Issues: Whether interim protection should be granted against vessel-wise assessments and consequential demand where the assessee had exercised the option for annual assessment and its consolidated return resulted in a final refund.

Analysis: The coexistence of assessment demands under the shipping-income provision and a final return-processing intimation granting refund disclosed an arguable controversy requiring deeper consideration. The competing assessments and refund established a prima facie case for protection pending adjudication.

Outcome: Rule issued; operation and enforcement of the impugned assessment orders, demand notices, and consequential recovery proceedings stayed pending final disposal of the writ petition.

Issues: Whether the assessee, as owner of vehicles given on operating lease, was entitled to depreciation notwithstanding that the vehicles were registered in the names of the users.

Analysis: The master lease agreements established that ownership, rights and interest in the leased vehicles remained with the assessee, while customers received only a right to use them. Registration of the vehicles in the users' names in the R.C. books for convenience under the motor-vehicle regime did not displace the assessee's ownership. The governing principle in relation to depreciation on leased assets applied to these facts.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to depreciation on the vehicles given on operating lease; the Revenue's questions concerning that disallowance did not give rise to a substantial question of law.

Issues: Whether the Revenue's delayed challenge to the Settlement Commission's orders warranted interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Revenue was present when the settlement order was made and therefore had knowledge of it. Its rectification application was made after five years and rejected; the writ petition was filed seven years after the settlement order and two years after the rectification order. The delay was not properly explained, and no ground for interference with the impugned orders was made out.

Conclusion: The delayed writ challenge to the Settlement Commission's orders was not maintainable for interference and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether refund of a part of CSR funds to a substantial donor, for transfer to another charitable organisation, constituted a prohibited benefit to a specified person under section 13(1)(c)(ii).

Analysis: No evidence established that the donor derived any benefit from the refund. The refunded amount was immediately channelled to another charitable organisation conducting rural education programmes; the transaction therefore did not confer a direct or indirect benefit on the donor.

Conclusion: The refund did not violate section 13(1)(c)(ii); the assessee remained entitled to exemption under section 11.

Issues: Whether cash of Rs. 33,50,000 seized upon interception could be assessed as unexplained money when it formed part of the disclosed consideration from sale of immovable property.

Analysis: The returned income already included the cash receipt, while the same amount was separately added as unexplained money, resulting in double addition. The cash was intercepted on the date of sale of the property, and the registered sale deed recorded total consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs. The banking records substantiated receipt of Rs. 30.50 lakhs through banking channels; the balance cash of Rs. 33.50 lakhs was consistent with the disclosed sale consideration. The explanation for possession of the cash was therefore plausible and supported by contemporaneous material.

Conclusion: The cash receipt could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 449 days in filing the appeal should be condoned; (ii) Whether the order treating the assessee as in default was barred by limitation; (iii) Whether the demand for failure to deduct tax at source and consequential interest was sustainable; (iv) Whether late fee under section 234E could be levied for the relevant period.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 449 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay resulted from the appellate order having been served on the income-tax portal, the company's discontinued operations, and the director's medical condition requiring surgery and bed rest. The explanation was supported by medical material and was neither mala fide nor a dilatory strategy.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the order treating the assessee as in default was barred by limitation.

Analysis: For financial year 2012-13, the applicable seven-year period ended on 31.03.2020. The limitation period stood extended during the COVID-19 pandemic under TOLA; consequently, the order dated 24.03.2021 was within time.

Conclusion: The order was not barred by limitation, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand for failure to deduct tax at source and consequential interest was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee admittedly failed to deduct tax at source and produced no evidence establishing that the non-deduction was covered by a lower-deduction certificate.

Conclusion: The demand under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether late fee under section 234E could be levied for the relevant period.

Analysis: Section 234E was inserted with effect from 01.06.2015. The relevant period preceded its insertion.

Conclusion: The late fee under section 234E was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee remains liable for the tax-deduction default and consequential interest, but is not liable for the late fee.

Issues: Whether income-tax assessment and appellate proceedings could continue against a corporate debtor during the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the consequential course required under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The corporate debtor had been admitted to the corporate insolvency resolution process and a moratorium was in force under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Institution or continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor during that period was prohibited. The overriding provision in Section 238 of that Code prevailed over inconsistent provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the insolvency order had been brought to the notice of the assessing and appellate authorities, they were required to adopt the course prescribed by Section 156A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The assessment and first appellate orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for action in accordance with Section 156A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment concerning the project business segment required fresh consideration; (ii) Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment for intra-group services required fresh determination.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment concerning the project business segment required fresh consideration.

