Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to interest on the refunded deposit at a rate higher than 6% per annum, instead of the statutory rate under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the notification issued thereunder.

Analysis: The amount deposited during investigation was treated as a pre-deposit for the purposes of Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest had already been granted in accordance with the statutory mechanism and Notification No. 24/2014-C.E. (N.T.) dated 12.08.2014. No challenge was laid to the validity of the statutory provision or the notification prescribing the rate of interest. The appellate jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to substantial questions of law, and where the statute itself provides both the right to interest and the applicable rate, the Court cannot substitute a higher rate on equitable considerations.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to interest above the statutory rate of 6% per annum, and no substantial question of law arose.

Issues: Whether reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the assessee had adopted the fair market value of the asset on 01.04.1981 on the basis of a registered valuer's report, and whether the unamended Section 55A(a) governed the reference to the valuation officer.

Analysis: The notice for reassessment was founded on a valuation exercise that reduced the fair market value declared by the assessee from Rs. 81 per sq. mtr. to Rs. 1 per sq. mtr. The governing law at the relevant time permitted a reference to a valuation officer under Section 55A(a) only where the value claimed by the assessee, based on a registered valuer's estimate, was less than the fair market value. The assessee had in fact adopted a higher value than the one later worked out by the Assessing Officer, so the statutory condition for invoking the unamended provision was not satisfied. The amendment brought into Section 55A(a) by the Finance Act, 2012, effective from 01.07.2012, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the year in question.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was quashed, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the services rendered by the appellant were exempt from service tax under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. (ii) Whether the demand, interest, and penalties were sustainable on the ground of suppression of facts and failure to disclose records, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the services rendered by the appellant were exempt from service tax under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

Analysis: The exemption relied upon applies to services provided to an educational institution in specified categories, including services relating to admission to, or conduct of examination by, such institution. The agreements on record showed that the appellant was providing services to commercial entities and not to educational institutions. The contracts also indicated specific service arrangements for online assessment and training-module development, which did not fall within the exempted categories. The appellant's claim of a tripartite educational arrangement was not borne out by the documentary record.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available and the service tax demand was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand, interest, and penalties were sustainable on the ground of suppression of facts and failure to disclose records, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The appellant did not furnish the required records when called upon and did not disclose, as required under Rule 5 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the records maintained on its website to the jurisdictional authorities. The material facts and agreements were withheld from the department, and the plea of bona fide belief was not accepted in view of the contractual terms and the nature of the services rendered. Once suppression with intent to evade payment was established, the extended period was invokable. The confirmed tax demand carried interest as a necessary consequence, and penalties followed on the same footing.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period, interest, and penalties was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellant failed on both exemption and limitation, and the service tax demand with consequential interest and penalties stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption for services to educational institutions cannot be claimed for services rendered to commercial entities, and where records are withheld and material facts are suppressed, the extended period of limitation and consequential interest and penalties are sustainable.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the refunded service tax amount for the period during which the amount remained with the Revenue.

Analysis: The appellant had paid service tax under the Department's demand and the amount was retained until refund was ultimately sanctioned. The Tribunal found that no show cause notice had been issued before seeking to appropriate the amount, that the original demand and rejection of refund were unsustainable on the facts, and that the refund amount had been unlawfully held by the Revenue. In this setting, the Tribunal applied the settled principle that interest on refund is payable when money legally due to the assessee is withheld beyond the permissible period, and held that the relevant period for interest ran from the date of payment of the amount till the date of refund.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to interest at 6% per annum from 30.08.2012 to 18.08.2021, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues: Whether boiler feed pumps and condensate extraction pumps were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 8413 7010 as power driven pumps primarily designed for handling water, and therefore eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 235 of Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise dated 17.03.2012, or under Tariff Item 8413 7095 as boiler feed pumps, with consequent duty demand, interest and penalties.

