Issues: (i) Whether a manufacturer may avail CENVAT credit on inputs used by a contractor in fabricating storage tanks and mechanical piping, where the contractor has or has not availed service-tax abatement under the works contract composition scheme; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable for recovery of the disputed credit.

Issue (i): Whether a manufacturer may avail CENVAT credit on inputs used by a contractor in fabricating storage tanks and mechanical piping, where the contractor has or has not availed service-tax abatement under the works contract composition scheme.

Analysis: Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 requires eligible inputs, receipt in the manufacturer's factory, compliance with prescribed conditions, and valid duty-paying documents. The inputs were received at the appellant's premises, the appellant bore the incidence of duty, and the materials were used in relation to manufacture of excisable products through fabrication of storage tanks and piping. Credit is attached to the inputs and their use, rather than ownership of the goods or the identity of the person undertaking fabrication.

Analysis: Where the contractor did not avail abatement, the statutory conditions for credit stood satisfied and there was no legal basis to deny the manufacturer credit merely because the contractor used the inputs. However, where the contractor opted for service-tax abatement under the works contract composition scheme, the scheme incorporated the value of goods in the concessional taxation arrangement and barred credit to the contractor. Allowing the manufacturer credit on the same inputs would result in an impermissible double benefit.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on inputs where the contractor did not avail service-tax abatement, but is not entitled to such credit where the contractor availed abatement under the works contract composition scheme. The issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable for recovery of the disputed credit.

Analysis: The appellant regularly filed statutory returns, underwent departmental audits, and supplied the documents and information sought. The prescribed returns did not require disclosure of the particular use of inputs. In these circumstances, failure by the department to scrutinise available records or issue notices within time could not establish wilful suppression, fraud, collusion, or intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation is not invocable. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The credit liability requires re-quantification by excluding the time-barred demand and by allowing credit only for inputs not covered by the contractor's abatement benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: A manufacturer satisfying the CENVAT credit conditions may claim credit for inputs used through a contractor, but cannot claim credit where the same inputs have already yielded the contractor a concessional works-contract abatement benefit; extended limitation requires proof of wilful suppression or equivalent intent.

Issues: (i) Whether the Transactional Net Margin Method or the Resale Price Method was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the purchase of medical equipment, films and consumables from the associated enterprise; (ii) Whether the inclusion of two comparable companies required verification under the related party transaction filter; (iii) Whether an amount already offered as income was subjected to double taxation.

Issue (i): Whether the Transactional Net Margin Method or the Resale Price Method was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the purchase of medical equipment, films and consumables from the associated enterprise.

Analysis: The transfer-pricing framework requires selection of the most appropriate method through a comprehensive functional, asset and risk analysis. The assessee performed package configuration, integration of locally procured accessories, installation and commissioning, software and licence activation, application training, warranty and maintenance services, and continuing technical support through specialised engineers. These functions and risks extended beyond those of a routine reseller. The Resale Price Method loses reliability where the reseller adds value to, processes, or transforms the goods. The Revenue neither established functional comparability for applying that method nor identified defects in the assessee's comparability analysis or operating-margin computation under the Transactional Net Margin Method. The consistent acceptance of that method in earlier years, absent a demonstrated change in the functional profile or a defect in its application, also supported its retention.

Conclusion: The Transactional Net Margin Method is the most appropriate method, and the transfer-pricing adjustment founded on the Resale Price Method is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the inclusion of two comparable companies required verification under the related party transaction filter.

Analysis: The objection that the two comparables exceeded the 25% related party transaction threshold had not been addressed by the transfer-pricing authorities and was not specified in the transfer-pricing study report. Verification of the relevant related party transaction levels was therefore required.

Conclusion: The question of exclusion of the two comparables is remitted for fresh verification after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether an amount already offered as income was subjected to double taxation.

Analysis: The assessment began with income processed under section 143(1), including an adjustment under section 41(1), whereas the assessee asserted that the same amount had already been offered as sundry balances written back in its return. Verification was required to determine whether the amount had already been included and added through the processing intimation.

Conclusion: The double-taxation claim is remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and deletion if the amount has already been added.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustment based on the Resale Price Method cannot survive; the remaining matters concerning comparables and the alleged duplicate addition require fresh factual verification.

Ratio Decidendi: The Resale Price Method is not the most appropriate method where the reseller performs substantial value-adding functions and bears risks beyond routine distribution, particularly when no defect is established in benchmarking under the Transactional Net Margin Method.

