Issues: Whether the challenge to SEBI's interim directions should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The challenge to the scope of the restrictions appeared arguable at first blush, but no prima facie finding was recorded. The statutory appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal was treated as an efficacious remedy for raising all objections to the interim order.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate forum, with all rights and contentions left open.

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice proposing wilful-defaulter classification could be quashed or deferred because arbitral proceedings concerning the underlying loan transactions were pending.

Analysis: The Reserve Bank of India Directions treat disposal of assets furnished as security without the lender's approval as a form of wilful default. The notice identified the assets and disclosed the supporting material, which was not alleged to have been withheld. Pending arbitration did not bar the independent wilful-defaulter process; the arbitral tribunal had also declined to stay the notice. A determination had not yet been made, since the borrowers could respond before the Identification and Review Committees, making judicial intervention at the show-cause stage premature.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show-cause notice was rejected, with two weeks granted for filing a reply.

Issues: (i) Whether the Bank Charges were taxable consideration or were exempt interest on discounting/reimbursable expenses; (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period and imposition of penalty under Section 78 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Bank Charges were taxable consideration or were exempt interest on discounting/reimbursable expenses.

Analysis: Notification No. 29/2004-ST exempts the value equivalent to interest on discounting of bills, bills of exchange or cheques where the interest is separately disclosed. The earlier departmental adjudication had accepted that cheque-discounting charges recorded as Bank Charges represented interest, and no change in the nature or accounting of the receipts was established for the relevant period. The ledger nomenclature alone could not establish taxability. The entries comprised cheque-related charges, realisation charges and amounts debited by banks, while no transaction-wise evidence established that the entire amount was consideration for a taxable service. Amounts representing interest on discounting were exempt, and actual bank expenses recovered from clients were not includible in taxable value for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The Bank Charges were not established as taxable consideration; the confirmed service-tax demand was unsustainable on merits, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period and imposition of penalty under Section 78 were sustainable.

Analysis: The relevant entries were recorded in the books and ledgers, had been examined in departmental and CERA audit, and the same accounting practice had previously been accepted in adjudication. No deliberate suppression, wilful misstatement or concealment with intent to evade tax was established. The dispute concerned the interpretative taxability of the receipts, and the entire confirmed demand fell beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period was unavailable, the demand was time-barred, and the penalty under Section 78 could not survive, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed levy, consequential interest and penalty lack legal basis because taxability was not proved and the extended limitation period was inapplicable.

Ratio Decidendi: A ledger description does not by itself establish service-tax liability; where the Department fails to prove that receipts are consideration for taxable service and prior disclosures negate suppression, the extended limitation period and suppression-based penalty cannot be invoked.

Issues: (i) Whether type-testing charges recovered from the buyer for ACSR conductors form part of the assessable value for central excise duty; (ii) Whether the equal penalty imposed for non-inclusion of such charges requires modification.

Issue (i): Whether type-testing charges recovered from the buyer for ACSR conductors form part of the assessable value for central excise duty.

Analysis: Type tests prescribed under IS 398 (Part II) were found necessary to ensure the quality and safety of ACSR conductors used in electricity transmission. The testing was mandatory rather than optional, and the sale could not occur without the requisite test certificate or report. The separately recovered charges therefore had a direct connection with the sale and formed part of transaction value. The plea of revenue neutrality was not accepted because excise liability and Cenvat credit entitlement arise under distinct provisions, with credit remaining subject to prescribed conditions.

Conclusion: Type-testing charges are includible in the assessable value of the conductors; the duty demand and consequential interest are sustainable against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the equal penalty imposed for non-inclusion of such charges requires modification.

Analysis: Earlier show-cause notices on the same issue showed that the dispute was not new to the assessee. Nevertheless, a lenient view was taken on the quantum of penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 25 is reduced to Rs. 35,000, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The valuation demand remains unaffected, while relief is confined to restriction of the monetary penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts recovered for testing that is mandatory and indispensable to the sale of goods form part of transaction value, notwithstanding that they are separately charged or that credit may potentially be available to the buyer.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's entitlement to deduction as a developer of infrastructure facilities under Section 80-IA(4) gave rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260-A; and (ii) Whether the Tribunal's reliance on its earlier confirmed order gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's entitlement to deduction as a developer of infrastructure facilities under Section 80-IA(4) gave rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260-A.

Analysis: Admission under Section 260-A is confined to a substantial question of law and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of a different factual view. The concurrent findings that the assessee qualified as a developer of an infrastructure facility were based on the material on record. No perversity, absence of evidence, or application of an erroneous legal test was established.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose on the assessee's eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA(4); this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's reliance on its earlier confirmed order gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The earlier order relied upon had been confirmed, and it involved the same assessee and identical findings on the same subject matter. Reliance on that order did not disclose any infirmity warranting appellate intervention.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from reliance on the earlier confirmed order; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent determination supporting the assessee's deduction remained undisturbed within the limited appellate jurisdiction under Section 260-A.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings cannot be reopened under Section 260-A absent perversity, lack of evidence, or erroneous application of law, and reliance on an earlier confirmed decision involving identical findings does not by itself raise a substantial question of law.

