Issues: (i) Whether the demand for alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of finished goods could be sustained on the basis of unrecorded inputs, discrepancies in reconciliation records, and variations in electricity and freight expenditure; (ii) Whether the buyer could be treated as a related person under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 so as to sustain the differential-duty demand on alleged undervaluation.

Issue (i): Whether the demand for alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of finished goods could be sustained on the basis of unrecorded inputs, discrepancies in reconciliation records, and variations in electricity and freight expenditure.

Analysis: Non-entry of duty-paid inputs in the RG-23A Part-I register, where no CENVAT credit had been availed, was a procedural lapse but did not establish that the inputs were consumed in unaccounted manufacture. The documentary material showing sale of inputs as such in trading activity could not be rejected wholesale on isolated discrepancies, including an explained clerical invoice-number error and absence of banking trails for certain transactions.

Analysis: Clandestine manufacture and removal require tangible and credible corroboration of unaccounted raw-material consumption, excess production, labour, transport, buyers, sale proceeds, or other material linking inputs to illicit clearances. Variations in electricity and freight expenditure, without evidence establishing those essential links, raised at most suspicion and could not replace proof.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal and the corresponding duty demand were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the buyer could be treated as a related person under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 so as to sustain the differential-duty demand on alleged undervaluation.

Analysis: A private limited company and a proprietorship concern are distinct commercial entities. The proprietor's position as the company's CEO and familial relationship with one director did not, without evidence of reciprocal financial or proprietary interest, flow-back of funds, or commercial interdependence, establish the requisite mutuality of interest.

Conclusion: The buyer was not established to be a related person, and the differential-duty demand founded on alleged undervaluation was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The evidentiary foundation for both excise demands failed, and the consequential penalties could not survive.

Issues: (i) Whether Carbon Di Oxide (CO2) generated and stored by the appellant for further use during the course of manufacture of beer is liable to central excise duty; (ii) Whether the impugned order upholding confirmation of adjudged demands is sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether Carbon Di Oxide (CO2) generated and stored by the appellant for further use during the course of manufacture of beer is liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: Sections 2(d), 2(f) and 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 require excisable goods to result from manufacture or production attracting the central excise levy. CO2 emerged as an unavoidable by-product during fermentation in the manufacture of beer, an alcoholic liquor for human consumption and a non-excisable final product. Its subsequent capture and use in brewing represented efficient utilisation of the by-product and did not establish that it was manufactured for captive consumption or sale. The applicable precedents establish that a by-product arising from manufacture of a non-excisable final product does not attract central excise duty merely because it is independently tariff-listed or captively used; marketability must also be established by the Revenue.

Conclusion: CO2 generated as a by-product in the manufacture of beer is not liable to central excise duty. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order upholding confirmation of adjudged demands is sustainable.

Analysis: Since the CO2 in question was not dutiable, the duty demand could not be sustained. The invocation of the extended period of limitation and the consequential penalty also failed, particularly where the settled position supported the assessee's bona fide belief regarding non-dutiability.

Conclusion: The confirmation of the excise-duty demand, extended-period invocation and penalty is unsustainable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No central excise liability arises on CO2 incidentally generated and captively utilised in the brewing of non-excisable beer, and the related demand and penal consequences cannot survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A by-product arising incidentally in the manufacture of a non-excisable final product is not liable to central excise duty merely on account of its captive utilisation, absent manufacture of excisable goods within the statutory levy.

Issues: Whether budgetary-support proceedings could be concluded by relying on an erroneous declaration despite a conflicting Chartered Accountant certificate, without affording the claimant an opportunity to explain the discrepancy.

Analysis: The Chartered Accountant certificate, furnished at the respondents' direction, disclosed an input-tax-credit figure different from that stated in the declaration. The discrepancy was apparent on the record and formed the basis for determining the claimed benefit. Fairness and the principles of natural justice required that the claimant be given a reasonable opportunity to explain and substantiate the asserted mistake before the proceedings were concluded. The matter concerned a defect in the decision-making process rather than post-completion rectification of an otherwise valid determination.

Conclusion: The claimant was entitled to an opportunity to explain the discrepancy and support the claim with documents; the challenged determination could not stand to that extent. The issue was decided in favour of the claimant.

Issues: (i) Whether foreign customs declarations received through an overseas enquiry were admissible and attracted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the importer's statements under Section 108 could establish undervaluation; (ii) Whether rejection of the declared transaction value and redetermination of value complied with the sequential valuation rules; (iii) Whether penalty equal to the differential duty was imposable under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether foreign customs declarations received through an overseas enquiry were admissible and attracted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the importer's statements under Section 108 could establish undervaluation.

