Issues: Whether penalty under section 271E could be sustained when the assessment order did not record satisfaction regarding violation of section 269T or initiation of penalty proceedings.

Analysis: The assessment order under section 143(3) accepted the returned income and contained no recorded satisfaction that the assessee had violated section 269T or that proceedings under section 271E were to be initiated. In the absence of such satisfaction in the assessment order, the foundation for penalty proceedings was missing.

Conclusion: The penalty proceedings under section 271E were held unsustainable in law and the penalty was directed to be deleted.

Issues: Whether the addition made on account of alleged on-money payment required to be sustained in full, or whether only a reasonable estimated profit element could be brought to tax.

Analysis: The assessee's case involved an addition based on information from search-related material suggesting cash on-money payment for booking of a unit. The record showed that both sides accepted that, having regard to the smallness of the amount and the surrounding circumstances, a full addition was not warranted and an estimated addition would meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal noted that taxation must be confined to income and not the gross receipt or entire alleged outgo, and that only the income element embedded in such transaction could be assessed. It therefore directed adoption of a reasonable ad hoc estimate at 10% of the alleged on-money amount and further held that the normal rate of tax would apply, not the special rate under section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The full addition was reduced and only 10% of the alleged on-money amount was held taxable at the normal rate, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent committed violations of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 warranting revocation of custodianship approval; (ii) Whether the respondent could be held vicariously liable for the illegal removal of the seized container and whether the impugned order warranted appellate interference.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent committed violations of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 warranting revocation of custodianship approval.

Analysis: The regulations were framed to ensure safe custody and secure handling of goods in the customs area, and the custodian bears statutory duties under Regulations 5 and 6. The record established a serious breach involving forged gate passes, substitution of the seized container and unauthorized removal from the customs area. However, revocation is the severest civil consequence under the regulatory framework and is not an automatic result of every violation. The adjudicating authority and the Tribunal took into account the recovery of the goods, the police report indicating no material against management, and the corrective measures taken thereafter. The principle of proportionality was held to be relevant in deciding whether the extreme consequence of revocation was justified.

Conclusion: The respondent did commit violations, but those violations did not justify revocation of custodianship.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent could be held vicariously liable for the illegal removal of the seized container and whether the impugned order warranted appellate interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal distinguished between negligence in supervision and deliberate involvement in the offence. The evidence showed that the respondent cooperated with the investigation, lodged a police complaint, furnished CCTV footage and gate records, and that no material emerged showing participation, knowledge, connivance or conscious facilitation by management. Employee misconduct and supervisory lapses, by themselves, were held insufficient to justify revocation. The graded scheme of consequences under the regulations and the need to avoid converting every employee act into automatic custodial revocation supported the view that appellate interference was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The illegal removal could not be attributed to the respondent so as to warrant revocation, and no interference with the impugned order was called for.

Final Conclusion: The Department's appeal failed, and the order declining revocation while sustaining penalty was upheld on the basis that violations were proved but deliberate complicity or institutional involvement was not.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the customs cargo custodianship regime, proven supervisory violations do not by themselves justify revocation unless the record also establishes deliberate involvement, connivance, conscious facilitation, or institutional complicity by the custodian; proportionality governs the choice of regulatory consequence.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant stood discharged from the personal guarantee on account of resignation from the corporate debtor and alleged revocation of the continuing guarantee; (ii) Whether the subsequent renewal or alteration of the credit facilities amounted to novation or variance so as to discharge the surety.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant stood discharged from the personal guarantee on account of resignation from the corporate debtor and alleged revocation of the continuing guarantee.

Analysis: The guarantee deed was expressed to be continuing and irrevocable. It provided that the guarantor's liability would not be affected by future variations in the contractual terms, and revocation of a continuing guarantee under Section 130 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 operates only for future transactions and only by notice to the creditor. No such notice of revocation was issued to the creditor. Resignation from the corporate debtor, by itself, did not terminate the contractual guarantee.

Conclusion: The appellant was not discharged from the personal guarantee on the ground of resignation or revocation.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent renewal or alteration of the credit facilities amounted to novation or variance so as to discharge the surety.

