Issues: Whether the difference between the stamp-duty value and consideration of immovable property was taxable under Section 56(2)(x)(b) where the purchase agreement and substantial banking-channel payments pre-dated the provision's applicability.

Analysis: The agreement for purchase was entered into in 2013 and substantial consideration was paid through banking channels before execution of the conveyance deed. Section 56(2)(x)(b), brought into effect for the later assessment-year regime, could not be applied retrospectively to a transaction agreed upon and substantially performed before its insertion.

Conclusion: The addition based on the difference between stamp-duty value and purchase consideration under Section 56(2)(x)(b) was not sustainable and was deleted.

Issues: Whether an assessment framed in the name of an amalgamating company that had ceased to exist, despite prior intimation of the amalgamation to the Revenue, is valid and capable of cure under Section 292B.

Analysis: The amalgamation and cessation of the erstwhile entity were undisputed, and the Revenue had received written intimation with supporting orders before the assessment was framed. Such intimation formed part of the case records and required cognizance notwithstanding the subsequent transfer of jurisdiction. The assessment was nevertheless framed in the name of the non-existent entity. The facts were distinguishable from circumstances involving suppression of amalgamation or proceedings substantively conducted against the amalgamated entity. Framing an assessment despite knowledge of amalgamation constituted a fundamental jurisdictional defect rather than a procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The assessment framed against the non-existent entity was null and void ab initio and could not be cured under Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment for the assessment year in question should be reconsidered in light of a subsequent order for an identical issue in the assessee's succeeding assessment year.

Analysis: The succeeding year's transfer-pricing order, passed after verification of transfer-pricing documentation and economic analysis pursuant to remand, drew no adverse inference regarding the arm's length price. As the grievance for the relevant year involved similar facts and identical grounds, appropriate relief required reconsideration consistently with that order.

Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustment was remanded to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for granting appropriate relief in line with the succeeding year's order, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a 30% ad hoc disallowance of contract expenditure was sustainable where the payees did not respond to notices and had not filed income-tax returns.

Analysis: Although the payments and corresponding expenditure could not be verified because the payees did not comply with notices under Section 133(6) and had not filed returns, the services rendered were not doubted. No basis was provided for disallowing 30% of the expenditure claimed as business expenditure.

Conclusion: The disallowance was restricted to 5% and the balance was deleted, partly in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars could survive after deletion of the quantum addition forming its sole basis.

Analysis: The original assessment containing the addition for alleged bogus purchases was set aside, and in the consequent fresh assessment the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation and deleted the entire addition. The penalty was founded exclusively on that addition; therefore, its basis ceased to exist.

Conclusion: The penalty could not survive after deletion of the quantum addition and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice for Assessment Year 2015-16 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Revenue's concession recorded in the binding Supreme Court decisions was that reassessment notices issued or proposed for Assessment Year 2015-16 stood barred by time. Since the assessment year involved was 2015-16, the reassessment notice could not survive.

Conclusion: The notice was barred by limitation and the assessment framed pursuant to it was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the collaborator's 70% share of flat-sale proceeds could be assessed as the assessee's income despite the collaboration agreement; (ii) Whether addition towards the cost of acquisition of land was sustainable on the premise that the land was not recorded in the assessee's books.

Issue (i): Whether the collaborator's 70% share of flat-sale proceeds could be assessed as the assessee's income despite the collaboration agreement.

Analysis: The collaboration agreement, banking records, ledger accounts and supporting material established that the collaborator was entitled to 70% of the sale proceeds and had borne the construction funding. Irregularities alleged regarding stamp-paper purchase, registration, absence of witnesses, or the collaborator's non-compliance with notice did not displace the documentary evidence or establish that the agreement was a device for diversion of income. The agreement created an overriding obligation under which the collaborator's share did not accrue as the assessee's income.

Conclusion: The collaborator's 70% share of the sale proceeds was not assessable as the assessee's income, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether addition towards the cost of acquisition of land was sustainable on the premise that the land was not recorded in the assessee's books.

Analysis: The books of account and the registered purchase deed evidenced acquisition and recording of the land. The premise that the land was absent from the books, and consequently acquired from unexplained sources, was factually unsupported.