Issues: (i) Whether income from sale of manufacturing scrap of eligible units qualified for deduction under section 80-IB; (ii) Whether a further disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustainable; (iii) Whether a corporate guarantee given to an associated enterprise was an international transaction and the appropriate arm's length guarantee fee; (iv) Whether equity contributions to associated enterprises at a premium could be recharacterised as deemed loans carrying notional interest; (v) Whether common head-office and selling expenses allocated under the incremental approach required a transfer-pricing adjustment; (vi) Whether royalty received for licensing technical know-how and trademark was at arm's length.

Issue (i): Whether income from sale of manufacturing scrap of eligible units qualified for deduction under section 80-IB.

Analysis: The scrap arose directly in the ordinary manufacturing process of the eligible units and had a direct nexus with their production. The same issue had consistently been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years.

Conclusion: Income from sale of manufacturing scrap qualifies for deduction under section 80-IB. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a further disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was sustainable.

Analysis: The additional disallowance resulted from mechanical application of Rule 8D without recorded satisfaction, having regard to the accounts, as to the inadequacy of the assessee's voluntary disallowance. The voluntary disallowance also exceeded the exempt dividend income earned.

Conclusion: No further disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is sustainable. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a corporate guarantee given to an associated enterprise was an international transaction and the appropriate arm's length guarantee fee.

Analysis: The corporate guarantee was treated as an international transaction governed by transfer-pricing provisions. Applying the principle of consistency with the determination in earlier years, the arm's length guarantee commission was fixed at 0.35%.

Conclusion: The corporate guarantee is an international transaction, and the adjustment is restricted to a guarantee fee of 0.35% of the guaranteed loan amount. Partly in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether equity contributions to associated enterprises at a premium could be recharacterised as deemed loans carrying notional interest.

Analysis: The investment was on capital account. Consistent with the accepted treatment in an earlier year, the excess of issue price over book value could not be recharacterised as a deemed interest-free loan for imputing notional interest.

Conclusion: The notional-interest adjustment on the alleged deemed loan is unsustainable. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether common head-office and selling expenses allocated under the incremental approach required a transfer-pricing adjustment.

Analysis: Separate books were maintained for the eligible undertakings, and direct costs were charged to them. The incremental approach for allocation of common expenses was consistently followed and had been accepted as scientific and reasonable in earlier years.

Conclusion: The incremental allocation of common expenses is accepted and no transfer-pricing adjustment is warranted. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether royalty received for licensing technical know-how and trademark was at arm's length.

Analysis: The royalty had been benchmarked on an aggregated basis under the transactional net margin method, whereas the transfer-pricing analysis adopted separate comparable uncontrolled price searches without disclosing the search strategy. A fresh determination requires consideration of the assessee's alternate comparable search after disclosure of the search strategy and an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The royalty benchmarking issue is remitted for fresh transfer-pricing determination after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The deduction and common-expense allocation claimed for eligible undertakings, and the deletion of the section 14A and deemed-loan adjustments, remain undisturbed; the corporate-guarantee fee is capped at 0.35%, and the royalty transaction requires fresh determination.

Issues: (i) Whether settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, relating to the original assessment covered the independently initiated reassessment proceedings and the separate addition made therein; (ii) Whether the addition for alleged purchases could be sustained when the particulars of the alleged parties and transactions were not supplied despite specific requests.

Issue (i): Whether settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, relating to the original assessment covered the independently initiated reassessment proceedings and the separate addition made therein.

Analysis: The declaration and Form No. 5 were confined to the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the disputed income arising from that assessment. The reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was subsequently initiated and resulted in a distinct addition. The departmental verification confirmed that the reassessment dispute was not included in the declaration under the Scheme.

Conclusion: The Scheme settlement did not cover the subsequent reassessment proceedings or the addition made therein; the contrary appellate order was unsustainable. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition for alleged purchases could be sustained when the particulars of the alleged parties and transactions were not supplied despite specific requests.

Analysis: The addition under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was founded on alleged purchases from accommodation entry providers. Although the assessee specifically sought the identities of the parties, transaction-wise details, invoices, and material relied upon, those particulars were not furnished. The reassessment order also failed to identify the relevant parties, purchase dates, invoices, or the transaction-wise basis for the quantified addition. An assessee cannot be required to rebut an allegation without disclosure of the material particulars forming its foundation.

Conclusion: The addition could not be sustained and was deleted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The settlement remained confined to the original assessment dispute, while the separate reassessment addition failed for want of disclosure of the foundational transaction material.

