Issues: Whether the petitioner could submit a physical application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration despite expiry of the statutory period.

Analysis: In view of the stated circumstances and the expiry of the period for pursuing the ordinary statutory remedy, the petitioner was permitted to approach the competent authority with a physical application for revocation. The authority was required to entertain the application and decide it in accordance with law within the stipulated period.

Conclusion: The petitioner may submit the physical revocation application within two weeks, and the competent authority shall decide it within three weeks thereafter.

Issues: Whether paper bags made of paper or paperboard, classifiable under Tariff Item 48194000, attract GST at 5% under Entry 319 of Schedule I or 18% under Entry 185 of Schedule II of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate).

Analysis: Paper sacks and bags manufactured from paper are specifically classifiable under Tariff Item 48194000 of Heading 4819. Entry 319 of Schedule I expressly covers paper sacks/bags under Chapters 39 and 48. Its insertion, viewed in the context of the GST Council deliberations, reflects the intended promotion of paper bags and biodegradable bags as environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional plastic bags. The conjunction joining paper sacks/bags and biodegradable bags does not restrict the entry only to paper bags that are themselves biodegradable.

Conclusion: Paper bags classifiable under Tariff Item 48194000 are covered by Entry 319 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and attract GST at 5%, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could set aside and remand an assessment made under section 147 read with section 144B for fresh assessment under the proviso to section 251(1)(a).

Analysis: The proviso to section 251(1)(a), restored with effect from 01.10.2024, authorises the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside an assessment and direct a fresh assessment only where the assessment was made under section 144. The assessment in question was expressly made under section 147 read with section 144B and could not be treated as a best judgment assessment under section 144 merely because the assessee's submissions were unavailable or illegible on the portal.

Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to set aside the assessment and remit it to the Assessing Officer; the appellate order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on the grounds raised.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a money-laundering investigation, including on medical grounds.

Analysis: The material at the investigation stage indicated that the petitioner allegedly facilitated the award of a sub-contract to an entity connected with his son and that the alleged proceeds were transferred to family members. The absence of a direct credit to the petitioner's account was not determinative. The allegations, financial material and need to trace the money trail required further investigation; at the pre-arrest bail stage, the evidence was not to be assessed conclusively. The statutory twin conditions for bail were not capable of being satisfied in the petitioner's favour at that stage. The available medical record did not establish a continuing serious condition, medical emergency, or urgent intervention warranting protection from arrest.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail, either on merits or medical grounds.

Issues: Whether the pending rectification application required a direction for time-bound disposal.

Analysis: The authority accepted that reasonable time could be granted to decide the pending rectification application.

Conclusion: The rectification application shall be considered and disposed of within six weeks from receipt of the order.

Issues: Whether a six-day delay in filing the statutory appeal should be condoned and the appeal restored for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The appellate authority failed to account for the bona fide circumstances in which the petitioner, appearing without legal assistance, neither filed a delay-condonation application nor articulated proper grounds. The short delay was attributable to sufficient cause, and an opportunity to prosecute the appeal through counsel was warranted under a justice-oriented approach.

Conclusion: The six-day delay was condoned, and the appellate order was set aside with restoration of the appeal for fresh decision on merits.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on supplementary invoices issued after detection of the service provider's prior non-payment of service tax; (ii) Whether penalty for wrongful availment of such credit was imposable on the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on supplementary invoices issued after detection of the service provider's prior non-payment of service tax.

Analysis: Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 excludes credit on supplementary invoices where the additional tax became recoverable because of non-levy or non-payment occasioned by fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax. The service provider issued the supplementary invoices and paid the tax only after departmental detection of the earlier non-payment. The Settlement Commission's grant of only partial immunity, accompanied by reduction rather than elimination of penalty, established that the non-payment fell within the exclusion contemplated by Rule 9(1)(bb).

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the supplementary invoices was inadmissible, and the denial of credit with interest was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty for wrongful availment of such credit was imposable on the appellant.

Analysis: The invoices relied upon for credit contained the prescribed particulars, including duty payment and taxable value. There was no omission attributable to the appellant in availing credit on those documents.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not imposable; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory bar to credit arising from the service provider's tax evasion applies, but penal liability of the recipient requires an omission or culpable conduct attributable to that recipient.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit on supplementary invoices is barred under Rule 9(1)(bb) where the supplier's additional tax liability arose from fraud, suppression, or like conduct with intent to evade tax; penalty on the credit recipient cannot be imposed absent culpable omission by that recipient.

Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of the addition representing 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases for assessment year 2018-19 was justified; (ii) Whether additions for alleged non-genuine purchases, estimated gross profit and unexplained GST component in respect of transactions with the supplier for assessment year 2019-20 were sustainable; (iii) Whether penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income could survive after deletion of the quantum addition.

Issue (i): Whether the deletion of the addition representing 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases for assessment year 2018-19 was justified.

Analysis: The purchases were supported by invoices, transport records, banking-channel payments, supplier confirmation, GST material and stock records. The corresponding sales and books of account were not disturbed. The supplier's registration was cancelled only subsequently, and the assessing authority did not pursue verification from the resolution professional despite the supplier being under insolvency proceedings. Similar transactions with the supplier had also been accepted by the Revenue in other cases.

Conclusion: The purchases were genuine and the ad hoc addition of 12.5% was unjustified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether additions for alleged non-genuine purchases, estimated gross profit and unexplained GST component in respect of transactions with the supplier for assessment year 2019-20 were sustainable.

Analysis: The purchase and sale transactions were reconciled with the supplier's records and supported by invoices, e-way bills, stock records, GST returns and banking-channel payments. The Revenue produced no cogent evidence of fictitious transactions, cash return of GST, or unexplained money. The additions for estimated profit and GST were made without rejection of books and, for the GST component, without a specific opportunity to respond. The assessing authority did not make adequate further inquiry from the resolution professional or the records available with GST authorities.

Conclusion: The additions under Sections 69C and 69A, including estimated profit and alleged unexplained GST, were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income could survive after deletion of the quantum addition.

Analysis: The penalty was founded solely on the quantum addition concerning the alleged bogus purchases. Since that addition was deleted on merits and the deletion was upheld, the foundation for penalty ceased to exist.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 270A could not survive, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The substantive additions based on the alleged non-genuine transactions with the supplier and the consequential penalty stand extinguished; the assessee's legal objections in the cross-objections were left unadjudicated as academic.

Ratio Decidendi: Additions for alleged bogus purchases or sales cannot rest on general information, retrospective cancellation of a supplier's registration, or estimation alone where the assessee substantiates the transactions through contemporaneous records and the Revenue fails to conduct effective contrary inquiry.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the appeal as time-barred without granting the repeatedly requested virtual personal hearing violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The assessee had explained that the delay resulted from pursuing a writ remedy and had repeatedly sought a virtual hearing to explain the delay. No hearing was granted before the appeal was dismissed in limine. The delay attributable to pursuing an alternative remedy could constitute sufficient cause depending on the facts. Paragraph 13 of the e-Appeals Scheme, 2023 mandates that a requested personal hearing be allowed through video conferencing or video telephony.

Conclusion: The dismissal without affording the requested hearing violated principles of natural justice; the appellate order was set aside and the appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication after providing a personal hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether electricity transferred from eligible captive power units to non-eligible units could be benchmarked at the State Electricity Board supply rate rather than the Indian Energy Exchange rate with an ad hoc markup; (ii) Whether the arm's length price of steam transferred from eligible units to non-eligible units could be determined at nil; (iii) Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment for sale of hybrid seeds required fresh benchmarking using transactional TNMM after accounting for extraordinary business conditions; (iv) Whether adjustment of interest on foreign-currency loans to an associated enterprise was justified; (v) Whether sale consideration of a depreciable building could be added separately despite its adjustment against the block of assets; and (vi) Whether claimed tax-rate, MAT-credit, TCS-credit and demand-adjustment errors required verification and rectification.

Issue (i): Whether electricity transferred from eligible captive power units to non-eligible units could be benchmarked at the State Electricity Board supply rate rather than the Indian Energy Exchange rate with an ad hoc markup.

Analysis: The State Electricity Board rate was an appropriate external CUP because it reflected the price that the consuming unit would have paid for regular electricity supply. Electricity traded on the Indian Energy Exchange was materially dissimilar, being short-term, volatile and not a source of uninterrupted power. The ad hoc 30% markup had no basis. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case was binding; its operation could not be disregarded merely because the Revenue contemplated filing a special leave petition.

Conclusion: The electricity transfer-pricing adjustment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the arm's length price of steam transferred from eligible units to non-eligible units could be determined at nil.