Analysis: The relevant tariff structure of Heading 8413, read with the General Rules for Interpretation, distinguishes between centrifugal pumps primarily designed to handle water and other specified centrifugal pumps. On the facts found, both boiler feed pumps and condensate extraction pumps were designed to handle water in the boiler/feed-water system and answered the description of pumps primarily designed to handle water. The exemption entry at Sl. No. 235 covered power driven pumps primarily designed for handling water under Heading 8413, and its coverage was not confined to only one sub-item merely because other specific sub-entries existed within the same heading. The reasoning also accorded with the earlier coordinate bench decisions relied on for identical pump classification and exemption.

Conclusion: The impugned goods were held classifiable under Tariff Item 8413 7010 and eligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 235 of Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise. The duty demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where centrifugal pumps are found to be primarily designed for handling water, they fall within the exempted tariff entry for power driven pumps for handling water, and a more specific intra-heading description cannot be used to deny the exemption when the exemption notification covers the heading itself.

Issues: (i) Whether issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory before completing reassessment pursuant to a notice under Section 148; (ii) Whether the reassessment was invalid because the disallowance of business loss was beyond the recorded reasons for reopening.

Issue (i): Whether issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory before completing reassessment pursuant to a notice under Section 148.

Analysis: A return furnished in response to a reopening notice is treated as a return under Section 139. However, a notice under Section 143(2) arises only where the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient to verify understatement of income, excessive loss or underpayment of tax. The statutory period for completing reassessment expired before the outer period for issuing such notice could expire. The assessee had also participated in the reassessment proceedings, attracting the statutory deeming rule concerning service of notice.

Conclusion: Notice under Section 143(2) was not mandatory in the circumstances, and the reassessment was not invalid for want of that notice. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment was invalid because the disallowance of business loss was beyond the recorded reasons for reopening.

Analysis: The reopening was founded on non-disclosure of non-compete fee. During reassessment, the claimed business loss was examined against that income. The disallowance had a direct nexus with the subject of reopening, while the factual justification for the claimed write-off was left for determination on merits in the statutory appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The reassessment was not vitiated on the ground that the disallowance was unrelated to the recorded reasons. This issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional and procedural challenges to reopening and reassessment fail; examination of the claimed business loss remains available through the statutory appellate process.

Ratio Decidendi: In reassessment proceedings, a notice under Section 143(2) is required only where the Assessing Officer considers verification necessary or expedient, and an assessee who participates in the proceedings cannot ordinarily challenge the assessment on a notice-related jurisdictional objection under Section 292BB.

Issues: (i) Whether gains from sale of the three parcels of land were taxable as long-term capital gains or exempt as arising from agricultural land; (ii) Whether agricultural receipts not disclosed in the return were assessable as unexplained income; (iii) Whether profit on sale of shares was taxable as business income rather than long-term capital gain.

Issue (i): Whether gains from sale of the three parcels of land were taxable as long-term capital gains or exempt as arising from agricultural land.

Analysis: Agricultural use of the land was evidenced by the Talati certificate, Form No. 12 records, agricultural income disclosed in earlier years, and supporting agricultural bills for the relevant year. Permission for non-agricultural use was obtained by the purchaser after the transfer; permission under the tenancy law shortly before sale did not itself alter the agricultural character of the land. The Revenue did not controvert these factual findings.

Conclusion: The land retained its agricultural character on the date of transfer and was not a capital asset; the resulting gains were not taxable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether agricultural receipts not disclosed in the return were assessable as unexplained income.

Analysis: The agricultural receipts were supported by bills whose genuineness was not disputed, were recorded in the books, and were consistent with agricultural income reported in earlier years. Non-disclosure in the return alone did not establish that the receipts were unexplained.

Conclusion: The agricultural receipts could not be added as unexplained income. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether profit on sale of shares was taxable as business income rather than long-term capital gain.

Analysis: The factual material established that the controlling stake and management of the company rested with its holding company and its promoter group, not with the assessee. The basis for treating the share sale as disposal of a business venture was therefore absent.

