessee in the prior year on the footing that the remission constituted a business liability within the charging provisions invoked by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The addition for liabilities written back was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (vii): disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on discount extended to prepaid distributors.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court ruling that such discount is not commission and therefore does not attract the TDS obligation under the provision invoked by the Revenue. The earlier year's order in the assessee's own case was followed.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): disallowance of license fee and related amortization claim.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court authority holding the licence fee to be capital in nature and amortizable under the specified provision. The assessee was therefore directed to have the claim examined and allowed in accordance with that framework.

Conclusion: The issue was allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ix): disallowance of payments made to IBM.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated the payment as lease-related expenditure where beneficial ownership remained with the supplier and the tax treatment was governed by the substantive provisions rather than accounting classification. It followed the earlier co-ordinate bench decision allowing the expenditure as revenue outgo.

Conclusion: The disallowance of payments made to IBM was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (x): disallowance of royalty WPC expense.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court and its own earlier decision that the recurring spectrum-related payments were revenue in nature and not capital expenditure requiring capitalization.

Conclusion: The disallowance of royalty WPC expense was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (xi): short credit of tax deducted at source and interest on refund.

Analysis: The Tribunal directed verification of the assessee's entitlement and instructed the Assessing Officer to grant credit and refund interest according to law.

Conclusion: These issues were allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on most substantive grounds, with several additions and disallowances deleted, some claims restored for verification or allowed for statistical purposes, and the addition relating to liabilities written back sustained against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For transfer pricing, controlled transactions cannot be treated as comparable uncontrolled transactions for CUP analysis, and a tax adjustment based on an omitted domestic transfer pricing provision cannot survive; further, contractual lease-related outgoings and prepaid distributor discounts are deductible where the governing tax characterisation supports revenue treatment.

Issues: Whether the direction to return the deposited amount to the corporate debtor and to decline acceptance of the affidavit was justified.

Analysis: The corporate debtor had deposited the amount pursuant to the earlier order within the time allowed. The affidavit filed in support of the deposit recorded the debtor's submission that the amount should not be released or remitted to the operational creditor while the stated sanctions-related constraints continued. That statement did not furnish a basis to undo the deposit or to direct its return. The operational creditor also had no objection to the amount continuing in deposit. Since the matter had already been reserved, the adjudicating authority was required to take a decision on the basis of the deposit and the affidavit already filed.

Conclusion: The direction returning the deposited amount and refusing to take the affidavit on record was set aside, and the deposited amount was ordered to remain with the Assistant Registrar.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was modified to preserve the deposited amount in court custody and to permit the adjudicating authority to proceed on the basis of the deposit and affidavit already filed.

Issues: Whether the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, after approval of the resolution plan and commencement of liquidation proceedings due to persistent default by the successful resolution applicant, could be de novo revived at the instance of the erstwhile resolution professional.

Analysis: The approved resolution plan had already been acted upon to the extent possible, but repeated defaults in payment led to invocation of the liquidation mechanism under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appellant himself had initiated liquidation proceedings and later sought restoration of that application. In these circumstances, the request to restore and revive the concluded CIRP was inconsistent with the statutory scheme, because the CIRP had already culminated in an approved plan and, upon its failure, had moved into the liquidation stage. The cited precedents did not assist the appellant, as they arose on materially different facts and did not lay down a principle permitting revival of a closed CIRP after failure of the revised plan and initiation of liquidation.

Conclusion: The request for de novo revival of the CIRP was rightly rejected and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a resolution plan has been approved and, upon persistent non-implementation, liquidation proceedings have been validly initiated, the CIRP cannot be revived de novo, particularly at the instance of the party who himself sought liquidation.