Analysis: The foreign declarations were received from the Hong Kong Consulate following an overseas enquiry initiated through official channels and were supported by authenticated English translations and a comparative chart. Documents received from outside India during investigation fall within Section 139(ii), which attaches a presumption of correctness unless rebutted. The importer's objections concerning copies, absence of signatures, stamps and the original-language documents did not displace that presumption; no contrary translation or evidence was produced. Section 3(2) of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 did not require attestation of every foreign document. The test report, discrepancies in quantity and brand, and voluntary statements recorded under Section 108 further supported the undervaluation; such statements are substantive evidence when voluntarily made to Customs officers.

Conclusion: The foreign declarations and Section 108 statements validly established misdeclaration and undervaluation, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the declared transaction value and redetermination of value complied with the sequential valuation rules.

Analysis: Misdeclaration concerning quantity and brand, together with the evidence of substantially higher values declared before foreign customs authorities, provided sufficient grounds to reject the transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The redetermined value was based on values of identical goods supplied by the same exporter, and the applicable rules were applied sequentially after rejection of the declared value.

Conclusion: Rejection of the transaction value and redetermination of customs value were valid, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty equal to the differential duty was imposable under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The sustained differential-duty demand arose from wilful misdeclaration and undervaluation. Section 114A prescribes a penalty equal to the duty determined in such circumstances.

Conclusion: Penalty equal to the differential customs duty was properly sustained, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The differential-duty liability and corresponding equal penalty determined at the original stage remain enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: Foreign customs documents obtained through official investigative channels attract the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Customs Act, 1962 unless rebutted, and may support rejection and redetermination of declared transaction value when corroborated by voluntary Customs statements and material discrepancies.

Issues: Whether interest is payable on refund of redemption fine paid for release of confiscated goods, from the date of deposit until actual refund.

Analysis: The redemption fine, having been set aside, constituted a revenue deposit rather than a refund of customs duty. The interest mechanism under Section 27A, applicable to delayed refunds of duty and triggered by the date of refund application, did not govern such a deposit. Applying the principles governing restitution of amounts deposited during investigation or adjudication, interest was compensatory for the period during which the Department retained money not legally due.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the refunded redemption fine from the date of revenue deposit until actual payment.

Issues: (i) Whether a sale process for corporate-debtor assets initiated during the resolution-plan implementation stage could validly be completed by the liquidator after commencement of liquidation; (ii) Whether former employees established a legally sustainable challenge to the aircraft sale on allegations of undervaluation, absence of fresh valuation, and irregularity, notwithstanding protection of their dues under the liquidation waterfall.

Issue (i): Whether a sale process for corporate-debtor assets initiated during the resolution-plan implementation stage could validly be completed by the liquidator after commencement of liquidation.

Analysis: The proposed sale had been approved through the resolution process, and directions for its completion had already been sustained in prior appellate proceedings. After liquidation commenced, the Stakeholders' Consultation Committee adopted the earlier sale decision and approved completion of the process. The liquidation framework permits the liquidator to take custody and control of assets and sell them; it contains no prohibition against completing a sale process validly initiated before liquidation. The sale was also carried forward under continuing judicial supervision.

Conclusion: The liquidator could validly complete the pre-liquidation sale process during liquidation. This issue is against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether former employees established a legally sustainable challenge to the aircraft sale on allegations of undervaluation, absence of fresh valuation, and irregularity, notwithstanding protection of their dues under the liquidation waterfall.

Analysis: The allegations did not disclose material irregularity or illegality in the sale process. The sale had proceeded from an earlier competitive process and was completed after the relevant stakeholder approval. The former employees' entitlement was confined to payment of their admitted dues in the statutory order of priority. Their interests had already been protected through the liquidation distribution mechanism, and no material was shown to demonstrate an unlawful diminution of the liquidation estate.

Conclusion: The former employees failed to establish any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference with the completed sale; their dues remain payable in accordance with the statutory waterfall. This issue is against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The completed sale remains valid, and employee claims are to be addressed through the statutory liquidation distribution framework.

Ratio Decidendi: A liquidator may complete a sale process lawfully initiated before liquidation where it is adopted through the liquidation process and no material illegality or irregularity in the sale is established; employee dues are governed by the statutory liquidation waterfall.

Issues: Whether the personal guarantor's application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was within limitation on the basis of one-time settlement proposals made by the guarantor.

