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.

Issues: Whether blocking input tax credit under Rule 86-A without recording reasons and without affording the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing is valid.

Analysis: Blocking of input tax credit adversely affects the taxpayer's rights and interests. Although Rule 86-A does not expressly require a prior hearing, the requirement of audi alteram partem must be read into the provision because of the adverse civil consequences of such action. An unexplained blocking of substantial input tax credit is arbitrary and fails the requirements of a reasoned decision and natural justice.

Conclusion: The blocking of input tax credit without reasons and without an adequate opportunity of hearing is invalid; the competent authority may take fresh action under Rule 86-A only after providing such opportunity.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail pending investigation into alleged unregistered manufacture of filtered tobacco and evasion of central excise duty.

Analysis: The allegations concerned operation of an unregistered manufacturing unit using multiple FFS machines, with substantial alleged duty evasion. Material on record indicated the applicant's connection with the premises and manufacturing operations. Ownership and actual duty evasion were matters for trial; however, the investigation and filing of charge-sheet remained pending. Given the gravity of the alleged economic offence and the possibility of the applicant influencing evidence, bail was not considered appropriate at that stage.

Outcome: Regular bail was refused; no final adjudication on guilt, factory ownership, or duty liability was made.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a pending prosecution for alleged large-scale GST evasion.

Analysis: Regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was considered in the context of alleged offences under Section 132 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The record indicated alleged unaccounted purchases, storage and sales without invoices, discrepancies between physical stock and documented stock, and tax evasion of a substantial amount. Multiple notices had been issued, investigation remained pending, and the alleged conduct constituted an economic offence of serious gravity.

Conclusion: Regular bail was refused, against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the receipt of Rs. 50,00,000 was liable to addition as unexplained cash credit on the allegation that it was an accommodation entry; (ii) Whether an addition for alleged commission expenditure on the purported accommodation entry was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the receipt of Rs. 50,00,000 was liable to addition as unexplained cash credit on the allegation that it was an accommodation entry.

Analysis: The addition rested principally on general search material concerning alleged entry providers and the characterisation of the payer as a paper entity. The assessee produced an executed agreement concerning sale of immovable property, bank statements, tax-return acknowledgement of the payer, ledger confirmation, payment records, correspondence, and material showing that a genuine buyer was arranged and the deposit was refunded in accordance with the agreement. The material established commercial substance, whereas no direct evidence connected this specific receipt with an accommodation-entry arrangement.

Conclusion: The receipt was not an unexplained cash credit; deletion of the addition was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an addition for alleged commission expenditure on the purported accommodation entry was sustainable.

Analysis: The commission addition was founded solely on the premise that the assessee had availed an accommodation entry. Since that premise did not survive, the consequential presumption of commission payment had no factual basis.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged commission expenditure was unsustainable; its deletion was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The documentary evidence established the commercial reality of the transaction and displaced the unsupported inference of an accommodation entry, with no basis remaining for the consequential commission addition.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for unexplained credit cannot rest on general allegations concerning an alleged entry provider where cogent transaction-specific documentary evidence establishes the genuine commercial character of the receipt; a consequential commission addition then cannot survive.

Issues: Whether audited books of account could be rejected and business income estimated at 8% of gross receipts merely because certain persons did not respond to notices issued for third-party verification.

Analysis: No specific defect, accounting irregularity, or material discrepancy in the audited books was identified. Non-compliance by persons selected for verification could not, by itself, justify rejection of the books, particularly where the assessee had supplied details of more than 4,000 persons and the available particulars were verified. The gross receipts of an HR-outsourcing business substantially comprised salary and statutory reimbursements constituting pass-through costs; estimation at a fixed 8% of gross receipts without distinguishing such reimbursements from actual income, or providing a rational factual basis, was arbitrary.

Conclusion: Rejection of the books under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and estimation of income at 8% of gross receipts were unjustified; deletion of the addition was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest on refund was payable on tax deducted at source relating to the merged entity, from the first day of the relevant assessment year until issuance of the refund.