Analysis: The record, including the DRP directions and the material relating to the treatment in the subsequent year, required the project-business adjustment to be reconsidered in accordance with law after giving the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The project-business transfer-pricing adjustment was restored to the TPO for fresh consideration, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment for intra-group services required fresh determination.

Analysis: The subsequent assessment-year order accepting the arm's length price of the intra-group services warranted a fresh decision on the adjustment after affording the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The intra-group-services transfer-pricing adjustment was restored to the TPO for fresh determination, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustments for both assessment years require re-adjudication by the TPO in accordance with law and after hearing the assessee.

Issues: Whether exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) could be denied solely because Form No. 10BB was allegedly furnished 28 days late, although it was available before processing of the return.

Analysis: For the relevant assessment year, institutions governed by section 139(4C) had no specific statutory due date for furnishing the return; consequently, the reference to the specified date in the audit-report requirement created an ambiguity. Subsequent amendments prescribing a due date could not retrospectively impose an obligation absent during the relevant year. The audit report was furnished before processing under section 143(1), the delay was minor and occurred during the Covid period, and no prejudice to the Revenue was established. The furnishing requirement was procedural and could not defeat a substantive exemption where the report was ultimately available before adjudication of the claim.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(23C)(vi); denial of exemption solely for the alleged 28-day delay in furnishing Form No. 10BB was unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether deletion of the addition for unexplained cash deposits was sustainable without verification of the asserted business income and trading results; (ii) Whether deletion of the addition concerning the difference between stamp-duty value and purchase consideration of land was sustainable without examination of the land-quality evidence; (iii) Whether deletion of the addition relating to the loan from the assessee's father was sustainable without verification of the lender's source and creditworthiness.

Issue (i): Whether deletion of the addition for unexplained cash deposits was sustainable without verification of the asserted business income and trading results.

Analysis: The return disclosed no business income, although the assessee relied on a profit and loss account and asserted that repeated cash deposits arose from wholesale trading. The relevant trading results and surrounding-year returns required verification by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for fresh verification, favouring the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether deletion of the addition concerning the difference between stamp-duty value and purchase consideration of land was sustainable without examination of the land-quality evidence.

Analysis: The lower authorities had not adequately examined the documents concerning the nature and quality of the land. The evidence required reconsideration and, if necessary, valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for fresh examination, favouring the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether deletion of the addition relating to the loan from the assessee's father was sustainable without verification of the lender's source and creditworthiness.

Analysis: The material did not establish whether the alleged term loan obtained by the lender had been advanced to the assessee, or whether the relevant documents had been produced before the Assessing Officer. Verification of the source and creditworthiness was necessary.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for fresh verification, favouring the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was set aside and the assessment issues were restored for a de novo factual examination.

Issues: Whether revision of the assessment under section 263 was valid where the Assessing Officer completed the assessment without the valuation report which he had sought for determining capital gains.

Analysis: The assessment of capital gains depended on the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.2001 and on the date of transfer. The Assessing Officer had himself referred the valuation issue to the Departmental Valuation Officer but accepted the returned income before receipt of that report, without independently verifying the valuation adopted. The subsequently received valuation report was available when the Principal Commissioner examined the record. Explanation 1(b) to section 263 includes all records relating to the proceeding available at the time of such examination. Completion of assessment due to limitation did not validate an assessment made without material considered indispensable for correct computation. The revisional direction was confined to fresh examination of the valuation report after hearing the assessee.

Conclusion: The assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was valid.

Issues: Whether system-generated errors in aggregation of opening and closing work-in-progress figures in the return and intimation constituted mistakes apparent from the record amenable to rectification.

Analysis: The opening inventory and closing inventory totals were incorrectly generated as nil despite the underlying stock figures having been entered in the return, whereas the intimation adopted the closing work-in-progress figure. Since the assessee could only input the component data and the totals were system-generated, the aggregation error could not be attributed to the assessee. The discrepancies were evident from the return and intimation records and required verification and rectification.

Conclusion: The apparent errors in the return and intimation are liable to be verified and rectified by the jurisdictional assessing authority after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

Issues: Whether penalty imposed for misreporting of income on account of commission receipts reflected in Form 26AS but not fully offered to tax, despite claiming the related TDS credit, was sustainable.