Analysis: Novation under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 requires substitution of the original contract by a new contract with mutual consent. The record did not establish such substitution. The renewal of facilities was treated as a continuation of the original lending arrangement, and the deed of guarantee covered continuing liability within the agreed framework. Any variance, in any event, would not absolve the surety from prior obligations, and the court found no legally sustainable basis to hold that the guarantee had been extinguished by novation or by the alleged enhancement of facilities.

Conclusion: The subsequent renewal did not amount to novation or a discharge of the appellant's liability as surety.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the initiation of personal insolvency proceedings failed, and the guarantee remained enforceable against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A continuing guarantee remains enforceable unless revoked in the manner prescribed by law, and renewal of the underlying credit facilities does not constitute novation unless the parties mutually substitute a new contract.

Issues: (i) whether the Section 9 insolvency application was maintainable in the absence of a pre-existing dispute and in view of the admitted advance-payment supply arrangement; (ii) whether the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was duly served and the objection of non-service could be sustained; (iii) whether the proceedings suffered from breach of natural justice or other procedural infirmity warranting interference.

Issue (i): whether the Section 9 insolvency application was maintainable in the absence of a pre-existing dispute and in view of the admitted advance-payment supply arrangement?

Analysis: The agreement contemplated advance payment against supply of biomass bales, the operational creditor advanced money, and the corporate debtor did not complete the contracted supply. The material placed before the Tribunal, including the email correspondence, showed an acknowledgment that the balance amount was to be returned and that settlement would be made by a stated date. On these facts, the alleged dispute was not shown to be a genuine pre-existing dispute within the meaning of the insolvency framework, and the existence of debt and default stood established.

Conclusion: The Section 9 application was maintainable and the objection based on alleged pre-existing dispute failed.

Issue (ii): whether the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was duly served and the objection of non-service could be sustained?

Analysis: The record showed that the statutory demand notice was issued and delivered, and proof of service was placed before the Adjudicating Authority. The challenge raised at the appellate stage was not supported by the material on record. The Tribunal therefore accepted service of the demand notice and rejected the contention that the statutory precondition for initiation of proceedings had not been met.

Conclusion: The demand notice was duly served and the objection of non-service was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the proceedings suffered from breach of natural justice or other procedural infirmity warranting interference?

Analysis: The corporate debtor had participated in the proceedings by filing reply and written submissions, and sufficient opportunity had been afforded. The plea that the matter was decided ex parte or in undue haste was not borne out from the record. The additional emails relied upon at the appellate stage also did not assist the appellant, as they did not disclose any legally relevant defence capable of displacing the finding on debt and default.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice or material procedural infirmity was established.

Final Conclusion: The admitted advance-payment transaction, the absence of a proved pre-existing dispute, and the established service of the statutory notice justified continuation of the insolvency process against the corporate debtor.

Ratio Decidendi: Where advance payments under a supply contract are admitted, the debtor acknowledges liability to return the balance, and no genuine pre-existing dispute is shown, Section 9 insolvency proceedings are maintainable once statutory notice is duly served.

Issues: Whether the order directing liquidation of the corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 warranted interference, in view of the absence of any resolution plan, the failed settlement attempts, and the approval of liquidation by the committee of creditors.

Analysis: The record showed that the corporate insolvency resolution process had been extended on more than one occasion, yet no resolution plan emerged. The proposed one-time settlement was not honoured despite multiple opportunities, and the attempt to withdraw the proceedings under the settlement route did not succeed. The committee of creditors approved liquidation with 100% voting, and the Tribunal found no valid objection to the liquidation application. In appellate review, no infirmity was shown in the decision to proceed with liquidation under Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: The liquidation order was upheld and no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no resolution plan materialises during the corporate insolvency resolution process, the proposed settlement is not implemented, and the committee of creditors approves liquidation, the appellate forum will not interfere with a liquidation order passed under Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the absence of any legal error.

Issues: Whether the personal observations and consequential directions contained in paragraph 99 of the earlier judgment deserved expungement in the exercise of the Tribunal's inherent powers.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the earlier findings on the legality of the CIRP, the composition of the Committee of Creditors, and the approval process had attained finality and were not open to review in the present proceedings. The only question was whether the adverse remarks against the erstwhile resolution professional should stand. It noted that the process arose in an unusual statutory setting where there were no financial creditors, the CoC consisted only of an operational creditor, and the same stakeholder later became a resolution applicant. The Tribunal accepted that the omission flowed from an incorrect understanding of the interplay between the operational-creditor CoC mechanism under the CIRP Regulations and the bar against voting on one's own resolution plan, rather than from any dishonest or mala fide intent.