Analysis: Steam was a commercially valuable product with an ascertainable production cost and could not be treated as having nil value merely because it arose in power generation. Binding decisions in the assessee's earlier years had accepted cost-based valuation of steam. The revenue authorities were required to follow those binding decisions unless stayed by a competent court.

Conclusion: The steam transfer-pricing adjustment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment for sale of hybrid seeds required fresh benchmarking using transactional TNMM after accounting for extraordinary business conditions.

Analysis: Extraordinary reductions in volume, inventory provisioning and seed discard costs adversely affected profitability. Transactional TNMM was more appropriate than entity-level TNMM where the international transaction represented a small proportion of total sales and reliable transactional workings were available. The assessee had not received adequate opportunity regarding its transactional profitability and comparable analysis. The Transfer Pricing Officer was directed to verify transactional TNMM, the assessee's and comparables' PLIs, and appropriate adjustments for extraordinary circumstances.

Conclusion: The hybrid-seed adjustment was restored for fresh determination in accordance with the prescribed transactional benchmarking methodology, favouring the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether adjustment of interest on foreign-currency loans to an associated enterprise was justified.

Analysis: LIBOR was the appropriate benchmark for a foreign-currency loan. Further, the variation fell within the statutory tolerance range.

Conclusion: The interest adjustment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether sale consideration of a depreciable building could be added separately despite its adjustment against the block of assets.

Analysis: Sale proceeds of a depreciable building are required to be adjusted against the written down value of the relevant block of assets. A separate addition would result in double taxation if the sale consideration had already been reduced from that block. Verification of the assessee's claim was necessary.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to verify the block-of-assets treatment; no addition is to survive if the claim is verified.

Issue (vi): Whether claimed tax-rate, MAT-credit, TCS-credit and demand-adjustment errors required verification and rectification.

Analysis: The asserted computation errors were capable of verification from the record, including the applicable rate on capital gains, MAT credit, TCS credit and adjustment of a demand that had ceased to survive.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer was directed to verify and rectify the computation claims in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The substantive electricity, steam and foreign-currency-loan adjustments do not survive; the hybrid-seed, property-sale and computation matters require fresh verification or recomputation on the stated legal basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Revenue authorities must follow binding jurisdictional precedent unless it is stayed, and transfer-pricing comparables must be materially comparable to the tested transaction, with reliable transactional analysis preferred where entity-level results are distorted by extraordinary circumstances.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing audit reports in Form 10B for claiming exemption for the relevant assessment years should be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 119(2)(b) does not itself prescribe a period for seeking condonation and empowers the authorities to admit a belated claim to avoid genuine hardship. Although the revenue authorities were bound by the CBDT circular prescribing a time limit, the petitioner established sufficient cause through medical records, age and the fact that the audit reports were filed only a few days after the returns. The petitioner was not entirely free from responsibility, warranting imposition of costs.

Conclusion: The delay in filing Form 10B was condoned, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated claim may be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) where the facts establish sufficient cause and genuine hardship, notwithstanding that the provision itself fixes no limitation period.

Issues: Whether the stay order could be rectified on the ground that the Assessing Officer recovered demand despite its operation.

Analysis: Rectification under Section 254(2) is confined to a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's own order. No error in the stay order was identified. The alleged recovery during the subsistence of the stay concerned implementation of that order rather than any apparent mistake in it; the Revenue also indicated that refund was being processed.

Conclusion: No rectifiable mistake in the stay order was established; the miscellaneous application was not maintainable for the alleged violation of the stay.

Issues: (i) Whether companies having turnover exceeding Rs. 200 crore could be retained as comparables for benchmarking the software development services segment; (ii) Whether the arm's length price of salary cross-charges for global sales personnel could be determined at nil separately from the segment benchmarked under TNMM; (iii) Whether deduction for reversal or write-off of provisions earlier disallowed could be denied; (iv) Whether foreign tax credit could be denied solely for want of a certificate from the foreign tax authority.

Issue (i): Whether companies having turnover exceeding Rs. 200 crore could be retained as comparables for benchmarking the software development services segment.

Analysis: Turnover is a material comparability factor in the software development services sector. Entities with substantially higher turnover possess economies of scale, market presence, customer diversification, brand value, resources and risk-bearing capacity that affect profitability and distinguish them from a limited-risk captive service provider. The consistent approach adopted in the assessee's earlier years, applying an upper turnover threshold of Rs. 200 crore, applied in the absence of any material change in facts or law.