Analysis: TDS credit must be allowed in the assessment year in which the corresponding income is assessable; where income is assessable over more than one year, credit must be apportioned in the same proportion. Having claimed full TDS credit while omitting part of the corresponding commission and insurance commission receipts from the returned income, the assessee underreported income and did not furnish a satisfactory explanation for doing so. However, the receipts and TDS details were available in Form 26AS, and there was no suppression of facts, unrecorded investment, or false entry in the books to characterise the default as misreporting.

Conclusion: Penalty is sustainable only for underreporting of income and not for misreporting of income; the penalty is to be modified accordingly.

Issues: Whether interim release of perishable imported goods should be directed pursuant to an unchallenged detention-cum-waiver certificate.

Analysis: The detention-cum-waiver certificate prima facie bound the concerned cargo stakeholders, including the shipping line and custodian. The Customs Department acknowledged that the certificate bound the shipping line for the entire period during which the goods were held. The applicable regulations and the precedent relied upon supported the position that retention of goods and levy of detention charges after a valid certificate would be unlawful. As the goods were perishable and continued detention could cause escalating charges and prejudice, release was warranted upon security being furnished. The underlying claims and counterclaims were reserved for final adjudication.

Outcome: Interim release of the goods was directed upon each petitioner depositing Rs.30 lakhs with the Registrar within one week; the petitions were retained for final hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative remedy under the food-import regulations; (ii) Whether the FSSAI Authorised Officer was exclusively competent to draw samples for determining the food safety and fitness for human consumption of imported roasted areca nuts; (iii) Whether the Customs officer's power to take samples under the Customs Act could displace the FSSAI's authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative remedy under the food-import regulations.

Analysis: The challenge concerned the statutory competence of the officer who initiated sampling and the resulting validity of the laboratory reports, rather than merely the correctness of the reports. The alternative-remedy rule is discretionary and does not bar writ jurisdiction where proceedings are alleged to be without jurisdiction or contrary to statutory procedure.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the FSSAI Authorised Officer was exclusively competent to draw samples for determining the food safety and fitness for human consumption of imported roasted areca nuts.

Analysis: Sections 25 and 47(5) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, read with Regulation 13(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations, 2017 and the notified port-authority list, designated the FSSAI Authorised Officer for Kolkata Port. Sampling for food safety by an officer lacking that statutory authority rendered the sampling process unlawful; a laboratory report founded on such sampling could not sustain adverse consequences.

Conclusion: The FSSAI Authorised Officer alone was competent to draw samples for food-safety testing and human-consumption clearance; sampling and test reports based on samples drawn by any other officer were void. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Customs officer's power to take samples under the Customs Act could displace the FSSAI's authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Analysis: The Food Safety and Standards Act has overriding operation in matters of food safety, standards and edibility. The Customs power under Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 remains available independently for revenue-related purposes, including classification, valuation, duty liability, misdeclaration and trade-policy compliance, but cannot substitute for or override FSSAI food-safety certification.

Conclusion: Customs sampling powers survive for revenue purposes but cannot displace the FSSAI's exclusive authority over food-safety testing and certification. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Fresh sampling was directed through the FSSAI Authorised Officer and referral-laboratory testing, with protection against coercive action pending service of the report; conforming goods were directed to be released without demurrage or detention charges for the specified period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specialised statute designates an authority to conduct food-safety sampling of imported food, sampling by another authority for that purpose is jurisdictionally invalid; Customs powers to investigate revenue matters remain distinct and cannot override food-safety certification.

Issues: Whether the Special Court under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 must afford an accused a hearing under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before taking cognizance on a complaint by SEBI.

Analysis: Section 4(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies its procedural framework to offences under special enactments unless the special enactment prescribes a contrary procedure. Section 26 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 restricts cognizance to a complaint by the Board, but does not prescribe the manner in which cognizance is to be taken. Section 26-D applies the criminal procedure law to proceedings before the Special Court, subject only to a contrary provision in the Act. The deeming of the Special Court as a Court of Session does not exclude the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing under the first proviso to Section 223(1). The proviso confers a substantive right integral to fair trial, and cognizance taken without complying with it is void.

Conclusion: The Special Court must give the accused an opportunity of hearing under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before taking cognizance of an offence under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issues: (i) Whether invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was valid; (ii) Whether personal penalties on the Director and Financial Advisor under Rule 26 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was valid.

Analysis: The extended period applies where non-levy or short levy results from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. The show-cause notice, read as a whole, set out the material facts demonstrating deliberate non-registration after crossing the exemption threshold, non-filing of declarations, absence of production, stock and sales records, relabelling and repacking of imported goods, and clearance of excisable goods without duty. These facts were detected only through departmental investigation. The absence of verbatim statutory language in the notice caused no prejudice because the factual foundation for deliberate suppression and evasion was clearly disclosed and answered.