Issues: (i) Whether a shareholder had locus standi to maintain the application and the present company appeal challenging the earlier insolvency proceedings and the approved resolution plan. (ii) Whether the later application seeking to reopen the concluded CIRP and allege fraud was maintainable in view of the finality already attained and the conduct of the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether a shareholder had locus standi to maintain the application and the present company appeal challenging the earlier insolvency proceedings and the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The challenge was examined against the appellant's admitted status as a shareholder. The proceedings relating to admission of CIRP, approval of the resolution plan, and subsequent challenges had already been carried through earlier rounds of adjudication. In that context, the appellant was found not to be a person entitled to agitate the cause in his individual capacity on behalf of the corporate debtor. The earlier decisions had already treated the resolution plan as implemented and concluded, leaving no surviving personal grievance that could support the present challenge.

Conclusion: The shareholder lacked locus standi to maintain the application and the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the later application seeking to reopen the concluded CIRP and allege fraud was maintainable in view of the finality already attained and the conduct of the appellant.

Analysis: The earlier proceedings on the same foundation had been conclusively decided, and the approval of the resolution plan had attained finality after dismissal of the earlier appellate proceedings and the further challenge before the Supreme Court, followed by dismissal of review. The later application was filed after a substantial delay and sought to revive issues that had already been negatived. The Tribunal found concealment of material facts, repetition of earlier grounds, and an attempt to use the forum for a collateral criminal-law style invocation under the guise of insolvency proceedings. Such repeated invocation of the same allegations was treated as an abuse of process and not a maintainable basis to disturb concluded proceedings.

Conclusion: The later application was not maintainable and was rightly rejected as an abuse of process.

Final Conclusion: The company appeal failed, the impugned rejection of the later applications was sustained, and costs were imposed for abuse of the judicial process.

Ratio Decidendi: A shareholder cannot maintain insolvency-related proceedings to reopen a resolution plan that has attained finality, and repetitive allegations of fraud after conclusion of the CIRP are barred as an abuse of process.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the notice calling upon the petitioner to make good the pre-deposit for filing an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal required interference, and what consequential directions were warranted regarding the pending order on the notice, the proposed stay application, and recovery.

Analysis: The petition was not decided on the merits of the tax or interest demand. The immediate controversy concerned the communication alleging short payment of the requisite amount for a proposed Tribunal appeal. Since a hearing on the notice had already been concluded and an order by the Deputy Commissioner was awaited, the appropriate course was to require a prompt decision on the notice rather than adjudicate the disputed computation in writ proceedings. The petitioner was also permitted to pursue a stay application before the Tribunal, and recovery was directed to be preceded by notice. All substantive contentions were expressly preserved.

Conclusion: The writ court declined to interfere on the merits, directed the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order on the impugned notice within one week, permitted the petitioner to file a stay application before the Tribunal, and required ten days' prior notice before any recovery. The petition stood disposed of with all contentions kept open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notice concerning the sufficiency of pre-deposit for an intended statutory appeal is pending adjudication, the writ court may confine itself to ensuring a prompt decision and preserve the parties' rights in the appellate process, rather than determining the disputed liability in writ jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could be sustained when the deduction under Section 80G had already been examined and allowed in the original scrutiny assessment and the reopening was founded on an audit objection on the same material.

Analysis: The original assessment showed that the deduction claim had been specifically scrutinised through queries, responses, and supporting documents. The relevant CSR-related donations were disclosed in the return, examined during assessment, and only a minor disallowance was made. The reassessment was initiated on the very same material after the audit wing expressed a different view. Reassessment cannot be used to review or re-examine material already considered in the original assessment, and the absence of any fresh tangible material meant the reopening was based only on a different opinion on the same facts.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid as they amounted to a mere change of opinion. The impugned notice, order, and consequential notice were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the reassessment action was set aside because the jurisdictional precondition for reopening was not met.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded assessment cannot be reopened on the same material merely because the Revenue later adopts a different view, and an audit objection by itself does not justify reassessment without fresh tangible material.

Issues: (i) Whether unsecured loans could be added under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the assessee produced confirmations, PAN, returns, bank statements and evidence of repayment; (ii) whether cash notings in seized Excel sheets could be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) whether, in respect of alleged bogus purchases, addition could be restricted to the profit element at 6%; (iv) whether the difference between book stock and physical stock justified a full addition or only an estimated profit addition; and (v) whether the matter concerning seized loose material and unexplained expenditure required restoration for verification.

