Issues: Whether deduction of the tendered KVAT and service-tax components from the contract amount and addition of GST at 18% amounted to impermissible double taxation.

Analysis: The tender rates included the tax components applicable under the earlier regime. Since the works were completed after GST came into force, the earlier tax components included in the quoted contract amount were deducted and GST was added to the resulting value. This computation applied GST alone to the revised contract value and did not impose both KVAT/service tax and GST.

Conclusion: The adjustment of pre-GST tax components and addition of GST did not constitute double taxation; the challenge to the impugned explanation of the bills failed, against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether reinsurance premium ceded to a foreign reinsurer beyond the prescribed threshold was disallowable despite the regulator's no-objection to the arrangement; (ii) Whether independently acquired enterprise software was depreciable as computer software or as an intangible licence.

Issue (i): Whether reinsurance premium ceded to a foreign reinsurer beyond the prescribed threshold was disallowable despite the regulator's no-objection to the arrangement.

Analysis: Section 44 and Rule 5 of the First Schedule establish the special framework for computing insurance-business income. The regulatory authority, in response to information sought by the Assessing Officer, clarified that it had no objection to the reinsurance arrangement exceeding the threshold and had accepted the insurer's explanation. In the absence of any rejection, regulatory action, or established infraction, the tax authorities could not substitute their interpretation of the regulatory correspondence for the regulator's satisfaction.

Conclusion: The reinsurance-premium disallowance was not sustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether independently acquired enterprise software was depreciable as computer software or as an intangible licence.

Analysis: Appendix I expressly places computers including computer software in a distinct depreciation block without requiring that software be embedded in, or acquired simultaneously with, hardware. Licensing is the usual legal mode for supplying software and does not alter its character as computer software. The expression licences in Section 32(1)(ii), construed ejusdem generis with other independent commercial or intellectual-property rights, does not encompass a software licence acquired merely to operate software in a computer environment.

Conclusion: The enterprise software qualified for depreciation under the computer-software block at the prescribed rate; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletions of both additions were sustained for all the relevant assessment years, while the reassessment-jurisdiction objections were left open as academic.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent sectoral regulator accepts an insurer's arrangement, tax authorities cannot infer a regulatory breach without established contrary material; separately acquired software remains computer software where the depreciation schedule specifically so classifies it.

Issues: Whether an export-oriented unit is liable to customs duty on imported raw material treated as excess consumption or wastage beyond prescribed norms, where the material was used in manufacture and the resulting waste and scrap were cleared with permission on payment of applicable duty.

Analysis: Clause (3) of Notification No. 52/2003-Customs extends the exemption to imported goods used for manufacturing finished goods, including waste and scrap arising during production or manufacture, notwithstanding the prescribed norms. The imported brass scrap was used in manufacture, there was no diversion or unauthorised removal of the alleged excess quantity, and the segregated waste was cleared with the Development Commissioner's permission on payment of applicable duty. The conditions for exemption were therefore fulfilled notwithstanding wastage in excess of the norms.

Conclusion: No customs duty was payable merely because the wastage exceeded the prescribed norms; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether amendment of a bill of entry and consequential refund could be allowed where goods were removed under provisional assessment but 1,800 MT of imported goods sank before final assessment, and the relevant police report existed before final clearance.

Analysis: Section 149 permits amendment of a bill of entry, subject to its proviso concerning documents after clearance for home consumption. Removal of goods following provisional assessment is distinct from clearance for home consumption, which occurs upon final assessment and the proper officer's clearance order. The sinking was recorded in a police report dated before the final assessment and clearance; hence, documentary evidence of the loss existed at the material time.

Conclusion: Amendment of the bill of entry under Section 149 and consequential refund were rightly allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an assessee may take suo motu re-credit of duty paid twice where the double payment and correctness of the re-credit are undisputed, without pursuing the refund procedure under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The excess duty arose from a duplicate debit for the same clearances. The assessee informed the audit officer and reversed the re-credit, but the Revenue did not identify any discrepancy in the double payment or establish that the re-credit was unjustified. In those circumstances, re-credit was treated as reversal of an accounting entry rather than a refund involving an outflow of funds; consequently, the refund mechanism was inapplicable. A demand founded solely on non-compliance with that procedure, without disputing the substantive entitlement to re-credit, lacked a valid basis.

Conclusion: The assessee was legally entitled to suo motu re-credit of the excess duty paid twice, and the show-cause notice and consequential demand were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect can be sustained where the show cause notice did not propose or disclose retrospective cancellation.