Conclusion: Profit from sale of the shares remained taxable as long-term capital gain and could not be assessed as business income. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletions of all three additions were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Land demonstrably used for agriculture until transfer does not cease to be agricultural merely because permission connected with its prospective non-agricultural use is obtained, and income classification must rest on substantiated facts regarding the nature of the asset and the taxpayer's control over the underlying business.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: A further appeal was available under the statutory framework. The unavailability of the appellate tribunal was not treated as a basis for adjudicating the writ claims when the statutory remedy could be availed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, with exclusion of the intervening period for limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's segmental results for benchmarking software development services to its associated enterprise should be accepted without factual verification of the allocation methodology and supporting evidence; (ii) Whether notional interest adjustment on outstanding associated-enterprise receivables was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's segmental results for benchmarking software development services to its associated enterprise should be accepted without factual verification of the allocation methodology and supporting evidence.

Analysis: The segmental results had been rejected because the segmental financials were not audited and the allocation of costs between associated-enterprise and non-associated-enterprise transactions was not substantiated. The additional audited segmental accounts and supporting allocation records were material to verification of the arm's length price. The same segmentation methodology had also been accepted under the safe-harbour regime in subsequent years. A rejection without examination of the segmentation on merits was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the AO/TPO for factual verification of the additional evidence and recomputation, if required; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether notional interest adjustment on outstanding associated-enterprise receivables was warranted.

Analysis: The assessee did not charge interest on delayed receivables from non-associated enterprises. Further, the weighted average realisation period from the associated enterprise was 26 days, whereas the TPO had allowed a 30-day credit period. Selective imputation of interest on associated-enterprise receivables in these circumstances disregarded commercial realities.

Conclusion: No notional interest adjustment on associated-enterprise receivables was warranted, and the adjustment was directed to be deleted; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustment concerning software-development services requires fresh verification, while the adjustment for interest on receivables cannot survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Notional interest on associated-enterprise receivables cannot be selectively imputed where comparable non-associated-enterprise receivables bear no interest and the average realisation period is within the allowed credit period.

Issues: Whether penalty for misreporting of income could be sustained where a disclosed deduction claim under section 80GGC was disallowed.

Analysis: Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and the assessee's decision not to challenge the quantum disallowance does not establish concealment, false particulars, or misreporting. Misreporting under section 270A requires circumstances such as misrepresentation or suppression of facts, false entries, unsubstantiated expenditure, or failure to report receipts. The deduction was transparently claimed in the return, and no material established that the claim was knowingly founded on false evidence or deliberate misrepresentation.

Conclusion: The penalty for misreporting of income was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the notice for reassessment issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year satisfied the statutory conditions for extended limitation.

Analysis: For a notice issued beyond three years, the requirements of Section 148 and the additional requirements of Section 149(1)(b) must be cumulatively fulfilled. The material in the Assessing Officer's possession must reveal, rather than merely suggest, income escaping assessment of at least the prescribed amount and must identify such income as represented by an asset, expenditure, or entries in books of account. The recorded reasons did not identify the seized books or documents pertaining to the assessee, establish what information therein related to it, or record the requisite satisfaction and prior approval contemplated by Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148. The reasons also did not record satisfaction that the conditions under Section 149(1)(b) were met. Ledger entries in the books of alleged entry providers, without disclosure of their contents or verification of corresponding accounting and tax treatment in the assessee's books, could not by themselves reveal escapement of income.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was barred by limitation; the notice, reassessment proceedings, and consequential reassessment were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking investigation into alleged fraudulent transfer of shares, removal from directorship and breach of industrial-policy lease conditions was maintainable despite remedies under company law.