Conclusion: Companies having turnover above Rs. 200 crore shall be excluded from the comparable set. The arm's length price shall be recomputed, and the software development services adjustment shall be deleted if the assessee's margin falls within the prescribed arm's length range. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the arm's length price of salary cross-charges for global sales personnel could be determined at nil separately from the segment benchmarked under TNMM.

Analysis: The debit notes, employee records, strategic business information and allocation workings established the nature of services, allocation basis and business nexus of the salary cost. The cost was charged without mark-up and formed part of the operating cost base of the software development services segment already accepted under TNMM. Once TNMM is accepted for an aggregated segment, an interlinked cost component cannot be separately benchmarked at nil. The benefit test cannot substitute the assessee's commercial judgment, and an arm's length price cannot be fixed at nil without comparable material showing that an independent enterprise would not pay for the services.

Conclusion: The separate transfer-pricing adjustment for salary cross-charges of global sales personnel is deleted. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether deduction for reversal or write-off of provisions earlier disallowed could be denied.

Analysis: The material showed prima facie that provisions for bad debts and disputed taxes had been disallowed in the years in which they were created, and the amount reversed during the relevant year was covered by those earlier disallowances. Denial of corresponding deduction on reversal would result in double disallowance. Verification of the earlier returns, computations and assessment records is necessary to confirm that the relevant provisions were previously disallowed and had not otherwise been allowed as deduction.

Conclusion: Deduction is allowable to the extent the reversed or written-off provisions were previously disallowed and no earlier deduction was allowed; the issue is restored for verification and consequential allowance. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether foreign tax credit could be denied solely for want of a certificate from the foreign tax authority.

Analysis: Rule 128(8) permits alternative evidence of foreign tax payment, including a statement signed by the assessee supported by online-payment acknowledgements, bank counterfoils, challans or proof of deduction. Form No. 67, foreign-income details and online tax-payment challans constituted substantial compliance. Procedural documentation requirements facilitate verification and cannot defeat relief against double taxation where payment abroad is otherwise evidenced.

Conclusion: Foreign tax credit cannot be denied merely because a foreign tax-authority certificate was not produced; the claim is restored for verification of payment and computation of admissible credit. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing comparable set must exclude high-turnover entities, the nil valuation of the salary cross-charge is unsustainable, and the claims relating to reversal of previously disallowed provisions and foreign taxes require verification for granting consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer-pricing and tax-credit determinations, substantive arm's length benchmarking and reliable evidence of prior disallowance or foreign tax payment prevail over an artificial nil valuation or rigid insistence on a single form of documentary proof.

Issues: Whether additional evidence concerning the development agreement, its cancellation, and subsequent tax treatment should be admitted and the capital-gains liability, including the claim for exemption, reconsidered.

Analysis: The additional material, including project-related certificates and evidence of subsequent reporting and tax payment, had not been examined by the lower authorities and was material to deciding the disputed capital-gains and exemption claims. Its admission was necessary for a merits-based determination, with an adequate opportunity to both sides.

Conclusion: The additional evidence is admitted and the disputed capital-gains and exemption issues are restored for fresh verification and adjudication; this is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalty proceedings under Section 45A, which prescribes no express limitation period, were initiated within a reasonable time.

Analysis: Although Section 45A contains no prescribed period for initiation of penalty proceedings, such proceedings must be commenced within a reasonable period. The analogous five-year periods governing assessment and escaped-turnover assessment under Sections 17 and 19 provide the applicable benchmark. A show cause notice issued beyond that period is time barred notwithstanding prior communications or alleged non-cooperation by the assessee. The notice concerning assessment year 2011-12 was required to be initiated before 31.03.2017 but was issued on 27.12.2017.

Conclusion: The penalty notice was barred by limitation and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a person convicted under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Analysis: Section 292A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 expressly excludes the application of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to a person convicted of an offence under that Act, unless the person is below eighteen years of age. The statutory prohibition was applicable to the sentencing order, and release on probation was therefore impermissible.

Conclusion: The order releasing the convicted person on probation was invalid and was set aside.

Issues: Whether the assessee should be afforded a further opportunity to substantiate the source of credits in the foreign bank account.

Analysis: Pending criminal proceedings and the assessee's prolonged custody had materially affected the ability to collect evidence and properly pursue the appellate proceedings. In the interests of justice, a fresh opportunity to furnish supporting material and explanations was warranted. The merits of the addition for unexplained credits were not adjudicated.