Analysis: The cancellation order retrospectively cancelled registration from 01.05.2023, while the show cause notice did not refer to any proposed retrospective cancellation. The matter was governed by the applicable Division Bench ruling, and the Revenue did not dispute either the factual position or the governing legal position.

Conclusion: Retrospective cancellation of the GST registration without prior notice of such proposed retrospective effect cannot be sustained; the cancellation order was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the operation and management of Government Urban Health and Wellness Centres, Urban Ayushman Arogya Mandirs and Polyclinics constitutes exempt healthcare services provided by a clinical establishment under Entry No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: The contractual scope required the operator to establish and run healthcare facilities, deploy medical and paramedical personnel, and deliver diagnosis, treatment, preventive and curative care, diagnostics, medicines, referrals and public-health interventions. These activities formed a naturally bundled composite supply whose predominant and essential character was healthcare delivery. The administrative, operational, monitoring and reporting obligations were ancillary to that principal supply and could not be artificially segregated to classify the arrangement as facility-management or support services.

Analysis: The executing agency only implemented and administered the Government programme and routed payments from Government grants. Its role, and its liability to make payment, did not alter the actual nature of services supplied through the clinical establishments to members of the public. Healthcare services remain characterised by their substance and dominant purpose, notwithstanding that consideration is paid through a Government-appointed implementing agency rather than directly by patients.

Conclusion: The services are healthcare services supplied by a clinical establishment and are exempt from GST under Entry No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Issues: (i) Whether demurrage charges paid separately by the importer for vessel delay formed part of the transaction value and assessable value of the imported goods; (ii) Whether differential customs duty could be confirmed by invoking Rule 10(2) when it was not invoked in the show cause notice; (iii) Whether the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether demurrage charges paid separately by the importer for vessel delay formed part of the transaction value and assessable value of the imported goods.

Analysis: The contractual clause provided that demurrage or dispatch settlements were to be made separately between the buyer and seller, outside the letter-of-credit payment for the goods. Such charges, arising from additional vessel waiting time, were therefore not part of the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods. Inclusion of demurrage would also result in goods under the same contract being assessed at differing values.

Conclusion: Demurrage charges paid separately did not form part of the transaction value or assessable value. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether differential customs duty could be confirmed by invoking Rule 10(2) when it was not invoked in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The demand was confirmed on the basis of Rule 10(2), although that provision was not invoked in the show cause notice. Further, the provision had been declared ultra vires.

Conclusion: Confirmation of the demand on a ground absent from the show cause notice was unsustainable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) was invocable.

Analysis: The department produced no evidence of a positive and deliberate act establishing wilful suppression or intent to evade customs duty. Mere allegations of suppression were insufficient to invoke the extended period for bills of entry covering April 2012 to July 2016.

Conclusion: The show cause notice issued in March 2017 was time-barred. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Separately settled demurrage for port delay is outside the transaction value, and a demand founded on an uninvoiced and invalid valuation provision, without proof of wilful suppression, cannot be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts separately settled as demurrage and not constituting the price paid or payable for imported goods cannot be added to transaction value; extended limitation requires proof of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty.

Issues: Whether GST may be levied on affiliation fee collected by a university from an affiliated college.

Analysis: Grant of affiliation is a statutory and regulatory function and is not a supply of service for consideration. Affiliation fee is not consideration for a taxable activity; in any event, affiliation services fall within the educational-services exemption under Entry 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate). The settled position governing university affiliation fees applied directly to the impugned demand.

Conclusion: Levy and demand of GST on the affiliation fee are unsustainable; the demand is set aside and GST collected, if any, is refundable.

Issues: Whether supply of tobacco-based and herbal hookah through a hookah apparatus in a restaurant, with attendant facilities, qualifies as restaurant service under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Paragraph 6(b) creates a deeming fiction only for supplies made as part of a service where the goods supplied are food, any other article for human consumption, or drink. The provisions concerning composite supply and principal supply govern tax consequences only after the transaction satisfies the statutory description of the relevant category; they cannot enlarge the scope of restaurant service. The rate notification likewise cannot extend the parent statutory provision.

Analysis: Applying the common parlance test, ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis, the expression "any other article for human consumption" takes its meaning from food and drink and is confined to articles of a like character ordinarily consumed by eating or drinking. Hookah, whether tobacco-based or herbal, is ordinarily understood as being smoked and not as food, drink, or an article akin to them. Its preparation, apparatus, restaurant ambience and attendant service do not alter this statutory character. The separate fiscal and regulatory treatment of tobacco products contextually supports this interpretation; the conclusion regarding herbal hookah independently follows from the interpretation of paragraph 6(b).