Issue (i): Whether unsecured loans could be added under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the assessee produced confirmations, PAN, returns, bank statements and evidence of repayment.

Analysis: The assessee furnished primary evidence establishing the identity of the lenders, the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the parties. The loans moved through banking channels, cash deposits were not shown in the lenders' accounts immediately before the advances, summons were complied with in several cases, and the loans were repaid in the same or subsequent years. The Revenue relied mainly on search-related affidavits and an investigation report, but no independent adverse inquiry disproved the documentary evidence or established cash trail or accommodation entry mechanics. The applicable law at the relevant time did not require proof of source of source.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was unsustainable; the deletion was upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cash notings in seized Excel sheets could be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The seized sheet was explained as a working paper for fund planning and cash movement, and the specific amount was linked to a cash withdrawal from the disclosed bank account and reflected in the books. The Revenue did not bring corroborative material to show unrecorded expenditure or a separate cash trail. The note entries were treated as referable to recorded banking transactions rather than independent unexplained outgoings.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69C was not justified and its deletion was confirmed; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether, in respect of alleged bogus purchases, addition could be restricted to the profit element at 6%.

Analysis: The purchases were doubted on GST and field inquiries, but sales, stock records, invoices, bank trail and business turnover were not rejected. In such circumstances, the settled approach is to tax only the profit embedded in the disputed purchases rather than the entire purchase value. The appellate authority adopted 6% on the basis of binding precedent and the surrounding facts.

Conclusion: Restriction of the addition to 6% was upheld; both parties failed to obtain further relief on this issue.

Issue (iv): Whether the difference between book stock and physical stock justified a full addition or only an estimated profit addition.

Analysis: The book stock figure used by the Revenue was found to be overstated, the contemporaneous accounting data and search statement supported a lower book stock figure, and the valuer's report did not include stores and consumables that were present in the books. In the absence of evidence of suppressed sales or parallel books, the entire stock difference could not be taxed as unexplained income. The Tribunal found that no separate unaccounted stock or clandestine movement was proved.

Conclusion: The sustained addition was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the matter concerning seized loose material and unexplained expenditure required restoration for verification.

Analysis: The assessee sought reconciliation of the seized notings with recorded transactions, but the Tribunal found that verification of the notings against the books had not been adequately carried out. In the interest of natural justice, the matter required factual verification by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for verification and was allowed for statistical purposes.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed, the assessee obtained relief on the principal additions, and only one issue was restored for limited verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an assessee produces primary evidence proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors and the Revenue fails to rebut it with independent inquiry or adverse material, an addition under section 68 cannot be sustained; in cases of suspected bogus purchases or stock discrepancies where sales are accepted, only the embedded profit can be brought to tax absent proof of unrecorded turnover or clandestine transactions.

Issues: Whether interim protection should be granted against the impugned order and consequential coercive measures in a challenge to notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act.

Analysis: The petition assailed the notifications on the ground that there was no power under Section 168A to extend the time limit for passing orders and that the notifications were ultra vires Section 73(4) of the CGST Act. The Court followed the course adopted in earlier connected matters and granted interim protection pending final disposal.

Conclusion: The impugned order was stayed and the consequential coercive measures, including blocking of the electronic credit ledger and any attachment, were also stayed or vacated pending final hearing.

Issues: Whether the petitioners, accused of offences under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (f) and (i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Analysis: The allegations related to fraudulent availment of input tax credit and the offences were triable by a Magistrate with a maximum punishment of five years. The petitioners had remained in custody for about four months, had no similar criminal antecedents, and no material was produced to show any extraordinary circumstance warranting continued detention. The Court applied the principle that, in the ordinary course, accused persons in such matters should be enlarged on bail unless exceptional grounds exist, and also noted the absence of any adverse material distinguishing the case from that approach.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to bail and were admitted to bail on terms to be fixed by the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The bail applications were allowed and the proceedings were finally disposed of by granting release on bail subject to conditions.