Analysis: The limitation period for a personal guarantor to initiate proceedings under Section 94 commences upon invocation of the guarantee. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits a fresh limitation period only where the acknowledgment in writing is signed by the party against whom the relevant right is asserted. An OTS proposal made by the guarantor is a unilateral admission and cannot be relied upon by that guarantor to extend limitation. The guarantee was invoked on 10.09.2019, whereas the Section 94 application was instituted only on 18.12.2025, beyond the applicable three-year period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: The Section 94 application was barred by limitation; the guarantor's OTS proposals did not extend the limitation period in the guarantor's favour.

Issues: (i) Whether rental income from the leased premises qualified for exemption under clause 9(b) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012; (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and the consequential demand and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether rental income from the leased premises qualified for exemption under clause 9(b) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

Analysis: The exemption for renting of immovable property applies only where the service is provided to or by an educational institution. The lease deed identified the lessee as a registered society and permitted office, commercial, education, counselling, research and hostel uses; it did not establish that the lessee was an educational institution or that the premises were exclusively used for education. The later certificate issued by Amity University did not establish any legal connection between the University and the lessee and was not available when the impugned order was made. The assessee did not discharge the burden of establishing eligibility, and exemption notifications require strict interpretation.

Conclusion: The rental service did not qualify for the exemption. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and the consequential demand and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: Extended limitation requires more than non-payment of tax and depends on a positive act indicating intent to evade payment. The asserted bona fide belief in exemption was not accepted because the assessee failed to establish that the tenant was an educational institution or that the premises were rented for the qualifying educational purpose. However, the recoverable demand could not extend beyond five years reckoned from the last date for filing the service-tax return.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was valid, but the portion of demand beyond five years was set aside; the balance demand was sustained and the penalty was reduced proportionately. This issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim fails, while tax recovery and the related penalty stand confined to the period legally recoverable within the applicable limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether a DTH recharge-voucher distributor is liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Services on commission forming part of the maximum retail price on which the DTH operator has discharged service tax; (ii) Whether the equivalent penalty is sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether a DTH recharge-voucher distributor is liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Services on commission forming part of the maximum retail price on which the DTH operator has discharged service tax.

Analysis: The commission received by the distributor formed part of the predetermined maximum retail price of the vouchers, and service tax had already been discharged by the DTH operator on that entire value. A further levy on the commission would result in double taxation. The arrangement was also revenue-neutral because any tax paid by the distributor would be available as Cenvat credit to the operator.

Conclusion: The distributor is not liable to service tax on such commission.

Issue (ii): Whether the equivalent penalty is sustainable.

Analysis: The penalty was consequential to the unsustainable demand of service tax on the commission.

Conclusion: The equivalent penalty is not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The demand of service tax, interest and equivalent penalty relating to the distribution commission stands set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service tax has been paid by the principal operator on the maximum retail price inclusive of the distributor's commission, the same commission cannot again be subjected to service tax in the distributor's hands.

Issues: Whether the extended limitation period for recovery of service tax was validly invocable.

Analysis: Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 prescribed an eighteen-month limitation period, extendable to five years only where non-payment resulted from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax. The notice contained no evidence of an agreement or other material establishing the alleged service relationship, nor any positive evidence of deliberate suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or intent to evade service tax. The Revenue, bearing the burden to establish the conditions for invoking the extended period, failed to do so. Once the demand was found time-barred, merits could not be adjudicated; the interest and penalty being consequential could not survive.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the service-tax demand was wholly barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the consideration for transfer of Know-How and other Assets was taxable as Intellectual Property Right Service under Sections 65(55a), 65(55b) and 65(105)(zzr) of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) Whether penalties under Sections 77(1)(a), 77(2) and 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the consideration for transfer of Know-How and other Assets was taxable as Intellectual Property Right Service under Sections 65(55a), 65(55b) and 65(105)(zzr) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: Intellectual Property Right Service required both a right recognised as intellectual property under a law in force in India and a temporary transfer or permission to use that right. Know-How was not shown to be a distinct intellectual property right recognised under Indian law. Further, the agreement, read as an integrated whole, transferred title, property and risk in the Assets absolutely and restrained the transferor from post-completion use or disclosure of the Know-How. The five-year royalty was expressly part of the sale consideration and constituted deferred consideration; its linkage to future sales did not convert the completed sale into a continuing licence. The customs-valuation treatment could not determine taxability under the distinct statutory scheme governing service tax.