Conclusion: Tobacco-based and herbal hookah supplied through a hookah apparatus in a restaurant do not qualify as restaurant service under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and are taxable as supplies of goods under the applicable classification and rate notifications. The conclusion is against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the inventory write-off for expired stock was allowable; (ii) Whether the bad-debt write-off was allowable.

Issue (i): Whether the inventory write-off for expired stock was allowable.

Analysis: The write-off was supported by item-wise stock particulars, physical verification, and documentary material establishing expiry and destruction of stock under applicable regulatory norms. The concurrent factual findings of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal established that the inventory was old and expired. The challenge raised no substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The inventory write-off was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the bad-debt write-off was allowable.

Analysis: The assessee produced debtor details, invoices, ledger accounts and an ageing analysis supporting the write-off. The requirements under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were satisfied. Once the debts were written off as irrecoverable in the accounts, proof that they had actually become bad was not required.

Conclusion: The bad-debt write-off was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenges concerning the inventory and bad-debt write-offs failed for want of a substantial question of law; the questions concerning write-off of subsidiary investments and advances were admitted for further consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings supported by documentary evidence do not give rise to a substantial question of law, and a bad-debt deduction is available where the statutory conditions are met and the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment initiated under section 153A pursuant to requisition of cash seized during an election period was valid without compliance with Rule 112F; (ii) Whether the seized cash of Rs. 20 lakh was unexplained money liable to addition.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment initiated under section 153A pursuant to requisition of cash seized during an election period was valid without compliance with Rule 112F.

Analysis: Rule 112F and Circular No. 10/2012 require certification by the investigating officer, with approval of the Director General of Income Tax, where cash or assets are seized in connection with an ongoing election and no evidence or investigation is required for other assessment years. The required certificate was neither issued nor shown to have been communicated to the jurisdictional authorities. The requisition-based notices for six assessment years therefore contravened the prescribed procedure.

Conclusion: The assessment under section 153A was invalid and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized cash of Rs. 20 lakh was unexplained money liable to addition.

Analysis: The cash was shown as part of cash withdrawn from the assessee's bank account and recorded cash balance. The books of account and cash book were not rejected, and withdrawals exceeding Rs. 88 lakh during the relevant financial year were undisputed. The source of the seized cash was thus established.

Conclusion: The seized cash was from explained sources and could not be added as unexplained money, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment machinery could not be invoked without adhering to the election-period safeguards, and the cash explanation was independently accepted on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an election-period search or requisition falls within Rule 112F, failure to obtain and communicate the prescribed investigating-officer certificate invalidates section 153A proceedings for the preceding assessment years.

Issues: Whether reassessment for assessment year 2018-19 was validly initiated where notice under section 148 was issued after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year with approval of the Principal Commissioner rather than the authority specified under section 151(ii).

Analysis: For a notice issued after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, section 151(ii), as applicable on the date of issuance, required approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Director General. The approval in this case was obtained from the Principal Commissioner, who was not the specified authority. The proviso inserted into section 151 by the Finance Act, 2023, providing for exclusion of time allowed under section 148A(b), was not operative when the impugned notice was issued and could not be retrospectively applied. Section 292BC did not cure approval granted by an authority other than the statutorily specified authority.

Conclusion: The reassessment lacked valid jurisdiction and the assessment was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment for assessment year 2017-18 was valid where approval for the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the authority specified under section 151(ii). (ii) Whether penalties levied under sections 270A and 271AAC(1) could survive after the reassessment was quashed.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment for assessment year 2017-18 was valid where approval for the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the authority specified under section 151(ii).

Analysis: The reassessment notice and order under section 148A(d) were issued after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Although the extended period under the relaxation legislation permitted approval under section 151(i) only up to 30 June 2021, the order under section 148A(d) was passed thereafter with approval of the Principal Commissioner. For action after that period, section 151(ii) required approval from the higher specified authority. Such sanction is a precondition to assumption of reassessment jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The approval was by an incompetent authority; the order under section 148A(d), notice under section 148 and reassessment were void ab initio and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties levied under sections 270A and 271AAC(1) could survive after the reassessment was quashed.

Analysis: The penalty levies arose from the reassessment proceedings, which were held void.

Conclusion: The penalties could not survive and were deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The invalid reassessment foundation extinguished both the assessment and the consequential penalty demands.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment action beyond the prescribed three-year period is sanctioned by an authority other than that mandated under section 151(ii), the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction and the resulting reassessment proceedings are void.