Outcome: The impugned appellate order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether export commission paid to a Belgian entity was liable to withholding tax and consequent disallowance; (ii) Whether depreciation was allowable on goodwill arising from amalgamation and slump-sale acquisition; (iii) Whether amortised land-development charges paid for leased land were revenue expenditure; (iv) Whether swap charges for hedging foreign-currency ECB exposure were revenue expenditure; (v) Whether disallowance relating to exempt income was correctly recomputed; (vi) Whether software licences were eligible for depreciation at 60%; (vii) Whether deduction for additional employee cost was allowable where employees completed the stipulated period in the succeeding year.

Issue (i): Whether export commission paid to a Belgian entity was liable to withholding tax and consequent disallowance.

Analysis: The assessee accepted that, in light of the Supreme Court ruling concerning invocation of the Most Favoured Nation Clause under the India-Belgium treaty, the commission payment was taxable and tax was required to be deducted.

Conclusion: The disallowance of export commission was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether depreciation was allowable on goodwill arising from amalgamation and slump-sale acquisition.

Analysis: Goodwill represented the excess of acquisition consideration over net assets transferred through approved amalgamations or acquired in a slump sale. Goodwill is an intangible business or commercial right eligible for depreciation. The statutory exclusion of goodwill introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 was prospective and did not govern the relevant year.

Conclusion: Depreciation on goodwill arising from both amalgamation and slump-sale acquisition was allowable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether amortised land-development charges paid for leased land were revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The development charges were paid for infrastructure developed and owned by SIPCOT. The 99-year lease gave the assessee a right to use the land but no ownership of the land or infrastructure. The expenditure facilitated establishment and operation of the business without creating a capital asset for the assessee.

Conclusion: The amortised land-development charges were allowable as revenue expenditure in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether swap charges for hedging foreign-currency ECB exposure were revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The swap premium was consideration paid to banks for undertaking the risk of foreign-exchange fluctuation under hedging arrangements. It was distinct from the actual exchange difference in the foreign-currency liability and did not form part of the cost of a capital asset.

Conclusion: The swap charges were allowable as revenue expenditure in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether disallowance relating to exempt income was correctly recomputed.

Analysis: The assessee's own funds substantially exceeded its investments, negating a disallowance of interest expenditure. For indirect expenditure, investments that had not yielded exempt income were required to be excluded from the computation.

Conclusion: The direction to recompute the disallowance was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether software licences were eligible for depreciation at 60%.

Analysis: Software licences capitalised with computers constituted computer software under the prescribed depreciation schedule and fell within the computer-software block.

Conclusion: Depreciation at 60% on the software licences was allowable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vii): Whether deduction for additional employee cost was allowable where employees completed the stipulated period in the succeeding year.

Analysis: The later proviso governing employees who complete the required service period in the succeeding year was clarificatory and beneficial. A restrictive interpretation requiring completion entirely within the year of joining would defeat the employment-generation object of the deduction.

Conclusion: The deduction was allowable in favour of the assessee from the year in which the employees became eligible.

Final Conclusion: The assessment additions relating to goodwill depreciation, land-development expenditure and swap charges were deleted, while the export-commission disallowance remained sustained; the relief granted on the Revenue's challenged issues was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure incurred for banking hedging services or business-facilitating infrastructure, without acquisition of a capital asset, is revenue expenditure; beneficial employment-incentive provisions must be construed to advance their object.

Issues: Whether the complete blood glucose monitoring system is classifiable under CTH 9027 8090 rather than CTH 9018 9099.

Analysis: Applying the General Rules for Interpretation and the HSN Explanatory Notes, the specific heading for instruments used for chemical analysis prevails over the broader heading for medical or surgical instruments. Blood glucose monitoring systems are predominantly used by individuals outside professional medical practice and are appropriately covered by Heading 90.27. The settled classification of glucometers under Heading 90.27 was applicable.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under CTH 9027 8090, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalties for non-payment of service tax on overseas consultancy or commission services were sustainable.

Analysis: The relevant foreign-remittance details were disclosed in the balance sheet and were identified during audit. In the absence of material establishing wilful suppression or intent to evade tax, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The tax liability had been paid, with interest undertaking, and the reverse-charge tax was available as Cenvat credit, making the exercise revenue neutral. The liability also arose amid interpretational uncertainty concerning reverse-charge taxation of services received from abroad, constituting reasonable cause.

Conclusion: Penalties under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.