Conclusion: The consideration was not taxable as Intellectual Property Right Service; Know-How was not a recognised intellectual property right for this levy, and the agreement effected a permanent outright transfer. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties under Sections 77(1)(a), 77(2) and 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable.

Analysis: The penalties were founded on the alleged service-tax liability and obligation to register. As the demand failed on merits, those underlying obligations did not survive. The bona fide and arguable interpretation of the law, together with prior correspondence with the Department, also constituted reasonable cause under Section 80.

Conclusion: The penalties under Sections 77(1)(a), 77(2) and 78(1) were unsustainable and liable to be waived. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No service-tax liability arose from the outright transfer of the Assets, and the consequential interest and penalties could not subsist.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction falls within Intellectual Property Right Service only where the right is recognised under Indian law and is temporarily transferred or licensed; deferred consideration for an absolute transfer does not alter the permanent character of that transfer.

Issues: Whether the final order dismissing the statutory appeal as time-barred disclosed a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification.

Analysis: Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 prescribes a two-month period for appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), with power to condone delay only for a further one month. An interim order entertaining the appeal before the Tribunal could not condone, or confer jurisdiction to condone, delay in filing the original appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Where the appeal was filed beyond both the prescribed and condonable periods, sufficient cause, hardship, or time spent seeking departmental documents could not enlarge the statutory outer limit. Hearing the matter on merits or reserving it for orders likewise could not create jurisdiction. Rectification jurisdiction extends only to patent and self-evident errors and cannot be used to review or reopen a concluded decision on merits.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was established in the final order; rectification was unavailable.

Issues: (i) Whether penalties for non-payment of differential service tax and improper filing of returns were liable to be waived on account of reasonable cause; (ii) Whether the adjudicated service-tax computation and appropriation, based on reconciled records and Chartered Accountant certificates, warranted interference.

Issue (i): Whether penalties for non-payment of differential service tax and improper filing of returns were liable to be waived on account of reasonable cause.

Analysis: The dispute concerned the applicability of the post-01.06.2007 Composition Scheme to ongoing construction projects that had commenced before that date. The applicable valuation position attained clarity only upon the Supreme Court decision referred to in the order. The differential tax, interest and reversal of CENVAT credit had been discharged before adjudication and were appropriated. This established a bona fide interpretational doubt and reasonable cause within Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 are not sustainable and stand waived in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudicated service-tax computation and appropriation, based on reconciled records and Chartered Accountant certificates, warranted interference.

Analysis: The computation was supported by the CENVAT register, GAR-7 challans, credit-reversal details, reconciliation charts and Chartered Accountant certificates. The alleged discrepancy between tax-payment figures and ST-3 returns was explained as reversal of CENVAT credit upon sale of capital goods. The adjudication had addressed the nature of non-construction income and the project-wise reconciliation.

Conclusion: The adjudicated computation and appropriation disclose no infirmity and are sustained against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The tax and interest consequences remain undisturbed, while the penal consequences are removed because the assessee established reasonable cause for the default.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an interpretational uncertainty regarding service-tax valuation is clarified subsequently and the assessee discharges the differential tax, interest and credit reversal, such bona fide circumstances constitute reasonable cause for waiver of penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issues: (i) Whether actuarial-deficit contributions to an approved superannuation fund were subject to the annual ceiling under Rule 87; (ii) whether actuarial-deficit contributions to an approved gratuity fund were subject to the ceiling under Rule 103; (iii) whether employee PF/ESI contributions could be disallowed where the applicable provident-fund regulations prescribed no due date; and (iv) whether the Tribunal's order was perverse or arbitrary.

Issue (i): Whether actuarial-deficit contributions to an approved superannuation fund were subject to the annual ceiling under Rule 87.

Analysis: The payment was made to remedy an actuarially determined shortfall and align fund assets with its liabilities, rather than as an ordinary annual or initial contribution. The purpose of the payment, and not the number of years over which the deficit arose, determined its character. Applying the annual ceiling to necessary actuarial-deficit funding would undermine fund solvency and the statutory allowance for contributions to an approved superannuation fund.

Conclusion: The Rule 87 ceiling did not apply to the actuarial-deficit contribution; the deletion of the superannuation-fund disallowance was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether actuarial-deficit contributions to an approved gratuity fund were subject to the ceiling under Rule 103.