Conclusion: The extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was validly invoked against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether personal penalties on the Director and Financial Advisor under Rule 26 were sustainable.

Analysis: The factual findings established that the Director specifically directed removal and replacement of price stickers and clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty. The Financial Advisor was also found to have been involved in and responsible for the duty evasion. No perversity was shown in the concurrent factual findings regarding their respective roles.

Conclusion: The personal penalties under Rule 26 were sustainable against the Director and Financial Advisor.

Final Conclusion: The demand was enforceable using the extended limitation period, and the individual liabilities for participation in the evasion remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A show-cause notice validly supports invocation of the extended limitation period when its pleaded facts clearly establish conscious suppression and intent to evade duty, even without reproducing the precise statutory phraseology.

Issues: (i) Whether surrender of a transit pass precludes penalty proceedings for contravention during transit; (ii) Whether direct proof of unloading or sale within the State is necessary before initiating proceedings based on suspected diversion of goods; (iii) Whether revisional jurisdiction could be exercised to reverse the appellate order that had annulled the penalty; (iv) Whether the restoration of penalty was legally sustainable on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether surrender of a transit pass precludes penalty proceedings for contravention during transit.

Analysis: A transit pass evidences the declared movement of goods through the State but is not conclusive evidence that goods reached their declared destination. Discrepancies in transport records, shortages in goods, and surrounding circumstances capable of supporting an inference of attempted evasion remain relevant despite surrender of the pass.

Conclusion: Surrender of a transit pass does not bar penalty proceedings where material indicates attempted tax evasion. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether direct proof of unloading or sale within the State is necessary before initiating proceedings based on suspected diversion of goods.

Analysis: Contravention may be established from verification of goods in transit, accompanying records, and attendant circumstances. Documentary discrepancies, missing supporting records, and circumstances indicating possible diversion permit appropriate inferences; direct evidence of actual unloading within the State is not indispensable.

Conclusion: Direct proof of intrastate unloading or sale is not a condition precedent to proceedings for contravention. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether revisional jurisdiction could be exercised to reverse the appellate order that had annulled the penalty.

Analysis: The appellate order treated surrender of transit passes as sufficient to negate evasion while overlooking discrepancies in documents, shortages in goods, and the vehicle's movement towards Bengaluru after surrender. Those omissions constituted infirmities justifying revisional scrutiny of the legality and propriety of that order.

Conclusion: Exercise of revisional jurisdiction to reverse the appellate order was lawful. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the restoration of penalty was legally sustainable on the facts.

Analysis: The finding of intent to evade tax rested on cumulative factual circumstances and the explanation for the vehicle's return was found not credible. Such factual findings, supported by relevant material and free from perversity, arbitrariness, or legal infirmity, did not warrant appellate interference.

Conclusion: Restoration of the penalty was legally sustainable. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty for the transit-related contravention remains enforceable, and the revisional correction of the appellate order stands on a valid legal and factual basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A transit pass is evidentiary but not conclusive of genuine interstate transit; penalty proceedings and revisional intervention may be sustained on cumulative circumstantial material demonstrating attempted diversion and tax evasion.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, could reject the dealer's claim for deduction on inter-State purchases used in works contracts without examining the records asserted to have been filed before the lower authorities or affording an opportunity to produce them.

Analysis: The orders of the assessing authority, first appellate authority and Tribunal contained no discussion of the works-contract terms or the foundational documents bearing on whether movement of the goods from outside the State was occasioned by the contracts. Despite the dealer's specific assertion that supporting material had been produced before the assessing authority, the Tribunal rejected the claim without verifying the records. As final fact-finding authority, the Tribunal was required either to summon and examine the available records or permit the dealer to produce the material.

Conclusion: The questions concerning non-consideration of evidence and denial of opportunity were answered in favour of the assessee; the Tribunal's order was set aside for fresh consideration of the evidence and, if necessary, further material.

Issues: Whether a mismatch between the e-way bill particulars stated in the tax invoices and the e-way bills carried with the goods justified detention and penalty under Section 129.

Analysis: The discrepancy was a human and typographical error. The goods corresponded with the declarations in the e-way bills and accompanying documents, a fact admitted by the Department. No benefit to the petitioner or avoidance of tax was demonstrated. The error therefore fell within the circular's treatment of inadvertent documentary mistakes, for which only the prescribed nominal penalty was applicable.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 129 and the penalty imposed thereunder were unsustainable; the impugned penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable nominal penalty.