Conclusion: The personal strictures and consequential directions against the erstwhile resolution professional were fit to be expunged, while the substantive findings on the CIRP issues were left undisturbed.

Issues: Whether the Resolution Professional was entitled to seek disclosure of rent and parking income records connected with the mall from the Appellant, and whether the direction to furnish such information could be interfered with on the ground that the Appellant was a third party and the ownership or revenue entitlement was disputed.

Analysis: The Appellant's reliance on the 2011 and 2018 agreements did not displace the Resolution Professional's statutory duty to collect and verify information concerning the affairs of the Corporate Debtor during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The direction under challenge did not decide title to the mall, did not adjudicate entitlement to the revenues, and did not impose any liability on the Appellant; it only required production of records relevant to matters already under scrutiny. The existence of continuing disputes, including pending proceedings concerning alleged diversion of value, made disclosure necessary for meaningful examination of the Corporate Debtor's affairs. The Appellant's admitted connection with the Corporate Debtor through contractual arrangements and group structure showed a sufficient nexus for cooperation, and separate legal personality could not be used to withhold relevant information.

Conclusion: The direction to furnish the requested information was justified, and the Appellant's objection to disclosure failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the disclosure direction was upheld without any adjudication of the substantive ownership or entitlement disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: Where information has a direct nexus with the Corporate Debtor's affairs and is needed for the Resolution Professional to discharge statutory duties, disclosure may be directed even if substantive rights over the underlying assets or revenues remain disputed.

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was barred by finality and res judicata in view of the earlier orders declining interference and directing expeditious consideration of liquidation. (ii) Whether the liquidation order was vitiated by non-consideration of the later one-time payment proposal and by any alleged delay attributable to pending regulatory approvals.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was barred by finality and res judicata in view of the earlier orders declining interference and directing expeditious consideration of liquidation.

Analysis: The same core grievances had already been raised and rejected in earlier proceedings. The resolution plan had remained unimplemented for a long period, and the earlier appellate and supreme court orders had attained finality. The present challenge was treated as an attempt to re-litigate concluded issues and to mount a collateral attack on binding inter partes orders.

Conclusion: The appeal was barred by finality and res judicata, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the liquidation order was vitiated by non-consideration of the later one-time payment proposal and by any alleged delay attributable to pending regulatory approvals.

Analysis: The one-time payment proposal was filed only after hearing in the liquidation application had concluded and orders had been reserved. It had not been approved by the lenders or placed before the competent forum for any variation of the approved resolution plan. The successful resolution applicant had also failed for more than three years to implement the plan or secure the requisite approvals within the statutory and contractual timeline. In these circumstances, liquidation was held to be consistent with the Code's objective of time-bound resolution and value preservation, and the plea of natural justice did not aid the appellant.

Conclusion: The liquidation order was upheld, and the challenge to the rejection of the belated payment proposal failed, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The Court found no infirmity in the liquidation order, held that the challenge was an impermissible re-agitation of concluded issues, and sustained liquidation with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A successful resolution applicant cannot defeat liquidation by advancing a belated, unapproved payment proposal after prolonged non-implementation of an approved plan, and once earlier orders on the same controversy have attained finality, a subsequent challenge is barred by res judicata and the principle of finality.

Issues: (i) Whether the value of course material, books and study kits sold separately to students, including non-enrolled students, is includible in the taxable value of Commercial Training or Coaching Service; (ii) Whether fee-waiver and scholarship amounts granted to students are liable to service tax as part of the taxable value of coaching services.

Issue (i): Whether the value of course material, books and study kits sold separately to students, including non-enrolled students, is includible in the taxable value of Commercial Training or Coaching Service.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the study material was separately billed and sold, including to persons not enrolled in coaching classes, and that there was documentary evidence of independent sale transactions. Once the goods were sold separately, their value could not be merged with the consideration for coaching services. The position was consistent with the settled interpretation of the valuation scheme and the exemption for the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider.

Conclusion: The value of separately sold course material, books and kits was not includible in the taxable value, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether fee-waiver and scholarship amounts granted to students are liable to service tax as part of the taxable value of coaching services.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that concessional fees, fee waivers and scholarships operate as discounts or rebates and do not constitute additional consideration for the service. The fact that scholarship students attended the same classes and received the same coaching did not justify taxation on amounts not actually collected. Valuation had to be based on the amount actually charged and received.