Issues: Whether the appellate authority could, while deciding the company's appeal, affirm the director's personal penalty under Section 122(1A) without making him a party or hearing him when his separate appeal remained pending.

Analysis: A composite original order imposed liabilities separately upon the company and its director, entitling each to pursue an independent statutory appeal. The appellate authority decided the company's appeal but also determined and confirmed the director's personal penalty despite the director not being a party to that appeal and his own appeal awaiting adjudication. This denied the director an effective opportunity of hearing, including the ability to advance grounds distinct from those of the company, and impaired his statutory appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The appellate order, insofar as it confirmed the director's liability to penalty under Section 122(1A), was void for breach of principles of natural justice and was quashed; the director's separate appeal must be considered independently and without influence from the impugned observations.

Issues: Whether sale consideration from transfer of a depreciable flat forming part of a continuing 10% commercial block of assets, and being lower than the opening written down value of that block, gave rise to deemed short-term capital gains under Section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 50 applies where sale consideration exceeds the aggregate written down value of the relevant block and additions thereto, or where every asset in the block is transferred and the block ceases to exist. Under the block-of-assets scheme in Sections 2(11) and 43(6)(c), an asset's individual identity merges into the block once it enters it. The flat had been accepted as part of the 10% commercial block, whose opening written down value exceeded the sale consideration and which continued to contain other assets. Its sale consideration was therefore required to reduce the written down value of the continuing block. Isolating the flat, reconstructing an alleged 5% block, and applying notional depreciation was inconsistent with the block-wise computation.

Conclusion: No short-term capital gain arose under Section 50; the addition on account of the sale of the flat was deleted.

Issues: Whether the final assessment order was valid where it did not conform to binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel concerning exclusion of comparable companies.

Analysis: Section 144C(10) and Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 make the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions binding upon the Assessing Officer and require completion of the assessment in conformity with those directions. The Dispute Resolution Panel had directed exclusion of specified comparable companies, but the final assessment order incorrectly recorded that all objections had been rejected and retained the transfer-pricing adjustment without giving effect to those directions.

Conclusion: The final assessment order, having been made in disregard of binding Dispute Resolution Panel directions, was invalid and was quashed.

Issues: Whether penalty for failure to furnish Form No. 3CEB could be imposed under Section 271BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after clause (i) of Section 92BA of that Act had been omitted.

Analysis: The specified domestic-transaction requirement under Section 92BA(i), which formed the basis for the obligation to furnish Form No. 3CEB under Section 92E, stood omitted before the penalty notice and penalty order were issued. An omitted statutory provision is treated as having ceased to operate; absent a saving clause, proceedings founded on that omitted provision cannot be initiated or continued. The penalty proceedings were therefore not sustainable merely because the transactions had occurred when the omitted clause was in force.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 271BA was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether recovery of the outstanding income-tax demand should be stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: No merits of the transfer-pricing additions were adjudicated. Interim protection was granted upon deposit of 20% of the demand after excluding the proportionate demand attributable to the amount claimed as already offered to tax for services rendered to the associated enterprise.

Outcome: Recovery of the balance demand was stayed for 180 days or until disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier, conditional upon the stipulated deposit within four weeks.

Issues: Whether a non-resident individual was an eligible assessee requiring issuance of a draft assessment order before a prejudicial final assessment order could be made.

Analysis: Following the amendment effective from 01.04.2020, Section 144C(15)(b) includes a non-resident other than a company within the meaning of an eligible assessee. Where a prejudicial variation is proposed against such assessee, Section 144C(1) mandates forwarding a draft assessment order, enabling the assessee to accept the variation or file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The direct issuance of a final assessment order deprived the assessee of that statutory remedy; the omission was a jurisdictional defect rather than a procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The non-resident individual was an eligible assessee, and the final assessment order issued without a prior draft assessment order was without jurisdiction and was quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether an Indian-registered vehicle used as a private conveyance and departing under Section 43(1) required a Section 51 export-clearance order for re-import duty exemption; (ii) Whether the petitioner could be required to file an electronic Bill of Entry with an IEC or GSTIN where the portal made such filing impossible.

Issue (i): Whether an Indian-registered vehicle used as a private conveyance and departing under Section 43(1) required a Section 51 export-clearance order for re-import duty exemption.

Analysis: Section 43(1), within the regime for conveyances, exempts private conveyances carrying only passenger luggage from cargo-report and departure-clearance requirements. Section 51 applies to commercial export goods under a distinct regime. The vehicle lawfully departed as a personal conveyance, and its subsequent placement in a maritime container for safe transit did not convert it into commercial cargo. The applicable circular clarifies that reference to Section 51 in the re-import exemption notification cannot deny substantive exemption where that provision was legally inapplicable when the vehicle exited India.