Analysis: The substance of the grievance concerned alleged fraudulent removal from directorship, transfer of shareholding, misuse of digital signatures, and internal management of a private company. Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides a specialised statutory mechanism through the National Company Law Tribunal for investigation into company affairs where fraud, misconduct or lack of material information is alleged. The asserted industrial-policy and lease-condition violations were dependent upon resolution of the underlying corporate dispute. The claims also involved disputed factual questions concerning consent, share transfer documentation and authenticity of records, requiring evidence and investigation unsuitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. In the absence of a distinct public law element, alleged inaction by official respondents did not transform the private corporate dispute into a writ matter.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable because an equally efficacious statutory remedy was available under the Companies Act, 2013; the petitioner was left free to pursue remedies before the competent company-law authorities.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST assessment and the consequential appellate order could stand where statutory notices and orders were made available only under the "Additional Notices/Orders" tab of the GST portal rather than the designated "Notices/Orders" tab.

Analysis: The GST portal manual and FAQs indicated that notices should be available under the "Notices/Orders" tab. The Revenue admitted that notices and orders issued by tax officers were displayed under the separate "Additional Notices/Orders" tab and that the portal issue was subsequently resolved. The petitioner's failure to participate in the adjudication was therefore attributable to a bona fide belief that no notice or assessment order had been issued.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment and appellate order were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee; the Revenue may initiate fresh adjudication by issuing a fresh notice within the prescribed period.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued on information received under the statutory scheme was without jurisdiction because an appeal concerning adjustments in return processing was pending, and whether the writ court should interfere at the notice stage.

Analysis: Proceedings arising from return processing and rectification are confined to adjustments made while processing the return, whereas reassessment was initiated on information received under the statutory scheme. The records did not establish that the issues or amounts in the two proceedings were identical. The information's adequacy or correctness, and objections regarding the reassessment, could be raised in the statutory reassessment and appellate process. Threshold writ interference is warranted only where the notice discloses patent want of jurisdiction, a legal bar, breach of natural justice, or mala fides; none was established.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and sanction were not shown to be without jurisdiction, and no ground for writ interference at the preliminary stage was made out.

Issues: (i) Whether the arm's length price of commission paid to associated enterprises for export-order procurement and market-support services could be determined at nil; (ii) Whether advances written off and bad debts written off were operating expenses for computing the assessee's margin under TNMM in relation to sales to associated enterprises; (iii) Whether the corporate-guarantee adjustment required verification of the assessee's claim that bank charges for standby letters of credit had been fully recovered from associated enterprises; (iv) Whether a separate transfer-pricing adjustment for notional interest on outstanding trade receivables from associated enterprises was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the arm's length price of commission paid to associated enterprises for export-order procurement and market-support services could be determined at nil.

Analysis: The documentary record established that the associated enterprises performed order procurement, marketing, customer coordination, supply facilitation and post-sale support functions, resulting in export sales. The commission was benchmarked with closely linked sales and purchase transactions under TNMM. Rule 10A(d) permits aggregation of closely linked transactions, and no material established that the aggregation or the arm's length outcome under TNMM was inappropriate. Transfer-pricing authorities cannot disallow the payment by questioning the commercial necessity of services once their receipt and arm's length character are established.

Conclusion: The commission payment was at arm's length; the adjustment determined at nil was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether advances written off and bad debts written off were operating expenses for computing the assessee's margin under TNMM in relation to sales to associated enterprises.

Analysis: The write-offs were exceptional and non-recurring items arising from pandemic-related business disruption and did not reflect ordinary operational performance. Although the DRP recognised their non-operating character, the TPO had included them in operating costs. Their exclusion increased the assessee's margin above the margin of the selected comparables; consequently, the sales transactions satisfied the arm's length standard under TNMM.

Conclusion: Advances written off and bad debts written off were non-operating items, and the adjustment on sales to associated enterprises was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the corporate-guarantee adjustment required verification of the assessee's claim that bank charges for standby letters of credit had been fully recovered from associated enterprises.