Conclusion: The addition towards the cost of acquisition of land was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned addition was deleted because the collaborator's contractual share never accrued as the assessee's income and the land-acquisition allegation lacked factual basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts subject to an overriding contractual obligation in favour of another person do not form part of the assessee's taxable income where the arrangement is supported by credible documentary and financial evidence.

Issues: (i) Whether the outstanding trade-creditor balance could be treated as unexplained cash credit despite accepted purchases and the additional evidence tendered to establish the creditor's identity and genuineness; (ii) Whether disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source on purchases was sustainable where the seller had already collected tax at source on the same transactions.

Issue (i): Whether the outstanding trade-creditor balance could be treated as unexplained cash credit despite accepted purchases and the additional evidence tendered to establish the creditor's identity and genuineness.

Analysis: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invoked solely because the creditor did not respond to a notice, although purchases from that creditor, corresponding sales and stock were accepted. The additional evidence, admitted under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, comprised confirmation, ledger accounts, invoices, banking records, GST registration, income-tax return and material explaining the destruction of the creditor's records by fire. These materials prima facie showed regular business dealings and the continuing existence of the creditor; substantial subsequent repayment also supported verification of the outstanding balance.

Conclusion: The additional evidence was admitted and the issue was remitted for verification; no addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall be made if the evidence is found free from discrepancy. The issue is in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source on purchases was sustainable where the seller had already collected tax at source on the same transactions.

Analysis: Circular No. 13/2021 dated 30.06.2021 clarifies that, although Section 194Q of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ordinarily prevails over Section 206C(1H), the buyer is not required to deduct tax again where the seller collected tax under Section 206C(1H) before the buyer could deduct it. The tax-collection reflected in the assessee's tax statement established that the seller had collected tax on the relevant sales.

Conclusion: The assessee was not in default under Section 194Q of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was deleted. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The trade-creditor addition requires fresh verification on the admitted evidence, while the purchase-payment disallowance cannot survive because tax had already been collected by the seller.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tax is collected by the seller before the buyer could deduct tax on the same purchase transaction, the buyer is not liable to a second deduction of tax and consequential disallowance cannot be made.

Issues: Whether, for determining the taxable difference on purchase of immovable property, the stamp duty value as on the date of the registered agreement could be adopted where part consideration was paid through banking channels on or before that date.

Analysis: The registered agreement fixed the consideration at the then prevailing circle rate, and substantial advance consideration was paid through banking channels on or before the agreement date. The first and second provisos to Section 56(2)(x) permit adoption of the stamp duty value prevailing on the agreement date where the agreement and registration dates differ and qualifying payment is made before or on the agreement date. The stamp duty value on the agreement date equalled the stated consideration; consequently, reliance on the higher value prevailing on the subsequent conveyance date was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The addition based on the stamp duty value prevailing on the date of conveyance was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether application of a 50% turnover filter and computation of transfer-pricing adjustments beyond associated-enterprise transactions were valid; (ii) Whether amortisation of goodwill, bad debts and legal expenses, capacity utilisation, import duty and working capital required adjustments in transfer-pricing computation; (iii) Whether warranty and replacement expenditure and written-off bad debts were deductible; (iv) Whether deductions for reversal of a previously disallowed loss provision, doubtful advances and customs-duty/leave-encashment provision write-backs were admissible; (v) Whether expenditure incurred for acquisition of business rights was revenue expenditure; (vi) Whether depreciation at 60% was allowable on capitalised software expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether application of a 50% turnover filter and computation of transfer-pricing adjustments beyond associated-enterprise transactions were valid.

Analysis: Under the transactional net margin method, comparability is governed by Rule 10B through functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed. Differences affecting results require reasonably accurate adjustments; turnover or scale cannot, by itself, operate as a per se exclusion criterion. The arm's length price adjustment is confined to international transactions with associated enterprises, with the applicable arithmetic-mean benefit to be considered.

Conclusion: The 50% turnover filter was rejected, and the transfer-pricing computation was directed to be redone by restricting adjustments to associated-enterprise transactions.