Issues: Whether a bank could create a lien over a customer's current account to recover tax deductible on cash withdrawals under Section 194N of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 194N places the obligation to deduct tax at source on the banking company making cash payments beyond the prescribed threshold. Section 271C correspondingly provides for penalty against the person failing to make the required deduction. The customer receiving the payment is not made liable to deduct such tax or to suffer penalty for the bank's failure. The bank's own communication confirmed that no tax-authority direction had been issued for the lien and disclosed no statutory power to impose it.

Conclusion: The bank had no statutory authority to create a lien over the Society's current account for the alleged TDS liability; it must release the lien and permit operation of the account upon the Society furnishing the relevant income-tax returns.

Issues: (i) Whether the seized foreign-origin gold bars were liable to confiscation where the claimant-owner failed to establish their lawful import under the statutory burden of proof; (ii) Whether penalty imposed on the appellant for dealing with the confiscable gold bars was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the seized foreign-origin gold bars were liable to confiscation where the claimant-owner failed to establish their lawful import under the statutory burden of proof.

Analysis: Gold is expressly covered by Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Upon seizure under a reasonable belief of smuggling, the burden lies on the person from whose possession it is seized and on the claimant-owner to prove that it is not smuggled. The foreign markings on the bars, their seizure during transport through an Angadia firm, and the absence of documents establishing lawful import constituted sufficient basis for the seizure. Local purchase invoices did not establish correlation with a lawful import or discharge the statutory burden. The precedents relied upon by the appellant were distinguishable on their facts.

Conclusion: The gold bars were rightly held liable to confiscation, with redemption permitted on payment of the adjudged redemption fine. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty imposed on the appellant for dealing with the confiscable gold bars was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant claimed ownership of and was involved in the handling and transportation of the gold bars, while failing to establish their lawful source or import. Its acts and omissions rendered the goods confiscable and attracted penal consequences under the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty amount was found reasonable having regard to the value of the seized goods.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the appellant is justified and requires no interference. The finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty consequences arising from the appellant's failure to discharge the burden regarding lawful import remain enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where gold is seized under a reasonable belief that it is smuggled, Section 123 places the burden on the possessor and claimant-owner to establish lawful import; uncorrelated domestic purchase documents do not discharge that burden.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the assessment order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite the available appellate remedy.

Analysis: No merits determination was made on the jurisdictional contention or the validity of the assessment order. The petitioner sought leave to pursue the statutory appeal, including a request for condonation of delay.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal within two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay-condonation application.

Issues: Whether rejection of the belated GST appeal for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement should be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, having regard to the alleged recoveries from the electronic ledgers.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond limitation and the amount deposited at its filing did not meet the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The alleged prior recoveries required verification. A fresh opportunity was therefore directed, conditional upon deposit of 50% of the disputed tax in cash, after adjustment of verified amounts already recovered or paid, and submission of a reply with supporting documents.

Conclusion: The rejection order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to compliance with the stipulated deposit and reply requirements.

Issues: Whether the credit received as an advance from a related corporate entity was satisfactorily explained for purposes of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: For a credit to be accepted, the assessee must establish the creditor's identity and creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. Although the creditor's identity was established through its corporate status, PAN and address, no material established its capacity to advance more than Rs. 25 crore. Repayment of the amount during the same year, by itself, did not establish genuineness, particularly where no business purpose for the advance was shown and the funds were placed in short-term deposits before repayment with a mark-up. The explanation concerning seizure of records and the circumstances of the surviving director did not cure the absence of evidence regarding the transaction's purpose, creditworthiness and genuineness.

Conclusion: The credit was not satisfactorily explained under Section 68; the deletion of the addition was unsustainable and the addition was restored, in favour of the Revenue.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy before the GSTAT.

Issues: Whether sale proceeds from the inherited residential property were assessable as income from other sources or as capital gains, and whether the assessee was entitled to indexed cost and deduction for investment in a new residential property.

Analysis: The documentary material, including title-related records, co-operative society membership, transfer documentation, inheritance, possession and the absence of any ownership claim by the company allegedly providing the original consideration, supported the assessee's ownership. The conclusion that the deceased husband was merely a nominee rested on an unverified signature comparison and a declaration which was not conclusive when read with the remaining evidence. Further, gross consideration received on transfer of immovable property could not be assessed under the residuary head merely because ownership was disputed, without establishing that it was taxable income under that head.

Conclusion: The property was a capital asset in the hands of the assessee or her deceased husband; its sale proceeds are assessable under the head Capital gains and not Income from other sources. The additions were deleted, and the assessee's deduction claim is to be allowed after arithmetical verification.

Issues: Whether statutorily recognised IGST refund claims may be denied because of technical errors in the online customs system.

