Issues: (i) Whether the additional deduction claimed on the basis of an alleged preceding-year disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was allowable; (ii) Whether exemption under section 10(46) was available despite absence of the prescribed notification and pendency of a writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether the additional deduction claimed on the basis of an alleged preceding-year disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was allowable.

Analysis: The computation for the preceding assessment year did not show any disallowance under section 40(a)(ia); instead, it reflected disallowances under other provisions. No material was produced to establish the asserted prior-year disallowance or the consequential eligibility of the additional claim.

Conclusion: The additional deduction was not allowable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether exemption under section 10(46) was available despite absence of the prescribed notification and pendency of a writ petition.

Analysis: The assessee had not been notified under section 10(46)(c). The pending writ petition did not stay the Tribunal proceedings in the absence of a specific direction, and the earlier decision on the same issue was followed for consistency.

Conclusion: Exemption under section 10(46) was unavailable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additional deduction and the claimed statutory exemption were denied.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory exemption requiring notification cannot be granted without that notification, and pendency of a writ petition without a stay does not preclude adjudication.

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order and consequential proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while statutory adjudication is pending.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the Adjudicating Authority to determine the validity of a provisional attachment under Section 8 after notice and hearing. It further provides an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 and a further appeal to the High Court under Section 42. Availability of an alternative remedy does not exclude writ jurisdiction, but its exercise is ordinarily declined where the statutory remedy is efficacious, unless exceptional circumstances such as patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or manifest statutory illegality are established. The objections concerning proceeds of crime, reasons to believe, and validity of the attachment require consideration within the statutory framework and do not establish an exceptional ground for immediate constitutional intervention.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at the provisional-attachment and pending-adjudication stage; the petitioners must pursue the remedies available under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: (i) Whether wet leasing of CNG compressors and related equipment, with operation and maintenance undertaken by the lessor, constituted taxable Supply of Tangible Goods Service or a deemed sale involving transfer of the right to use goods; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for the service-tax demands.

Issue (i): Whether wet leasing of CNG compressors and related equipment, with operation and maintenance undertaken by the lessor, constituted taxable Supply of Tangible Goods Service or a deemed sale involving transfer of the right to use goods.

Analysis: The wet-lease agreements required the assessee to install and commission the compressors and associated equipment at its own cost, operate and maintain them through its own trained personnel, replace spares, and ensure continuous availability. These contractual obligations established that possession, command, management and effective control remained with the assessee. A transfer of the right to use goods requires transfer of both possession and effective control; payment of sales tax on the arrangement did not alter its service-tax character. The prior High Court decision upholding the original adjudication was binding, and the rectification order was treated as forming part of the original order covering all four show-cause notices.

Conclusion: The wet-lease activity was taxable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service and did not constitute a deemed sale; the service-tax demands were sustainable against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for the service-tax demands.

Analysis: The agreements unambiguously retained possession and effective control with the assessee, while the applicable statutory provisions and the departmental circular had clarified the taxability of supply of tangible goods without transfer of possession and control. The conduct was found to disclose suppression and intent to evade service tax; the asserted payment of sales tax did not excuse non-payment of service tax.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was valid, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of service-tax liability under all four show-cause notices remained operative, and the rectification order was integral to the earlier adjudication upheld by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the supplier retains possession and effective control over leased equipment by undertaking its operation and maintenance, the arrangement is taxable supply of tangible goods service rather than a transfer of the right to use goods.

Issues: (i) Whether reversal of opening accrued or unbilled revenue, including adjustment relating to billing in earlier years, was allowable; (ii) Whether professional fees paid to non-resident member firms were liable to disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source.

Issue (i): Whether reversal of opening accrued or unbilled revenue, including adjustment relating to billing in earlier years, was allowable.

Analysis: The assessee consistently recognised revenue on the mercantile basis according to work performed, even where invoices had not been raised. Unbilled revenue was offered to tax in the year of accrual and retained as an asset until subsequent billing. The reversal represented amounts already recognised and taxed in earlier years. The materially similar coordinate-bench ruling accepted such reversal, and no factual or legal distinction from that ruling was established.

Conclusion: The reversal of unbilled revenue and the related earlier-year billing adjustment are allowable; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether professional fees paid to non-resident member firms were liable to disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source.

Analysis: The payments were materially identical to those addressed in the assessee's earlier years. The Revenue did not establish that the professional charges were consideration for use of protected rights, know-how, or information so as to constitute royalty under the applicable tax treaties. The prior ruling also treated the payments as not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment of the recipients, and no distinguishing material was shown.

Conclusion: No tax was deductible on the payments and disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is not sustainable; in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reversals are deductible in computing income, and the payments to the non-resident firms cannot be disallowed on the stated withholding basis.

Issues: Whether the limitation for filing a rectification application against an intimation commences from the date of the intimation or from its communication to the assessee.

Analysis: Section 154(7) prescribes the limitation governing rectification jurisdiction. The assessee asserted that the intimation was not received and that rectification was sought after the demand became known through recovery proceedings. The applicable principle is that limitation for rectification commences upon communication of the order rather than its mere date. The Revenue did not distinguish that principle on facts or law.