Issue (ii): Whether amortisation of goodwill, bad debts and legal expenses, capacity utilisation, import duty and working capital required adjustments in transfer-pricing computation.

Analysis: Amortisation of goodwill was treated as abnormal and non-recurring, while the bad debts and legal expenses related to non-associated-enterprise dealings. These items could not form part of the operating computation. The import-duty adjustment had been accepted on the same basis in a later year. Capacity-utilisation and working-capital claims required supporting details and factual reconciliation.

Conclusion: Amortisation of goodwill, bad debts and legal expenses were directed to be excluded from the arm's length price computation, and the import-duty adjustment was allowed. Capacity-utilisation and working-capital adjustments were remitted for verification.

Issue (iii): Whether warranty and replacement expenditure and written-off bad debts were deductible.

Analysis: The claims had been accepted on materially identical facts in a subsequent assessment year. Consistent treatment was applied.

Conclusion: The disallowances of warranty and replacement expenditure and written-off bad debts were deleted.

Issue (iv): Whether deductions for reversal of a previously disallowed loss provision, doubtful advances and customs-duty/leave-encashment provision write-backs were admissible.

Analysis: Deductibility of the reversal of the loss provision depended on verification that the corresponding provision had been disallowed earlier and that the stated settlement applied. A new claim for doubtful advances could be entertained at the appellate stage notwithstanding its absence from the original or revised return, subject to factual reconciliation. The write-back claims depended on verification that the relevant amounts had been offered to tax in earlier years.

Conclusion: The claims were remitted for factual verification and reconciliation; the doubtful-advances claim was admitted in principle.

Issue (v): Whether expenditure incurred for acquisition of business rights was revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The prospect of an enduring or long-term benefit alone does not convert an otherwise revenue outlay into capital expenditure.

Conclusion: The expenditure on business rights was allowed as revenue expenditure.

Issue (vi): Whether depreciation at 60% was allowable on capitalised software expenditure.

Analysis: The revenue's contrary treatment had not been sustained on the same issue in a subsequent assessment year.

Conclusion: Depreciation at 60% on the written-down value of capitalised software expenditure was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The assessments require recomputation in accordance with the transfer-pricing directions and the deductions allowed, with specified claims subject to fresh factual verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the transactional net margin method, a comparable cannot be excluded solely by a turnover threshold without demonstrating a material effect on comparability or considering reasonably accurate adjustments, and transfer-pricing adjustments must be confined to international transactions with associated enterprises.

Issues: (i) Whether the ex parte adjudication suffered from denial of notice and opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether a director remained liable for non-realisation of export proceeds despite the company subsequently entering liquidation; (iii) Whether the penalty imposed required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte adjudication suffered from denial of notice and opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The appellant had acknowledged the investigation directive and sought time to respond, but furnished no reply. Notices and hearing communications were sent to the available addresses, attempts at personal service and affixture were made, and the appellant did not notify any changed address despite awareness of the investigation. The failure to participate after such awareness and service attempts could not be invoked as denial of a fair hearing.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of principles of natural justice was rejected, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a director remained liable for non-realisation of export proceeds despite the company subsequently entering liquidation.

Analysis: The export proceeds remained unrealised and the appellant did not dispute that fact. During the period of contravention, he was a director in charge of the company's affairs. The statutory presumption that reasonable steps to recover export proceeds had not been taken was unrebutted. Subsequent liquidation neither displaced liability arising during the relevant period nor established that the appellant was unable to seek the company records from the Official Liquidator.

Conclusion: The appellant's liability for contravention was sustained, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty imposed required reduction.

Analysis: Although the penalty was substantially below the statutory maximum and proportionate to the magnitude of the contravention, the relevant period, delay in adjudication, and the company's liquidation warranted confining the penalty to the amount already deposited.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 30,00,000, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The contravention and personal liability were maintained, while monetary relief was granted by limiting the penalty to the pre-deposit amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A director responsible for a company during the period of export-default remains liable where the statutory presumption of failure to take reasonable recovery steps is unrebutted, and cannot claim denial of hearing after having knowledge of the investigation and failing to respond to reasonable service efforts.