Analysis: A statutory entitlement to refund under the respective GST enactments cannot be curtailed merely because the online portal has generated technical mismatches or does not permit manual sanction. The respondent remains obliged to process refund claims in accordance with the applicable GST enactments.

Conclusion: Denial of the IGST refund claims solely on account of portal-related technical issues is unsustainable; the claims must be processed manually on physical documents and appropriate refund orders passed.

Issues: Whether penalty for under-reporting of income is leviable where no return was filed within the prescribed time, but income disclosed in response to reassessment notice was accepted without further addition.

Analysis: Section 270A(2)(b) deems income to be under-reported where no return has been furnished and the assessed income exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Section 270A(3)(i)(b) quantifies such under-reported income in the case of a non-corporate assessee by reference to assessed income and the maximum non-taxable amount. Filing a return only after notice under Section 148 does not cure the original failure to furnish a return. The acceptance of the income returned in reassessment, without an addition over that returned income, is not determinative under Section 270A(2)(b). Deduction of tax at source and departmental availability of income information do not remove the statutory obligation to file a return. The assessee did not establish applicability of any exclusion under Section 270A(6).

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 270A(7) was validly leviable; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the plaint seeking declaration of property as joint family property was liable to rejection as barred by Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: At the stage of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, only the plaint averments and documents annexed to it may be considered. The pleadings stated that the property was acquired in the name of a son out of the nucleus of joint family income and was held as joint family property. Such assertions did not, on their face, disclose a benami transaction. The statutory definition also excludes property held by a Karta or member of a Hindu undivided family for family benefit out of known family sources, and property acquired in the name of a child from known sources of the individual. A benami objection could be raised and established at trial, but could not sustain rejection of the plaint at the threshold.

Conclusion: The plaint was not barred by the prohibition against benami claims and could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint cannot be rejected as pursuing a benami claim unless its own averments and annexed documents plainly disclose a transaction falling within the statutory definition of benami transaction.

Issues: (i) Whether the 918-day delay in filing the first appeal should be condoned; (ii) Whether interest earned by a co-operative housing society on deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the 918-day delay in filing the first appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: Section 249(3) permits admission of a delayed appeal upon sufficient cause. The explanations concerning changes in the managing committee, delayed elections, post-pandemic operational difficulties and lack of timely tax assistance were assessed through the justice-oriented approach applicable to limitation provisions. In the absence of mala fides or a deliberate dilatory strategy, substantial justice prevails over technical lapse.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the first appeal was condoned, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest earned by a co-operative housing society on deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 80P(2)(d) allows deduction of interest or dividend received from investments with another co-operative society. A co-operative bank remains a species of co-operative society for this purpose. Section 80P(4) excludes a co-operative bank from claiming deduction under section 80P itself, but does not deny another co-operative society deduction on interest earned from investments made with such bank.

Conclusion: Interest earned from deposits with the co-operative banks qualified for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), and the disallowance was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's first appeal is to be adjudicated on merits, and its claimed deduction for interest from investments with co-operative banks is allowable.

Ratio Decidendi: A co-operative bank is a co-operative society for section 80P(2)(d), and section 80P(4) does not curtail a co-operative society's deduction for interest received from investments with a co-operative bank.

Issues: Whether the works contract services supplied for canal soil work and construction of a culvert were exempt from service tax.

Analysis: The documentary material, including departmental certificates and tax records, established that the services comprised soil work on a canal and construction of a culvert in connection with irrigation works. Such services fell within the exemption for construction-related services provided to Government in relation to canals, dams or other irrigation works under Serial No. 12(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

Conclusion: The services were exempt from service tax; the tax demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable and were set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether amounts received towards sale of developed plots, including advances originally received under a flat-sale scheme, were taxable as Site Formation and Development Service; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand and consequential penalties.

Issue (i): Whether amounts received towards sale of developed plots, including advances originally received under a flat-sale scheme, were taxable as Site Formation and Development Service.

Analysis: Service tax under the charging provision applied only to services. The statutory definition excluded a transfer of title in immovable property by sale. The negative-list regime also excluded trading in goods. The evidence established that agricultural land was developed and sold as plots, while no material disproved that flats were never sold and advances were refunded or adjusted towards plot sales. Development undertaken before sale formed part of the sale of the developed immovable property and was not a service rendered to purchasers.

Conclusion: Receipts towards sale of developed plots were not consideration for taxable Site Formation and Development Service; the demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand and consequential penalties.