Analysis: The amount used by the TPO for applying guarantee commission was asserted to be reimbursement of bank charges rather than the value of the guarantees. The claim that the entire bank charges for the standby letters of credit were cross-charged to the beneficiary associated enterprises required verification from supporting documents and accounting records.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the AO/TPO for verification and recomputation of the consequential adjustment in accordance with law.

Issue (iv): Whether a separate transfer-pricing adjustment for notional interest on outstanding trade receivables from associated enterprises was warranted.

Analysis: The receivables arose from principal international transactions already accepted as arm's length under TNMM. The assessee consistently did not charge interest from either associated enterprises or non-associated customers, supporting a uniform commercial policy. In the relevant pandemic-affected period, the TPO's assumptions of a 30-day credit period, monthly distribution of receivables and interest rate lacked adequate support and did not appropriately reflect commercial realities. Closely linked receivables were appropriately considered with the principal transactions.

Conclusion: No separate adjustment for notional interest on outstanding trade receivables was warranted; the adjustment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The commission, sales and receivables adjustments do not survive, while the corporate-guarantee matter requires fresh factual verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where closely linked international transactions are validly benchmarked under TNMM and the tested party's margin is at arm's length, a constituent transaction cannot be separately adjusted without evidence displacing that benchmarking or demonstrating that its consideration is not at arm's length.

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition challenging inclusion of an advocate's name in the Indian Banks' Association Caution List is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution; (ii) Whether an advocate may be placed on the Caution List for alleged negligence in rendering a legal opinion; (iii) Whether allegations of an advocate's professional negligence or misconduct fall exclusively within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition challenging inclusion of an advocate's name in the Indian Banks' Association Caution List is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis: Article 226 extends beyond bodies qualifying as State under Article 12 where the challenged action has a public law element. The sector-wide Caution List is maintained pursuant to the banking regulatory framework and its circulation can materially impair an advocate's professional reputation, livelihood and freedom to practise. The function and effect of the action, rather than the formal status of the Indian Banks' Association, determine amenability to writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition is maintainable under Article 226.

Issue (ii): Whether an advocate may be placed on the Caution List for alleged negligence in rendering a legal opinion.

Analysis: The Reserve Bank directions issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 establish the Caution List as a fraud-prevention measure concerning third parties involved in fraudulent banking transactions. Fraud requires dishonest intent or deliberate facilitation of wrongdoing; an erroneous opinion or lapse in title verification, without fraud, collusion, criminality or deliberate wrongdoing, cannot be treated as fraud. A bank may discontinue an advocate's empanelment on grounds of dissatisfaction, but sector-wide circulation of adverse remarks on professional competence travels beyond the contractual relationship and impairs the advocate's freedom to practise.

Conclusion: Inclusion of an advocate's name in the Caution List solely for alleged negligence is impermissible and without jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): Whether allegations of an advocate's professional negligence or misconduct fall exclusively within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Advocates Act, 1961 provides a complete, structured disciplinary mechanism through the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India, including notice, hearing, evidence, sanctions and appellate remedies. The statutory scheme preserves the independence of the legal profession through peer-based self-regulation while requiring accountability. Banks and banking associations cannot create a parallel mechanism to adjudicate professional negligence or portray an advocate as professionally incompetent. Concerns regarding professional conduct must be placed before the competent Bar Council. To strengthen accountability, the Bar Council of India was directed to undertake a comprehensive performance audit of its disciplinary mechanisms and consider corrective measures.

Conclusion: Allegations of professional negligence or misconduct of an advocate fall within the exclusive disciplinary domain of the Bar Councils; banks and the Indian Banks' Association cannot determine or punish such alleged misconduct through a Caution List.

Final Conclusion: The adverse Caution List entry and remarks concerning the advocate's competence have no legal basis and must be removed; the Bar Council of India must pursue institutional reforms concerning disciplinary accountability and continuing legal education.