Conclusion: The rectification application could not be rejected as time-barred merely by reckoning limitation from the date of the intimation; the delay was condoned and the matter was restored for merits adjudication, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether provisional release of imported goods could be made conditional upon execution of a bank guarantee for nearly 200% of the duty.

Analysis: The Revenue's interest could be adequately secured without detaining the goods until adjudication. The petitioner agreed to pay duty on the declared value and to furnish a personal bond for any balance duty ultimately determined. The approach of securing the differential duty through proportionate safeguards supported release without insisting on the impugned bank guarantee.

Conclusion: The bank-guarantee condition was set aside in favour of the assessee; provisional release was directed upon payment of applicable duty on declared value and execution of a personal bond for the balance duty, if determined.

Outcome: Civil appeal dismissed on the ground of low tax effect as also on merits.

Issues: (i) Whether consideration from sale of Renewable Energy Certificates is a capital receipt rather than business income eligible for deduction under section 80IA; (ii) Whether such receipts are to be excluded in computing book profit for minimum alternate tax.

Issue (i): Whether consideration from sale of Renewable Energy Certificates is a capital receipt rather than business income eligible for deduction under section 80IA.

Analysis: Renewable Energy Certificates are regulatory incentives for generation of clean energy and environmental protection, rather than receipts arising from production, sale of goods, provision of services, or an operational by-product of the eligible undertaking. The coordinate-bench decisions treated such certificates as distinct from taxable carbon credits and as accretions of capital. Since the receipts are capital in nature, the question of their being profits derived from the eligible business for deduction under section 80IA does not arise.

Conclusion: Sale proceeds of Renewable Energy Certificates are capital receipts, not taxable business income, and are not eligible-business profits for section 80IA purposes, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether such receipts are to be excluded in computing book profit for minimum alternate tax.

Analysis: As the proceeds from Renewable Energy Certificates retain their character as non-taxable capital receipts, they cannot form part of book profit computed for minimum alternate tax under section 115JB.

Conclusion: Receipts from sale of Renewable Energy Certificates must be excluded from book profit under section 115JB, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The treatment of Renewable Energy Certificate sale proceeds as capital receipts, outside both taxable business income and minimum alternate tax book-profit computation, is sustained for both assessment years.

Ratio Decidendi: Regulatory environmental incentives represented by Renewable Energy Certificates, not generated by business operations or sale of goods or services, constitute capital receipts and are excluded from taxable business income and book-profit computation.

Issues: Whether the delayed statutory appeal against the GST assessment order should be restored for adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The appeal was presented beyond the ordinary appeal period and the further condonable period under Section 107. Since factual questions required appellate adjudication, and in view of the peculiar circumstances, a further opportunity to prosecute the appeal was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, and the dismissal and rectification orders relating to the appeal were quashed; the appeal was restored for adjudication after adequate hearing.

Issues: Whether ex-gratia retrenchment compensation received by a BSNL employee under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite the exemption not having been claimed in the original return and the rectification claim having been rejected.

Analysis: The compensation was received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 and was offered to tax on the basis of the employer's Form 16. The claim under Section 10(10B) was rejected in rectification proceedings on the ground that it had not been made in the return. On identical facts, including the assessee's own preceding assessment year, the coordinate bench had recognised the entitlement of BSNL employees to exemption under Section 10(10B) and clarified that appellate powers are not curtailed merely because the correct claim was not made before the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the retrenchment compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019.

Issues: Whether service tax under the reverse charge mechanism was payable on insurance/comprehensive cover obtained from an overseas provider in relation to imported goods for the period after 1 July 2012.

Analysis: The levy under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 applied to taxable services, and Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 treated the recipient's location as the place of provision. The comprehensive cover related to loss or damage in transit up to the Indian port. Its insurance cost formed part of the transaction/assessable value of the imported goods under customs valuation, and there was no allegation that such cost had been excluded. A separate reverse-charge levy on the same insurance component would therefore be unsustainable, particularly where no other taxable service was involved.

Conclusion: Service tax under reverse charge was not payable on the insurance/comprehensive cover forming part of the value of the imported goods; the entire demand was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging cancellation of GST registration and rejection of its revocation application should be entertained when the GST Tribunal has been constituted and provides an efficacious statutory remedy.

Analysis: Constitution of the GST Tribunal under the statutory appellate framework provided an equally efficacious forum for adjudication on merits. Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction was therefore declined, while preserving all issues and contentions for determination by the Tribunal. The period spent bona fide pursuing the writ remedy was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes if the Tribunal is approached within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained; the challenge was remitted to the GST Tribunal for adjudication on merits.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the demand as time-barred under Section 74(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should be entertained despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: The applicability of the respective limitation starting points under Section 74(10) depended upon the nature of the demand, the underlying proceedings, and the factual basis of adjudication. This involved a debatable factual and legal determination that was appropriately examinable in the statutory appellate remedy rather than in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy; any application for exclusion of the writ-pendency period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is to be considered pragmatically by the Appellate Authority.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's request for time to pay late fee and restoration of GST registration should be considered by the jurisdictional Superintendent.