Analysis: The contribution bridged the gap between the fund's actuarial liability and available assets and was not an ordinary annual contribution. Section 36(1)(v) permits contributions to an approved gratuity fund without imposing an 8.33% ceiling. So long as the fund's approval remained in force, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction in assessment proceedings to question its conformity with the conditions of approval or to disallow the contribution by superimposing Rule 103.

Conclusion: The Rule 103 ceiling did not restrict the actuarial-deficit gratuity contribution; the deletion of the gratuity-fund disallowance was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether employee PF/ESI contributions could be disallowed where the applicable provident-fund regulations prescribed no due date.

Analysis: Section 36(1)(va) is triggered only when employee contributions are not credited by the due date prescribed under the applicable legal regime. The regulations governing the assessee's provident fund contained no such prescribed date. The fifteenth-day entry in the tax-audit report arose from e-filing software requirements, and the general Employees' Provident Fund Scheme deadline did not govern the assessee.

Conclusion: In the absence of a legally prescribed due date, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) could arise; the deletion of the PF/ESI disallowance was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the Tribunal's order was perverse or arbitrary.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied binding jurisdictional precedents and gave reasoned findings on the fund contributions and employee-contribution disallowance. Its conclusions therefore could not be characterised as legally perverse or arbitrary.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was neither perverse nor arbitrary, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenged deductions and the treatment of employee contributions remain sustainable under the applicable statutory and regulatory framework.

Issues: Whether reassessment notice issued beyond four years was valid where the recorded reasons contained material factual errors, did not quantify escaped income, and the statutory approval did not demonstrate meaningful satisfaction.

Analysis: For a notice issued after four years under the pre-2021 reassessment regime, the sanction of any authority specified in Section 151(1), including the Principal Commissioner, was competent; approval was not required exclusively from the Principal Chief Commissioner. However, the recorded reasons referred to an incorrect PAN, proceeded on the false premise that no return had been filed, lacked particulars connecting reported transactions to escaped taxable income, and did not state that escaped income was at least the statutory threshold. The approval proposal repeated the incorrect return-filing status and left blank the column for quantifying escaped income. Although the sequence of dates alone did not establish that sanction preceded recording of reasons, the cumulative defects showed no valid formation of jurisdictional belief or meaningful statutory satisfaction.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and consequential reassessment were invalid and were quashed; the additions made therein did not survive.

Issues: (i) Whether cash credits described as advances against future sales were satisfactorily explained under section 68. (ii) Whether the enhanced 60% tax rate under the amended section 115BBE applied to assessment year 2017-18.

Issue (i): Whether cash credits described as advances against future sales were satisfactorily explained under section 68.

Analysis: The assessee produced only self-maintained ledger accounts for 67 purported customers and did not furnish their addresses, PANs, or independent material establishing their identity, creditworthiness, or the genuineness of the advances. The cash advances followed a uniform pattern, and every subsequent sale was recorded for precisely the same amount as the corresponding advance. Subsequent entries in the assessee's own books could not substitute independent evidence of the original credits.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained cash credits was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the enhanced 60% tax rate under the amended section 115BBE applied to assessment year 2017-18.

Analysis: In the absence of a binding jurisdictional or Supreme Court ruling and in view of divergent High Court views, the construction favourable to the assessee was adopted. The amendment enhancing the rate was treated as prospective, operating from financial year 2017-18 and assessment year 2018-19 onwards.

Conclusion: The enhanced 60% rate was inapplicable to assessment year 2017-18, in favour of the assessee; tax on the sustained addition must be computed under the unamended rate.

Final Conclusion: While the unexplained-credit addition remains taxable, its tax liability is to be determined under the pre-amendment rate applicable for the relevant assessment year.

Ratio Decidendi: Where divergent reasonable interpretations of a taxing amendment exist and no binding contrary authority governs, the interpretation favourable to the assessee must be preferred; an enhanced tax rate without express retrospective operation applies prospectively.

Issues: (i) Whether depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was allowable; (ii) Whether depreciation on brands and trade names transferred under a demerger was allowable; (iii) Whether the assessee's benchmarking for inter-unit sale of electricity was acceptable; (iv) Whether steam transferred from a captive power unit to a non-eligible unit could be valued at nil for arm's length purposes.

Issue (i): Whether depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was allowable.

Analysis: The deletion of the disallowance followed earlier decisions in the assessee's own case on the identical goodwill arising from the amalgamation. No distinguishing feature for the relevant assessment year was shown.

Conclusion: Depreciation on the amalgamation goodwill was allowable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether depreciation on brands and trade names transferred under a demerger was allowable.