Conclusion: Fee-waiver and scholarship amounts were not chargeable to service tax, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand was unsustainable on both valuation issues, and the appeal succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Separately sold goods are excluded from the taxable value of coaching services when their sale is supported by documentary evidence, and scholarships or fee waivers that merely reduce the amount actually collected do not form part of the taxable value.

Issues: (i) Whether the methodology adopted for determining profiteering in the real estate project was legally sustainable; (ii) whether the respondent derived additional input tax credit benefit after GST implementation and failed to pass it on to eligible homebuyers; (iii) whether interest and penalty were leviable.

Issue (i): Whether the methodology adopted for determining profiteering in the real estate project was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The methodology based on comparison of credit to purchase value in the pre-GST and post-GST periods, followed by project-wise allocation over total saleable area, was found consistent with the principles governing anti-profiteering in real estate matters. The absence of a fixed statutory formula did not invalidate the exercise, and objections based on jurisdiction, limitation, natural justice, scope of investigation, and alleged procedural defects were rejected.

Conclusion: The methodology and the DGAP report were held legally sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent derived additional input tax credit benefit after GST implementation and failed to pass it on to eligible homebuyers.

Analysis: The respondent's ITC-to-purchase-value ratio increased from 9.41% in the pre-GST period to 11.85% in the post-GST period, resulting in additional benefit of 2.44%. The Tribunal held that the benefit of additional ITC under Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had to be passed on to each eligible recipient by commensurate reduction in prices, and excess passing on to some buyers could not be set off against shortfall to others.

Conclusion: The respondent was found to have derived additional ITC benefit and to have failed to pass on the entire benefit to all eligible homebuyers.

Issue (iii): Whether interest and penalty were leviable.

Analysis: Interest was held payable under Rule 133(3)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 at 18% per annum on the profiteered amount from the date of collection till the date of return. Penalty was declined because Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was inserted later and could not be applied retrospectively to the period in question.

Conclusion: Interest was upheld and penalty was not leviable.

Final Conclusion: The respondent was directed to pass on the balance profiteered amount with interest, while the proposed penalty was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In real estate anti-profiteering matters, additional input tax credit benefit must be determined on a fair, project-specific basis and passed on to each eligible recipient by commensurate reduction in price; recipient-specific shortfall cannot be neutralised by excess benefit given to others, and penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively absent an operative penal provision for the relevant period.

Issues: Whether the notice issued for reopening the completed assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable when the alleged escapement of income was founded on presumptions and not on any direct material relating to the petitioner.

Analysis: The assessment had originally been completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reopening was based on survey material concerning a sister concern and an inference that, because one group entity had allegedly received on-money, the petitioner also might have received such amounts. The Court found that the only connecting link was common management participation, while the quantification of alleged escapement was also derived by assumption. Such a basis was held to be speculative and unsupported by concrete material showing escapement of income in the petitioner's case.

Conclusion: The reopening notice was held unsustainable and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice cannot be sustained where the formation of belief regarding escapement of income rests on mere presumptions or surmises without concrete material linking the alleged undisclosed income to the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the apparent computation errors in the re-determined customs duty, as acknowledged in the departmental chart, warranted rectification of the final order; (ii) Whether the remaining grounds concerning alleged non-consideration of appeal contentions and absence of admission by the appellant fell within the scope of rectification.

Issue (i): Whether the apparent computation errors in the re-determined customs duty, as acknowledged in the departmental chart, warranted rectification of the final order.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that, in respect of certain Bills of Entry, additional duty had been wrongly added or the rate of duty had been incorrectly mentioned while redetermining the demand. Since these mistakes were acknowledged on record and affected the quantum of duty, they constituted errors apparent on record within the rectificatory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The duty computation required modification to the limited extent of the acknowledged errors, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh re-determination on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining grounds concerning alleged non-consideration of appeal contentions and absence of admission by the appellant fell within the scope of rectification.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the other grounds raised in the application had already been dealt with in the impugned final order. The plea that there was no admission by the appellant was held to be outside the permissible scope of a rectification application, which is confined to mistakes apparent on record.