Issues: Whether, for Assessment Year 2025-26, rebate under Section 87A was available against tax payable on short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A, and whether its denial while processing the return without prior intimation was valid.

Analysis: Section 87A, applicable to an eligible assessee opting for the new tax regime, granted rebate by reference to total income and total tax payable, without excluding tax on income chargeable at the special rate under Section 111A. The exclusion of special-rate income from the rebate was introduced only from Assessment Year 2026-27 and could not be applied to the year in question. Further, the adjustment under Section 143(1) was made without prior notice or an opportunity of hearing, contrary to the prescribed procedure.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to rebate under Section 87A on the entire tax liability, including tax on short-term capital gains under Section 111A; the adjustment denying that rebate was invalid.

Issues: Whether delay in electronically furnishing Form 10B by a charitable trust for Assessment Year 2016-17 was liable to be condoned, enabling its claim for exemption under Section 11.

Analysis: The audit report and Form 10 had been obtained before filing the return, but were not electronically uploaded because of an inadvertent clerical omission amid the serious illness of the chartered accountant. The applicable CBDT circular directly covered Assessment Year 2016-17 and authorised condonation where the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause. The earlier decision concerning the same trust established that a technical uploading lapse in these circumstances constituted genuine hardship and could not be rejected through a pedantic approach.

Conclusion: The delay in filing Form 10B was required to be condoned, and the assessee was entitled to have its claim for exemption under Section 11 considered accordingly.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149(1). (ii) Whether a 5% addition from the sale consideration of investments could be sustained as an estimated profit element.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149(1).

Analysis: For an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021, the first proviso preserves the pre-Finance Act, 2021 limitation regime. The notice issued on 9 October 2023 for AY 2016-17 was beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and the consequential reassessment were time-barred and void. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a 5% addition from the sale consideration of investments could be sustained as an estimated profit element.

Analysis: The investments had been acquired in earlier years, recorded in the books and accepted in prior assessments. The sale transactions were supported by documentary evidence and banking-channel receipts. No incriminating material, reliable cash trail, adverse statement or other evidence linked the assessee with alleged accommodation entries. Once the source investments were accepted and the sale transactions stood substantiated, an estimated addition based merely on presumptions lacked a substantive evidentiary basis.

Conclusion: The 5% addition was unsustainable and was deleted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment founded on the belated notice cannot survive, and no estimated income can be retained from the substantiated sale of investments.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued beyond the preserved statutory limitation is invalid, and an addition from sale proceeds of accepted investments cannot rest on conjecture without material disproving the documented transaction.

Issues: Whether penalty for cash repayment of money received from a spouse was sustainable where the transaction was a fully explained family transaction undertaken for the benefit of the family.

Analysis: The cash loan received from the spouse was fully explained, no addition was made in assessment in respect of the relevant cash deposits, and the repayment was stated to be for the benefit of the whole family. Applying the principle governing non-commercial transactions between spouses, the transaction was treated as a genuine family arrangement rather than a transaction warranting penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 271E for repayment of Rs. 4,00,000 in cash was not justified and was directed to be deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether a claimant whose flat was allotted in adjustment of an unpaid invoice for advertisement services qualifies as a financial creditor holding a financial debt; (ii) Whether delay in filing the claim after approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors warranted interference.

Issue (i): Whether a claimant whose flat was allotted in adjustment of an unpaid invoice for advertisement services qualifies as a financial creditor holding a financial debt.

Analysis: Financial debt requires a disbursement against consideration for the time value of money. Although amounts raised from real-estate allottees are deemed to have the commercial effect of borrowing, that deeming treatment applies where an amount has been raised from the allottee. The allotment here compensated an outstanding invoice for advertisement services, without any disbursement by the claimant to the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: The claimant is not a financial creditor and its claim is not a financial debt. This issue is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether delay in filing the claim after approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors warranted interference.

Analysis: The claim was filed approximately 676 days after the prescribed last date, after the Committee of Creditors had approved the resolution plan. The claimant, being a commercial entity whose claim arose from services rather than a monetary disbursement for a residential allotment, could not be equated with homebuyers for relaxation in claim collation.

Conclusion: Refusal to condone the delay calls for no interference. This issue is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: A service provider receiving a flat in settlement of service dues cannot invoke the status and protections of a real-estate financial creditor without a qualifying disbursement.

Ratio Decidendi: An allotment made in settlement of unpaid service consideration, absent disbursement by the allottee against consideration for time value of money, does not create a financial debt or confer financial-creditor status.