Issues: Whether an order rejecting an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration without recording reasons could be sustained.

Analysis: An order determining civil rights must be speaking and intelligible. The impugned rejection contained no reasons and was unsupported by any attached order disclosing the basis for rejection.

Conclusion: The unreasoned rejection order was unsustainable and required fresh determination in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether an assessment order under Section 74 could be sustained where the show-cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal after cancellation of the registered person's registration.

Analysis: Following cancellation of registration, the registered person was not obliged to monitor the GST portal. Uploading the show-cause notice solely on that portal was not adequate service; the notice was required to be served through an alternative mode. The resulting denial of opportunity violated the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, with liberty to issue a proper notice and proceed in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether a rectification application filed within time could be rejected without merits solely because more than three months had elapsed from its filing under Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024.

Analysis: Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Clause 4 of the notification prescribe that a decision on a timely rectification application should be made, as far as possible, within three months. The expression "as far as possible" makes the prescribed period directory and requires the competent authority to endeavour to decide the application within that period. Expiry of the period does not render the authority functus officio or extinguish its power to determine a timely application on merits.

Conclusion: The rejection of the timely rectification application as time-barred was unsustainable; the competent authority remained empowered to decide it on merits. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for continuous non-furnishing of returns should be revoked and the registration restored where the period for statutory revocation and return filing had expired.

Analysis: The GST registration was cancelled for non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner could not respond to the portal-based notice or file the pending returns and, following expiry of the applicable periods, was unable to regularise the defaults through the portal. The matter was found to be covered by similar orders granting restoration upon clearance of statutory liabilities, and the revenue authorities did not oppose equivalent relief.

Conclusion: The cancellation is to be revoked and GST registration restored upon intimation and payment of all statutory dues, penalty or fine within the prescribed time. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Legality of directing re-credit of excess tax or input tax credit where no refund claim was made and no reasons were recorded; (ii) Validity of the reduced tax-liability computation without disclosure of its basis.

Issue (i): Legality of directing re-credit of excess tax or input tax credit where no refund claim was made and no reasons were recorded.

Analysis: Section 54 provides the statutory framework for claiming refund of tax, interest or other amounts, subject to application within the prescribed period. Rule 86(4A) and Rule 92(1A), read with Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST, contemplate re-credit to the electronic credit ledger where a refund claim is made and the amount debited from that ledger is found admissible. No refund claim had been made before the adjudicating or first appellate authority, and the re-credit direction contained no reasons establishing entitlement under that framework.

Conclusion: The direction permitting re-credit was unsustainable; entitlement to re-credit requires fresh determination under the applicable refund and re-credit framework by a reasoned order.

Issue (ii): Validity of the reduced tax-liability computation without disclosure of its basis.

Analysis: The first appellate authority substantially reduced the confirmed demand but did not explain the basis for the revised computation or correlate it with the self-assessed and auto-generated returns, audit reports, and other record material. A reduced determination of liability without recorded reasons could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The reduced tax-liability computation was unsustainable; the liability requires fresh computation on the available returns and audit material through a reasoned determination.

Final Conclusion: The directions on re-credit and revised liability were set aside for fresh reasoned adjudication after hearing both sides.

Ratio Decidendi: Re-credit of tax debited from an electronic credit ledger can be granted only within the prescribed refund framework upon a reasoned finding that the claimed amount is admissible.

Issues: Whether detention and penalty for transport of goods in a vehicle different from that declared in the e-way bill, without satisfactory proof of vehicle breakdown or transfer, were valid.

Analysis: Goods covered by the appellant's invoice were intercepted in a vehicle other than the one recorded in the e-way bill. Part-B had not been updated to reflect the actual vehicle. The discrepancy in declared and ascertainable weight also remained unexplained. No reliable contemporaneous evidence established either the alleged breakdown of the original vehicle or a consequent transfer of goods to the intercepted vehicle. A subsequent e-way bill generated by the purchaser was unavailable at interception and did not cure the defective documentation accompanying the goods. A change of vehicle and any separate subsequent movement required a valid documentary trail corresponding to the vehicle actually transporting the goods.