Conclusion: No rectification was granted on those grounds.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application was allowed only to the limited extent of correcting the acknowledged duty-calculation errors, and the remaining objections were rejected; the matter was sent back for fresh quantification on the specified basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen issues requiring argument or reconsideration of merits.

Issues: (i) whether the retracted statements and panchnama, without corroboration, could sustain the allegations of diversion of export goods and misuse of the duty drawback scheme; (ii) whether denial of cross-examination and effective hearing vitiated the adjudication; (iii) whether confiscation, duty drawback demand and penalties could survive on the material on record.

Issue (i): Whether the retracted statements and panchnama, without corroboration, could sustain the allegations of diversion of export goods and misuse of the duty drawback scheme.

Analysis: The core allegations rested on statements recorded during investigation and on the airport panchnama. The statements of the principal persons were retracted at the earliest opportunity while in judicial custody, and the retractions were not rebutted by further examination or independent evidence. The panchnama also remained untested because the panch witnesses were not examined in adjudication. In the absence of corroborative material, the evidentiary foundation of the case was found unreliable.

Conclusion: The allegations could not be sustained on the basis of the retracted statements and uncorroborated panchnama.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of cross-examination and effective hearing vitiated the adjudication.

Analysis: The appellants had repeatedly sought cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon, as well as the panch witnesses. No reasoned order granting or refusing that request was passed, and the final order was made without properly considering the replies and requests for adjournment during the relevant period. This amounted to a serious procedural defect affecting fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The adjudication was vitiated by denial of cross-examination and effective opportunity of hearing.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation, duty drawback demand and penalties could survive on the material on record.

Analysis: Once the foundational evidence was found unreliable and the alleged diversion remained unsubstantiated, the consequential confiscation of gold jewellery and bullion, the demand of drawback and customs duty, and the associated penalties could not be sustained. The record also did not disclose independent evidence of hawala payments or other cogent corroboration supporting the Revenue's case.

Conclusion: The confiscation, demand and penalties were unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and all appeals were allowed, with consequential relief including return of the seized gold and gold jewellery.

Ratio Decidendi: Retracted statements, if uncorroborated and not tested by cross-examination, cannot by themselves sustain customs allegations or consequential demands and penalties; where the foundational evidence is unreliable, the adjudication fails for breach of natural justice and lack of proof.

Issues: Whether leasing of machinery amounted to taxable service under the category of supply of tangible goods right to use tangible goods, and whether the impugned demands were sustainable.

Analysis: The lease arrangements showed that the machinery was delivered to the lessee at its premises for use during the lease period, with the lessee entitled to use the machinery for its own purposes and the lessor disabled from using or assigning the same to others during that period. The Tribunal applied the settled test for transfer of right to use goods and held that the decisive factors were transfer of possession and effective control. Since the transactions were treated as deemed sales and VAT had been discharged, the activity did not fall within taxable supply of tangible goods service under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 or the declared service provision relied upon by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The demand of service tax was not sustainable and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Issues: Whether service tax was payable on the supply of food and beverages in the non-air-conditioned portion of a restaurant where the establishment also had an air-conditioned portion in the same premises during the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2015.

Analysis: The levy on restaurant services was traced to the statutory scheme under the Finance Act, 1994 and the exemption structure under Notification No. 25/2012-ST as amended by Notification No. 03/2013-ST. The decisive question was whether the exemption carved out by Sl. No. 19 turned on the entire establishment merely because some part of it had air-conditioning, or whether the tax incidence was confined to the air-conditioned restaurant service itself. The Board's Circular No. 173/8/2013-ST was treated as a relevant contemporaneous clarification, and the common-kitchen, separate demarcation, separate billing, and separately named restaurant segments were accepted as showing distinct service streams. The Tribunal further held that the levy could not be extended so broadly as to tax customers served only in the non-air-conditioned section when the taxable service was intended to attach to the air-conditioned restaurant service.

Conclusion: Service tax was not leviable on the supply of food and beverages in the non-air-conditioned portion of the restaurant, and the demand and penalty could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For restaurant service, the exemption and levy must be applied to the specific service area actually answering the statutory description of the taxable restaurant, and a non-air-conditioned, separately demarcated restaurant section does not become taxable merely because another part of the same establishment is air-conditioned.