Analysis: The issue was governed by earlier coordinate-bench decisions in the assessee's own case that had accepted depreciation on the demerged intangible assets. The Revenue identified no basis to depart from that settled treatment.

Conclusion: Depreciation on the brands and trade names was allowable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessee's benchmarking for inter-unit sale of electricity was acceptable.

Analysis: For electricity generated by a captive power plant and supplied to another unit, the applicable market price was the rate at which the manufacturing unit purchased electricity from the open market, rather than the rate at which generating companies sold power to distribution companies. The assessee's benchmarking was also supported by the binding approach applied in earlier years.

Conclusion: The assessee's benchmarking of inter-unit electricity transfers was accepted. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether steam transferred from a captive power unit to a non-eligible unit could be valued at nil for arm's length purposes.

Analysis: Steam being generated as a by-product did not mean that it lacked value. For inter-unit transfers involving eligible and non-eligible units, arm's length valuation could be based on reliable external market comparables; market value was not confined to internal cost. The nil valuation adopted by the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer lacked a sustainable basis.

Conclusion: Steam could not be valued at nil, and the assessee's arm's length transfer price was accepted. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletions of the disallowances and transfer-pricing adjustments were sustained for both assessment years.

Ratio Decidendi: In inter-unit transfers involving captive power or steam, arm's length value must reflect reliable market comparables, and a by-product cannot be assigned nil value merely because of its mode of generation.

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to rejection for non-compliance with mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A where the commercial suit contemplated urgent interim relief.

Analysis: Section 12A makes pre-litigation mediation a mandatory condition for a commercial suit that does not contemplate urgent interim relief. The exception requires a holistic assessment of the suit's nature, subject matter, cause of action and pleaded urgency from the plaintiff's standpoint; an interim-relief prayer cannot be a device to evade mediation. Here, ad-interim disclosure and asset-protection relief had already been granted despite the existing regulatory restraints. The suit sought recovery for investors affected by alleged misappropriation, and further disclosures were required because asset details had not been updated. The timing of the suit was explained by receipt and aggregation of investor claims and the defendants' conduct regarding disclosures.

Conclusion: The suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief and was exempt from the requirement of pre-litigation mediation; the plaint was not liable to rejection.

Issues: Whether rejection of the rectification application without effective communication of the rejection order, coupled with an unexplained discrepancy in its date, was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The record showed that the rejection could not be generated through the GST portal because of technical glitches, while the order-sheet recorded a different date from the date handwritten on the purported rejection order. The undisputed absence of communication deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity to challenge or pursue the rectification request. The rectification application was also required to be considered with the supporting records and explanation in circumstances where adequate opportunity had not been afforded in the original proceedings.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification application was legally untenable and was set aside; the competent authority must reconsider the application after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing and communicating a reasoned order.

Issues: (i) Whether actuarially determined ad hoc contributions to an approved superannuation fund for meeting accumulated funding deficits are subject to the ceiling under Rule 87 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; (ii) Whether the appellate order upholding deletion of the disallowance was perverse or arbitrary.

Issue (i): Whether actuarially determined ad hoc contributions to an approved superannuation fund for meeting accumulated funding deficits are subject to the ceiling under Rule 87 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis: The payment was made to bridge the shortfall between the fund's assets and its actuarial liabilities, including deficits arising from earlier years when full funding could not be made. Its character depended on its purpose of curing the actuarial deficit, rather than on whether deficit funding had occurred over more than one year. Such gap-filling payments were neither ordinary annual contributions governed by Rule 87 nor initial contributions under Rule 88. Applying the Rule 87 ceiling to actuarially necessary funding would undermine fund solvency and conflict with the scheme of deduction for contributions to an approved fund under Section 36(1)(iv).

Conclusion: The Rule 87 ceiling did not apply to the ad hoc actuarial-deficit contribution; deletion of the disallowance was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate order upholding deletion of the disallowance was perverse or arbitrary.

Analysis: The appellate determination rested on applicable jurisdictional precedents and constituted a reasoned legal determination. Reliance on those judicial interpretations precluded characterization of the order as arbitrary or perverse.

Conclusion: The appellate order was neither perverse nor arbitrary, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Actuarially supported payments made to eliminate accumulated deficits in an approved superannuation fund remain deductible without application of the ordinary annual-contribution ceiling.

Ratio Decidendi: A contribution to an approved superannuation fund made to cure an actuarially determined deficit is not an ordinary annual contribution merely because deficit funding recurs, and is not governed by the ceiling applicable to ordinary annual contributions.