Conclusion: The absence of a valid e-way bill for the actual vehicle and the unsubstantiated explanation for the discrepancy justified proceedings and penalty under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issues: (i) Whether breach of Condition No. 104 governing duty exemption for an imported aircraft justified recovery of duty, confiscation, and redemption fine; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962; (iii) Whether duty was required to be computed using actual transport and transit-insurance costs rather than notional values; (iv) Whether penalties for improper importation were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether breach of Condition No. 104 governing duty exemption for an imported aircraft justified recovery of duty, confiscation, and redemption fine.

Analysis: Condition No. 104 required the aircraft to be used only for non-scheduled charter services, which required approval by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. Although the aircraft was imported within the validity of the import approval, it was commercially operated for over 100 hours after the operating permission had expired and without any valid approval. Customs could determine compliance with the exemption condition because no subsisting licence or permit required interpretation by the aviation authorities. The deliberate unauthorised commercial operation was not a minor infraction capable of being sanctioned by the proper officer. Such breach rendered the aircraft liable to confiscation under Section 111(o), with duty payable under Section 125(2) upon redemption.

Conclusion: The exemption condition was breached; confiscation, redemption fine, and consequential customs-duty liability are sustainable against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The duty liability arose as a consequence of confiscation and redemption under Section 125(2), following breach of a post-import exemption condition, rather than as a demand for non-levy or short-levy under Section 28. The limitation periods in Section 28 therefore did not govern the recovery.

Conclusion: The recovery is not time-barred; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether duty was required to be computed using actual transport and transit-insurance costs rather than notional values.

Analysis: Actual ferry charges for bringing the aircraft into India and the actual transit-insurance premium were available. Notional additions under Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 could not be substituted for those actual figures. As the departmental proceedings had reopened the duty assessment, the resulting clerical and arithmetical error in valuation required correction.

Conclusion: Duty must be recalculated using the actual transport and transit-insurance costs; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether penalties for improper importation were sustainable.

Analysis: The unauthorised commercial use of the duty-exempt aircraft rendered it liable to confiscation. The importer and its responsible managerial personnel were directly connected with the decisions resulting in that breach, and the penalties imposed were within the statutory limits and proportionate to the confirmed duty.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed under Section 112 are sustainable against the assessee and the responsible personnel.

Final Conclusion: Liability arising from the deliberate breach of the post-import exemption condition, including confiscation consequences, redemption fine, and penalties, remains enforceable, while the customs-duty quantum must reflect actual valuation costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Breach of a post-import condition of a customs exemption renders the goods confiscable and makes duty recoverable under Section 125(2), independently of the limitation regime under Section 28.

Issues: Whether a penalty exceeding Rs. 50,000 could be imposed under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009.

Analysis: Regulation 12(8) expressly caps the penalty imposable thereunder at Rs. 50,000. The proposed penalties under other provisions of the Customs Act and cancellation of licence were not imposed, and no challenge was brought against that part of the adjudication. The statutory ceiling under Regulation 12(8) could not be exceeded; the cited earlier order did not alter the clear limit prescribed by the Regulation.

Conclusion: The penalty was liable to be restricted to the statutory maximum of Rs. 50,000, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether, upon dissolution of a partnership at will, a partner's share in immovable partnership assets must be confined to their value on the date of dissolution or determined upon liquidation and final-decree proceedings.

Analysis: A partnership at will stood dissolved upon written notice under Section 43. Upon dissolution, Sections 46 and 48 require the firm's property to be applied towards its debts and liabilities and the surplus to be distributed among the partners according to their respective rights. The date of dissolution governs ascertainment of business profits and losses, but does not restrict a partner's entitlement in the residue of the firm's assets. The erstwhile partners' subsequent use or retention of partnership property through a new firm could not defeat the dissolved firm's obligation to liquidate assets or settle the outgoing partner's share. The assets may be retained only if the other partners pay the entitled partner's market-value share after adjustment of liabilities; otherwise, sale and distribution are required.

Conclusion: The respondent is entitled to 25% of the value realised from the partnership assets after discharge of firm liabilities, and that entitlement is not confined to the assets' value as on the date of dissolution.