Issues: Whether Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be applied retrospectively to demand amounts collected and retained for a period prior to its insertion.

Analysis: The relevant period preceded the insertion of Section 11D. In the absence of express language giving retrospective effect, a statutory provision cannot be applied to liabilities arising before its commencement. The authorities relied upon support the view that Section 11D operates prospectively and does not authorise recovery for amounts collected before the provision came into force.

Conclusion: Section 11D could not be invoked retrospectively for the disputed period, and the demand was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether penalties imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellants were sustainable in the absence of corroborative evidence and without specifying the exact sub-rule or clause invoked.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the penalties rested essentially on the statements of the appellants and witnesses, without independent corroborative evidence to support clandestine manufacture or removal. It further noted that statements were relied upon without meaningful evidentiary support in the manner required by Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal also found that the adjudicating authority had not identified the specific clause or sub-rule of Rule 26 under which the penalties were imposed, and penalty provisions must be strictly construed.

Conclusion: The penalties were held unsustainable and were set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer price of electricity supplied by the eligible captive power unit to the non-eligible unit could be benchmarked at the tariff charged by the distribution company to industrial consumers for determining deduction under section 80IA. (ii) Whether steam transferred by the eligible unit to the non-eligible unit could be valued at nil or at its cost of production for determining deduction under section 80IA.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer price of electricity supplied by the eligible captive power unit to the non-eligible unit could be benchmarked at the tariff charged by the distribution company to industrial consumers for determining deduction under section 80IA.

Analysis: For a specified domestic transaction, market value is arm's length price. The binding precedent and the assessee's own earlier years established that the rate charged by a State electricity distribution company to industrial consumers is an appropriate comparable uncontrolled price for captive power supplied to the consuming unit. The IEX rate represents short-term traded power and is materially dissimilar from continuous electricity supplied for consumption. The amendment concerning arm's length price did not displace this approach. No material change in facts from the earlier years was shown.

Conclusion: The electricity transferred to the non-eligible unit is to be valued at the tariff charged by MVVNL to industrial consumers; the adjustment on power transfer is deleted and the consequential deduction under section 80IA is allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether steam transferred by the eligible unit to the non-eligible unit could be valued at nil or at its cost of production for determining deduction under section 80IA.

Analysis: Steam is a commercially valuable form of power and a distinct utility having an ascertainable production cost. The prior orders in the assessee's case, consistently with jurisdictional precedent, accepted valuation of inter-unit steam transfer at cost of production and rejected the premise that steam is merely a by-product with nil cost. The factual position remained unchanged.

Conclusion: Steam transferred to the non-eligible unit must be valued at its cost of production and not at nil; the adjustment on steam transfer is deleted and the consequential deduction under section 80IA is allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The eligible-unit profits are to be computed by accepting the assessee's valuation of captive power at the industrial-consumer tariff and steam at production cost, restoring the claimed deduction.

Ratio Decidendi: For captive inter-unit transfers forming specified domestic transactions, arm's length price may be determined by the tariff payable by the consuming unit to the distribution company for electricity, while steam, being a separately valuable utility, cannot be assigned a nil value and must be valued at its production cost.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner acquired an indefeasible right to default bail because the supplementary complaint, though filed within the prescribed period, was returned for compliance; (ii) Whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions for regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner acquired an indefeasible right to default bail because the supplementary complaint, though filed within the prescribed period, was returned for compliance.

Analysis: The supplementary complaint had been filed within the prescribed period. Its subsequent return for compliance did not, in the circumstances, create an indefeasible right to bail. The precedent concerning incomplete charge-sheets filed to defeat default bail was factually distinguishable.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to default bail. This finding is against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions for regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Analysis: The material prima facie indicated the petitioner's involvement in activities connected with proceeds of crime, including alleged interference with the investigation and auction of attached properties. The Court was not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty or that he would not commit an offence while on bail, as required by the twin conditions.

Conclusion: The petitioner did not satisfy the statutory conditions for grant of bail. This finding is against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Bail was unavailable because neither default-bail entitlement nor the statutory threshold for release in a money-laundering offence was established.

Ratio Decidendi: Filing of a supplementary complaint within the prescribed period is not rendered ineffective for default-bail purposes merely because it is returned for procedural compliance, and bail under the money-laundering regime requires satisfaction of the statutory twin conditions.