Analysis: Section 199 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 permits credit of tax deducted at source to a person other than the deductee where the related income is assessable in that person's hands. The income of the merged hardware business was assessed substantively in the assessee's hands; the assessee had claimed the corresponding TDS in its original and revised returns, and the transferor had not claimed that credit. Upon allowing the TDS credit in rectification proceedings, the Assessing Officer could not deny interest for the earlier period by attributing the delay to the assessee. Under Section 244A(2), exclusion of a period on the ground that delay is attributable to the assessee is an exceptional measure and must be decided by the prescribed higher authority, not unilaterally by the Assessing Officer. The identical determination for the preceding assessment year was applicable.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the refund arising from the TDS credit from 01.04.2015 until the date of refund; the Assessing Officer was directed to compute and grant such interest.

Issues: Whether the assessment for Assessment Year 2010-11 could validly be made under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 following the search conducted on 30.06.2019.

Analysis: The assessment year relevant to the year of search was treated as Assessment Year 2020-21 for determining the statutory block period. Applying the jurisdictional High Court ruling governing computation of the relevant assessment-year block, Assessment Year 2010-11 fell outside the permissible ten-year period and was therefore barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was invalid; the assessment for Assessment Year 2010-11 was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether additions for unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained in respect of cash found during search; (ii) Whether an addition for unexplained jewellery under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained where the jewellery found in a joint family household was within the CBDT jewellery limits.

Issue (i): Whether additions for unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained in respect of cash found during search.

Analysis: The cash explanations were supported by an affidavit acknowledging ownership of part of the cash, cash accounts evidencing opening balances, withdrawals and cash receipts, and identifiable sources such as temple collections, customary gift envelopes and funds retained for family death rituals. The affidavit was not tested through examination, and no contrary material was produced to disprove the cash accounts or the stated sources. Having regard to the disclosed income and circumstances, the explanations were plausible and unrebutted.

Conclusion: The cash found during search stood explained; the additions under Section 69A were unsustainable and are decided in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether an addition for unexplained jewellery under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained where the jewellery found in a joint family household was within the CBDT jewellery limits.

Analysis: The estimated addition disregarded the departmental valuer's search-time valuation report. The jewellery quantified in that report fell within the aggregate limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 for the members of the joint family. The instruction, as applied, supported treating jewellery within those limits as explained.

Conclusion: The jewellery was properly explained and no addition under Section 69A could be made; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Additions for unexplained assets cannot be sustained where the source is supported by plausible and unrebutted evidence, or where household jewellery falls within the applicable CBDT limits.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for unexplained assets fails where the assessee provides a plausible, unrefuted explanation supported by an untested ownership affidavit or cash records, and jewellery within applicable CBDT household limits is treated as explained.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment framed pursuant to the remand direction was barred by limitation under Section 153(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the addition of the entire purchases as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment framed pursuant to the remand direction was barred by limitation under Section 153(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 153(6) prescribes a twelve-month period from the end of the month in which the appellate order is received or passed by the specified senior income-tax authorities. Although the Tribunal order had been handed to the Departmental Representative on 23.03.2023, such delivery was treated only as an internal mode of transmission and not as receipt by the authorities specified in the provision. In the absence of evidence establishing when the order was delivered by the Departmental Representative to the proper departmental authority, the Department was given the benefit of doubt that such delivery occurred on or after 31.03.2023.

Conclusion: The assessment was not barred by limitation and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of the entire purchases as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable.

Analysis: The remand concerned verification of three suppliers. The record contained VAT-department verification reports showing the purchases from those suppliers, quantity and movement details, stock registers, and evidence of subsequent sales. One supplier had appeared before the Assessing Officer, while the other suppliers were shown to have existed during the relevant year. The earlier appellate findings had accepted the purchases as verifiable and estimated only suppressed profit. The reassessment did not adequately address this material and instead treated the full purchases as unsubstantiated merely because summons remained unanswered by certain suppliers.