Ratio Decidendi: A private body exercising a sector-wide regulatory function that materially affects an individual's protected professional rights is amenable to writ review, and a fraud-prevention mechanism cannot be used to impose professional consequences on an advocate for alleged negligence outside the exclusive disciplinary framework under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Issues: (i) Whether tax could be levied on packing material without a proposal in the show-cause notice; (ii) Whether rejection of the purchase and sales particulars merely because they were not furnished in the format sought by the assessing authority violated principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether tax could be levied on packing material without a proposal in the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The assessment included tax on packing material although the show-cause notice contained no proposal for such levy; this omission was also accepted by the Revenue.

Conclusion: Levy of tax on packing material without prior notice was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the purchase and sales particulars merely because they were not furnished in the format sought by the assessing authority violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The assessing authority declined to consider the particulars submitted solely because they were not in the requested format, without calling for further information. Non-consideration of the material in those circumstances denied a proper opportunity to substantiate the claim.

Conclusion: The assessment suffered from violation of principles of natural justice, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was required to be redetermined after fresh notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal assessment cannot impose a levy not proposed in the show-cause notice, and material furnished by the assessee cannot be disregarded on a mere format objection without seeking necessary further particulars.

Issues: (i) Whether I-Design Engineering Solutions Ltd. and Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. were valid comparables for determining the arm's length price of engineering design services under TNMM; (ii) Whether payments for software made to the associated enterprise were disallowable for failure to deduct tax at source.

Issue (i): Whether I-Design Engineering Solutions Ltd. and Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. were valid comparables for determining the arm's length price of engineering design services under TNMM.

Analysis: I-Design Engineering Solutions Ltd. derived 35.94% of its service income from related parties, exceeding the less-than-25% related-party-transactions filter applied in the transfer-pricing exercise. Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. performed diversified engineering, project-management and construction-management functions, while segmental results for its engineering design activity were unavailable. It was therefore not functionally comparable to a provider of engineering design services.

Conclusion: Both I-Design Engineering Solutions Ltd. and Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. must be excluded from the final set of comparables, and the arm's length price must be recomputed. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payments for software made to the associated enterprise were disallowable for failure to deduct tax at source.

Analysis: The payments had previously been found in the assessee's own case not to be taxable in India in the recipient associated enterprise's hands and not to constitute royalty under the applicable tax treaty. Consequently, no obligation to withhold tax arose, and the premise for disallowance was absent.

Conclusion: The software-payment disallowance must be deleted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing computation requires revision after exclusion of the two unsuitable comparables, and the software-payment expenditure remains allowable.

Ratio Decidendi: A company failing the applied related-party-transactions filter or lacking segmental results for diversified activities cannot be retained as a comparable, and expenditure cannot be disallowed for non-withholding where the payment is not chargeable to tax in the recipient's hands.

Issues: Whether rejection of extension of the warehousing period through communications lacking disclosed reasons and an opportunity of hearing was sustainable.

Analysis: Extension or denial of the warehousing period requires adjudicatory consideration. The communications did not disclose findings or justification for refusing extension. The relevant COVID-related limitations directions and applicable decisions on warehousing extension required consideration, and the assessee was entitled to receive reasons, file a reply and have a personal hearing before an adjudication order was made.

Conclusion: The rejection communications were prima facie unsustainable; the question of warehousing extension must be freshly determined through a reasoned adjudication after compliance with principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether assessment orders passed for non-filing of returns are deemed withdrawn upon subsequent filing of GSTR-3B returns with payment of the prescribed late fee.

Analysis: The assessments had been made under Section 62 of the GST Act for non-filing of returns. The returns were subsequently filed with late fee. The applicable legal position recognises deemed withdrawal of such assessment orders where returns are filed within the stipulated period or thereafter with the prescribed late fee; that position was undisputed.

Conclusion: The assessment orders stood deemed withdrawn, and recovery of tax, interest and penalty demanded under those orders could neither be initiated nor continued. The decision is in favour of the assessee.