Analysis: The relevant information was available in statutory records and the balance sheet, and returns had been filed with only brief delay. No evidence established clandestine activity, fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or deliberate intent to evade tax. Mere non-payment or a departmental interpretative difference could not justify the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was invalid and the show-cause notice was time-barred; consequential penalties on the company and its directors could not survive, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand, interest, late-filing penalty and penalties imposed upon the company and co-noticees were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Sale of land developed by the seller constitutes transfer of immovable property rather than a taxable service, and extended limitation requires proof of a deliberate act to evade tax beyond mere non-payment or delayed filing.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand order should be entertained despite the available statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides an appeal to the Appellate Authority against the impugned adjudication order. The petitioner had not exhausted that remedy. The time spent pursuing the writ petition was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes if an appeal is filed within 30 days.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained because the petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal; the conclusion is neutral as to the underlying fiscal demand.

Issues: Whether an order imposing penalty can be sustained where the adjudicating authority failed to consider the assessee's uploaded objection and did not afford a personal hearing.

Analysis: The record showed that the objection to the show-cause notice had been uploaded on the departmental portal, despite the order-in-original recording that no response had been received. The Revenue acknowledged that the adjudicating authority had received but failed to consider that objection. Adjudication without considering the reply and without affording a hearing was therefore procedurally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The penalty adjudication cannot stand without consideration of the uploaded objection and provision of a personal hearing; the matter must be adjudicated afresh in accordance with these requirements.

Issues: Whether the bail conditions requiring an embassy guarantee certificate and periodic reporting through the embassy should be modified where the embassy refused to issue the certificate and the applicant had obtained a valid X-Misc. visa.

Analysis: The applicant had made efforts to comply with the conditions, but the Chinese Embassy declined to furnish the requested guarantee certificate. The applicant remained incarcerated despite the earlier grant of bail and had subsequently been issued an X-Misc. visa valid until 28.10.2026 for attending criminal proceedings, subject to a restriction on departure without an exit permit. These circumstances warranted replacement of the embassy-dependent requirements with safeguards directly enforceable by the trial court.

Conclusion: The embassy-certificate condition was substituted by an undertaking to appear on every trial date and cooperate in early conclusion of the trial. The reporting-through-embassy condition was modified to require the applicant not to leave India without the trial court's permission and to file a two-monthly affidavit informing the trial court of her place of stay and movements; all remaining bail conditions continued unchanged.

Issues: (i) Whether the payment made for closure of the Paging Business was deductible as business expenditure; (ii) Whether deletion of the estimated disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the payment made for closure of the Paging Business was deductible as business expenditure.

Analysis: Deduction under Section 37(1) requires that expenditure be incurred wholly and exclusively for carrying on the assessee's business. The contractual arrangement transferred the Paging Business, including its assets, liabilities, employees, contracts and obligations, to another entity for implementing its closure. The payment was consequently directed to bringing that undertaking to an end, rather than to carrying on the assessee's business. Common management or control of the Paging and Cellular Divisions could not independently satisfy the statutory requirement. Authorities concerning continuing interest liabilities, closure of units while an integrated business continued, and the test of same business for loss set-off were inapplicable.

Conclusion: The closure payment was not allowable under Section 37(1); the disallowance was restored. The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether deletion of the estimated disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss was justified.

Analysis: Foreign exchange fluctuation must be determined from the actual liability arising on individual import transactions reflected in the books and cannot be apportioned by estimation where actual figures are available. The records showed that the claimed amount related to spares and consumables, while the fluctuation attributable to capital goods had already been capitalised. No contrary material was produced to displace that factual position.

Conclusion: The estimated disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss could not be sustained. The issue was decided against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The closure-payment disallowance remained enforceable, while the deletion relating to foreign exchange fluctuation was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure incurred to implement closure of a business undertaking is not deductible under Section 37(1) merely because the undertaking had common management or control with a continuing business; foreign exchange fluctuation must be determined from actual transaction-wise liability rather than estimation.

Issues: Whether reassessment of a scrutiny assessment beyond four years was valid where the property-sale transaction and material facts had been disclosed during the original assessment.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 147 permits reopening, after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year where an assessment was completed under Section 143(3), only if escaped income is attributable to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The sale transaction, stated consideration, stamp-duty valuation component, and explanation for that component had been specifically sought and furnished during the original scrutiny. The recorded reasons identified no material fact withheld by the assessee. Reappraisal of the same disclosed material, including a subsequent view on applicability of Section 50C, could not satisfy the statutory jurisdictional condition.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice issued beyond four years was invalid for want of failure by the assessee to make full and true disclosure of material facts; the finding is in favour of the assessee.