Issues: Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16, along with the assessment and penalty orders founded upon it, was liable to be quashed, and whether relief could be denied on the ground of delay or acceptance of the return.

Analysis: The impugned notice dated 18 April 2022 related to Assessment Year 2015-16, and the Revenue's concession before the Supreme Court in respect of notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 for that assessment year made the notice unsustainable. Once the foundation notice was invalid, the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty orders based on it could not survive. The fact that the return filed in response to the notice was accepted did not cure the jurisdictional defect. Delay in approaching the Court was also not treated as a bar to relief where the underlying notice was void and the Revenue had already conceded the issue.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and all consequential assessment, demand, and penalty proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 were quashed. The challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings founded on the impugned notice were held to be legally unsustainable, and all consequential actions were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice that is invalid for want of jurisdiction cannot be validated by acceptance of the return or defeated merely on the ground of delay, and all consequential proceedings founded on such notice must fall.

Issues: Whether the Tax Recovery Certificates and attachments of the petitioner's properties could be sustained in view of the reduction and partial extinction of the underlying tax demand, and to what extent the attached properties were liable to be released or continued under the surviving demand.

Analysis: The demand for two assessment years had substantially ceased to survive after appellate relief, while the remaining enforceable demand was limited to the quantum interest component for one assessment year and a separate penalty demand stayed by the Principal Commissioner. The Revenue accepted the current demand position and sought retention of one property only, whereas the petitioner offered continued attachment of the property whose market value was sufficient to secure the surviving unrecovered demand. On these facts, the continued attachment of all three properties was found unsustainable, but one property could remain attached to protect the Revenue in respect of the outstanding non-stayed demand.

Conclusion: The attachment over two properties was quashed and set aside, the third property was permitted to remain attached for the surviving demand, and the Tax Recovery Certificates were directed to be revised to reflect only the unrecovered demand not covered by stay.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of releasing two attached properties while preserving one attachment as security for the limited subsisting tax liability, with consequential revision of the recovery certificates.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery proceedings and attachments cannot continue beyond the extent of the enforceable outstanding demand, and where the surviving liability is limited, attachment may be retained only to the extent necessary to secure that liability.

Issues: (i) whether the CIT(A) could direct the assessee to seek condonation of delay before the CIT(Exemption) in relation to the belated filing of Form 10CCB; and (ii) whether deduction under section 80IC could be denied at the processing stage under section 143(1) merely because Form 10CCB was filed after the prescribed due date but before completion of assessment.

Issue (i): whether the CIT(A) could direct the assessee to seek condonation of delay before the CIT(Exemption) in relation to the belated filing of Form 10CCB;

Analysis: The order of the first appellate authority proceeded on the footing that condonation of delay in filing the prescribed report had to be sought before the CIT(Exemption). That direction was held to be erroneous because the cited jurisdiction did not lie with the Exemption charge on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The direction to approach the CIT(Exemption) was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether deduction under section 80IC could be denied at the processing stage under section 143(1) merely because Form 10CCB was filed after the prescribed due date but before completion of assessment.

Analysis: The statutory requirement to furnish the audit report was treated in the light of prior judicial decisions holding that belated filing before completion of assessment amounts to substantial compliance. On that approach, the deduction could not be rejected merely because the report was filed after the due date, and the adjustment made while processing the return was not justified on that ground alone. At the same time, the claim still required verification of eligibility under section 80IC.

Conclusion: Denial of the deduction solely for belated filing of Form 10CCB was not justified, and the matter was restored for limited verification.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief against the erroneous appellate direction and the mechanical denial of the claim, but the deduction claim was sent back to the Assessing Officer for verification on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory audit report filed after the due date but before completion of assessment cannot, by itself, defeat a deduction claim where substantial compliance is otherwise shown; any processing adjustment denying the claim must remain within the permissible scope of section 143(1).