Conclusion: The addition of the entire purchases under Section 69C was unsustainable; the relief granted on merits was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment remained within the prescribed limitation period, but the material on record did not justify treating the verified purchases as wholly unexplained expenditure.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for unexplained purchases cannot be sustained where independent verification, stock records, and corresponding sales substantiate the purchases, merely because suppliers do not respond to summons.

Issues: (i) Whether long-term capital gains from sale of shares could be treated as unexplained income under Section 68 despite documented purchase and sale transactions and claimed exemption under Section 10(38; (ii) Whether alleged commission expenditure for obtaining accommodation entries could be added under Section 69C.

Issue (i): Whether long-term capital gains from sale of shares could be treated as unexplained income under Section 68 despite documented purchase and sale transactions and claimed exemption under Section 10(38).

Analysis: The assessee established its status as an approved SME market maker, the market-making agreement, subscription to the reserved IPO quota through banking channels, allotment and credit of shares in its demat account, and subsequent sales through a recognised stock exchange. The stock-exchange records and penalties for non-compliance with market-making obligations corroborated genuine market-making activity. Revenue had accepted the acquisition of shares but produced no material justifying rejection of the documented sales as bogus. The negligible gain from one scrip also did not support an inference of an accommodation entry.

Conclusion: The share transactions and resulting long-term capital gains were genuine; the gains could not be assessed as unexplained income under Section 68 and were eligible for exemption under Section 10(38), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged commission expenditure for obtaining accommodation entries could be added under Section 69C.

Analysis: The commission addition rested on the premise that the share gains were bogus and on no material demonstrating that the assessee had paid any commission. Once the underlying long-term capital gains were accepted as genuine and exempt, the basis for the consequential addition ceased to exist.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged commission expenditure under Section 69C was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions relating to the documented share gains and the alleged consequential commission payment were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee substantiates share acquisition, holding and sale through banking, demat and recognised stock-exchange records, and Revenue produces no contrary material, documented long-term capital gains cannot be treated as unexplained income merely on suspicion arising from alleged penny-stock manipulation.

Issues: (i) Entitlement to depreciation at 50% on commercial vehicles purchased during the specified period; (ii) Allowability of deduction for research and development expenditure exceeding the amount approved by DSIR; (iii) Validity of disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income; (iv) Allowability of club expenses incurred in the names of individual directors or employees.

Issue (i): Entitlement to depreciation at 50% on commercial vehicles purchased during the specified period.

Analysis: The consistent decisions in the assessee's earlier years, applying the commercial-vehicle classification and block-of-assets depreciation framework, covered vehicles acquired between 01.01.2009 and 01.10.2009 and recognised their eligibility for depreciation at 50%.

Conclusion: Depreciation at 50% is allowable on the relevant commercial vehicles, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Allowability of deduction for research and development expenditure exceeding the amount approved by DSIR.

Analysis: Earlier decisions accepted that, for the relevant period, absence of approval of the quantum of expenditure did not by itself preclude the claim, and that research and development expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for business could be considered for deduction. Verification was required regarding the difference between the approved amount and the actual expenditure.

Conclusion: The claim is remitted to the Assessing Officer for limited verification of the expenditure difference and allowance in accordance with law.

Issue (iii): Validity of disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income.

Analysis: The earlier decision accepted the presumption that investments are made from interest-free funds where such funds exceed the investments, and had deleted the disallowance under the exempt-income expenditure disallowance framework.

Conclusion: The disallowance is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Allowability of club expenses incurred in the names of individual directors or employees.

Analysis: The expenditure was found to be personal in nature or incurred in the names of individuals and was not established as wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

Conclusion: The disallowance of club expenses is sustained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The higher depreciation claim and the exempt-income disallowance claim succeed; the research and development claim requires limited verification, while the club-expense disallowance remains sustained.