Conclusion: A Section 51 export-clearance order was not required for the vehicle, and the re-import exemption could not be denied for its absence.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could be required to file an electronic Bill of Entry with an IEC or GSTIN where the portal made such filing impossible.

Analysis: The electronic filing system required an IEC or GSTIN despite the vehicle being a personal Indian-registered asset, rather than a commercial import. The proviso to Section 46 permits presentation of the Bill of Entry in another manner. Requiring compliance with an electronic condition that cannot be fulfilled would offend the principle that law does not compel performance of an impossibility.

Conclusion: The Bill of Entry may be filed without an IEC or GSTIN; if electronic filing cannot be processed, physical papers must be accepted for manual filing and release of the vehicle on the required bond.

Final Conclusion: Re-entry of the Indian personal vehicle is governed by the private-conveyance regime rather than commercial-export formalities, and the statutory filing process must accommodate the substantive re-import entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: A private Indian conveyance lawfully departing under Section 43(1) cannot be denied re-import exemption for want of a Section 51 export clearance, and impossible electronic filing requirements must yield to an available statutory alternative.

Issues: Whether the ex parte assessment for the tax period 2019-20 should be restored for a fresh response and adjudication.

Analysis: The assessment had been confirmed without a reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner stated that specified tax amounts had been paid and undertook to deposit 50% of the outstanding IGST and cess.

Outcome: The matter was remitted for fresh determination upon compliance with the stipulated deposit and reply requirements.

Issues: Whether an opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory before an adverse order is passed under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, irrespective of a request for hearing or filing of a reply to the show-cause notice.

Analysis: Section 75(4) contains two independent contingencies separated by the word "or": a hearing must be granted when sought by the person chargeable with tax or penalty, and it must also be granted where the proper officer proposes to pass an adverse order. The latter obligation applies independently of whether the taxable person sought a hearing or filed a reply.

Conclusion: An effective opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory before passing an adverse order under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issues: Whether a faceless assessment and consequential demand and penalty proceedings could stand where, despite a specific request, no personal hearing was afforded and the final show-cause notice allowed less than the response period prescribed by the applicable SOP.

Analysis: Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires a personal hearing where it is specifically requested by the assessee. Paragraph N.1.3 of the SOP requires a minimum seven-day response period to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice, subject to justified curtailment for limitation. The requested hearing was not granted, and the curtailed response time was not supported by any reason. These defects constituted a breach of natural justice warranting judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The assessment order, demand notice, penalty show-cause notice, and consequential penalty order were invalid and set aside.

Issues: Whether interim protection was warranted against recovery of the refund withheld under Section 245(2) pending adjudication of the writ petition.

Analysis: The refund had already been credited to the petitioner's bank account, while the Department sought direct recovery from the bank on the basis of the Assessing Officer's satisfaction. To balance the equities, the existing fixed deposit was directed to remain intact pending further orders.

Outcome: Amendment to the writ petition was permitted, interim protection against recovery of the refund was granted, and the matter was listed for further hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, SIIB, was a proper officer competent to issue the show-cause notice under the Customs Act; (ii) Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked at the show-cause-notice stage to determine the effect of the accepted CBI closure report and the factual allegations in the notice.

Issue (i): Whether the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, SIIB, was a proper officer competent to issue the show-cause notice under the Customs Act.

Analysis: Sections 2(34), 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 govern the identification and competence of the proper officer for issuance of a show-cause notice. The binding Supreme Court position has settled that the concerned SIIB officer was competent to issue such notice.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner, SIIB, was a proper officer competent to issue the show-cause notice; decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked at the show-cause-notice stage to determine the effect of the accepted CBI closure report and the factual allegations in the notice.

Analysis: Article 226 of the Constitution of India is ordinarily not exercised where an effective statutory process is available, except in recognised exceptional situations. The impact of the closure report upon the notice and the allegations concerning exports, valuation, DEPB credit and transactions require factual determination and evidence before the adjudicating authority. After the jurisdictional challenge failed, no exception justifying writ intervention remained.

Conclusion: Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked at this stage to adjudicate the evidence-based disputes arising from the show-cause notice; decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The settled proper-officer position and the unresolved factual controversies must be addressed through the statutory adjudicatory process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competence of the proper officer is settled and the challenge to a show-cause notice depends on disputed facts requiring evidence, pre-adjudication relief under Article 226 is unavailable.

Issues: Whether a demand for tax, interest and penalty exceeding the amount specified in the show-cause notice is valid under Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 75(7) restricts the amount of tax, interest and penalty in the determination order to the amount specified in the notice and prohibits confirmation on grounds outside the notice. The notice specified a substantially lower aggregate amount than the amount determined in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The demand exceeding the amount specified in the show-cause notice violated Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and could not be sustained.