Analysis: The request rested on asserted financial hardship and the petitioner's proposal to pay the late fee after restoration of portal access. The discretion to consider such request lay with the Superintendent; therefore, no mandamus directing the requested relief was warranted. The petitioner was permitted to place exceptional circumstances before that authority through a representation.

Conclusion: The petitioner may submit a request within four weeks, which shall be considered and decided by the Superintendent within one month of its submission.

Issues: Whether transfer of the taxpayer's GST audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Transfer of a file between wings functioning under the same Commissionerate is an administrative exercise. In the absence of a statutory prohibition under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against such transfer, the transfer alone does not justify writ interference. The record also reflected non-production of requested financial documents during audit. Objections regarding the statutory period for completing the audit may be raised before the Adjudicating Authority.

Conclusion: The transfer was not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether an appeal filed under Section 107(1) beyond the prescribed three-month period and the further condonable period of one month could be entertained.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits an aggrieved person to appeal within three months from communication of the adjudication order. Upon sufficient cause, the Appellate Authority may permit filing only within a further period of one month. The appeal was filed approximately two years after the original order. The statutory scheme does not confer power upon the Appellate Authority to condone delay beyond that additional one-month period, and the alleged delay was not properly explained.

Conclusion: An appeal filed after expiry of the statutory period and the maximum further condonable period cannot be entertained; the dismissal of the time-barred appeal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute prescribes a specific appeal period and a limited further period for condonation upon sufficient cause, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to condone delay beyond that expressly prescribed limit.

Issues: (i) Whether cash consideration received in relation to transfer of immovable property was governed by section 269SS or section 269ST of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained for assessment year 2017-18 where the cash receipts related to an earlier assessment year and included receipts preceding the amendment to section 269SS.

Issue (i): Whether cash consideration received in relation to transfer of immovable property was governed by section 269SS or section 269ST of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The definition of "specified sum" in the Explanation to section 269SS covers money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of immovable property. Cash received in connection with such transfer consequently falls within section 269SS and not section 269ST.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessee: section 269SS, and not section 269ST, applies to the cash receipt relating to transfer of immovable property.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained for assessment year 2017-18 where the cash receipts related to an earlier assessment year and included receipts preceding the amendment to section 269SS.

Analysis: The restriction concerning specified sums in relation to immovable property became effective from 01.06.2015. The record showed that the relevant cash receipts were received between 11.03.2015 and 11.08.2015, with part of the receipts preceding the amendment, and that no cash consideration was received during financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18. A penalty imposed for assessment year 2017-18 could not be founded on receipts pertaining to the earlier year.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee: the penalty levied for assessment year 2017-18 is invalid and is liable to be deleted.

Final Conclusion: Although the cash-receipt transaction falls within section 269SS, the penalty cannot stand when imposed for an assessment year in which no relevant cash consideration was received.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for breach of the cash-receipt restriction concerning transfer of immovable property must be founded on receipts falling within the effective period of the provision and the relevant assessment year.

Issues: Whether, for Assessment Year 2024-25, rebate under section 87A is allowable against tax on short-term capital gains chargeable under section 111A where the assessee has opted for the tax regime under section 115BAC.

Analysis: Identical facts had been decided in favour of allowing the income-tax rebate by coordinate Benches. No contrary decision of the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court was shown, and the settled view was followed.

Conclusion: Rebate under section 87A is allowable against tax computed on short-term capital gains under section 111A under the section 115BAC regime for Assessment Year 2024-25; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether buses operated by their owners for PRTC under a per-kilometre arrangement, with drivers and cleaners and without transfer of possession or control, constituted taxable rent-a-cab service.

Analysis: The arrangement provided remuneration on a per-kilometre basis for operation of buses on specified routes. The buses remained under the appellants' possession, supervision and operation, and were not placed at PRTC's disposal for use according to its choice. Applying the settled distinction between a contract of hire and renting, the arrangement lacked the essential element of renting.

Conclusion: The services were not taxable as rent-a-cab service; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a buyer using fish oil as an input could avail CENVAT credit of duty paid on fish oil cleared by its manufacturer at a concessional rate under Notification No. 01/2011-C.E.

Analysis: Notification No. 01/2011-C.E. granted concessional duty to the manufacturer of specified goods subject to the condition that such manufacturer did not take credit on inputs or input services. That condition was confined to the manufacturer claiming the concessional rate and could not be extended to a subsequent buyer of the goods. The appellant had purchased fish oil on payment of excise duty and used it as raw material for manufacture of dutiable final products. The subsequent amendment expressly clarifying that the restriction applied to the manufacturer, and not to the buyer, accorded with the scope of the original notification. Remand for fresh adjudication was therefore unwarranted.

Conclusion: The appellant was eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the fish oil purchased from the manufacturer; the remand order was set aside and consequential relief was available in accordance with law.