Issues: Whether CENVAT credit is admissible on erection, commissioning and installation services used for setting up a new cement plant after 01.04.2011.

Analysis: Services used for setting up the new plant had a direct nexus with the manufacture of finished goods. Although the expression relating to setting up of a factory was omitted from the inclusive portion of the definition after 01.04.2011, the services remained covered by the main clause of Rule 2(l), as they were used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and were not specifically excluded.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit is admissible on the services used for setting up the new plant.

Issues: Whether a reassessment initiated for alleged escaped capital gains can be sustained solely on additions relating to notional rental income and reclassification of disclosed rental receipts when no addition is made on the income forming the basis of reopening.

Analysis: The notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was founded exclusively on alleged capital gains from the assessee's purported transfer of immovable property. The assessee's explanation established that it was only a confirming party to a transfer of tenancy rights and had neither transferred the property nor received consideration. No capital-gains addition was made in reassessment. The additions ultimately made concerned notional annual letting value and treatment of disclosed rental receipts under the head income from house property, which were distinct from the alleged escaped capital gains. Under the governing reassessment principle, the Assessing Officer must assess or reassess the income which formed the foundation for reopening before assessing another income noticed during reassessment; where that foundational income is accepted as not having escaped assessment, reassessment cannot be sustained solely on an independent addition.

Conclusion: The reassessment was without jurisdiction and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment cannot be sustained on independent additions when no addition is made in respect of the escaped income that formed the basis of the notice initiating reassessment.

Issues: Whether the difference between the stamp duty value and the settlement consideration for the conveyance deed was taxable as income under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The constructed building had been completed, occupied and beneficially enjoyed by the flat purchasers and the co-operative society decades before execution of the conveyance deed. The promoter was under pre-existing contractual and statutory obligations to convey the land and building to the society. The later deed transferred only the outstanding reversionary and leasehold interests, thereby regularising and perfecting legal title. The settlement consideration was paid to resolve intervening disputes; no finding established unaccounted consideration, a colourable arrangement, or receipt in the relevant year of commercially distinct property.

Conclusion: The stamp duty value differential was not taxable as income under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A delayed conveyance undertaken to fulfil a pre-existing statutory and contractual obligation, where beneficial possession and enjoyment had already passed, does not constitute a fresh receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether a lump-sum remittance to a non-resident for assignment of ownership of a trademark constituted royalty taxable in India, requiring deduction of tax at source and supporting treatment of the payer as an assessee in default.

Analysis: The record contained the trademark assignment agreement, evidence of the transferor's ownership, particulars of the rights transferred, valuation and commercial terms, and the recipient's tax-residency certificate. These materials established that the remittance was for acquisition of the trademark as a capital asset and not for mere use of intellectual-property rights. A payment for outright transfer of ownership for lump-sum consideration is distinct from royalty. Further, the obligation to withhold tax on a foreign remittance arises only where the remittance is chargeable to tax in India.

Conclusion: The remittance was not royalty and did not give rise to a tax-deduction obligation; the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default, and the demand under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was deleted.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned; and whether the assessment and first appellate order should be sustained where the assessee had not made proper compliance or produced supporting material before the assessing and appellate authorities.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The assessee supported the condonation request by affidavit and explained that chronic kidney disease and consequent failure to access emails prevented timely knowledge of the appellate order. The explanation established reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment and first appellate order should be sustained where the assessee had not made proper compliance or produced supporting material before the assessing and appellate authorities.

Analysis: As there had been no proper compliance before either authority, a further opportunity was necessary in the interests of justice and fair play for the assessee to substantiate the claims and objections to the additions in reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The first appellate order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo reassessment after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed assessment issues require fresh adjudication after the assessee is afforded a proper opportunity to furnish supporting submissions and evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material non-compliance prevents adjudication of tax claims on supporting evidence, a de novo assessment after reasonable opportunity may be directed to secure compliance with principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether exemption for interest on NRE deposits is available under Section 10(4)(ii) where the individual is resident in India but may be permitted by the Reserve Bank of India to maintain the account.

Analysis: Section 10(4)(ii) and its proviso prescribe alternative conditions: the individual may be a person resident outside India under the foreign-exchange framework, or may be permitted by the Reserve Bank of India to maintain the NRE account. Resident status alone is therefore not determinative. The assessment record lacked a clear finding on whether the deposits could lawfully be continued and maintained under the applicable RBI/FEMA framework after the change in residential status. This factual determination is material to eligibility for exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption claim was remitted for fresh limited verification of eligibility under Section 10(4)(ii); the issue was decided in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory proviso provides alternative eligibility conditions, an exemption claim cannot be rejected solely on failure of one condition without determining whether the taxpayer fulfils the independently available alternative condition.

Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer could, under section 154, replace the India-Mauritius DTAA rate of 7.5% expressly applied in the final assessment order to interest on income-tax refund with the domestic-law rate.

Analysis: Section 154 permits correction only of a patent and self-evident mistake apparent from the existing record; it does not authorise review, reconsideration of debatable questions, or substitution of one possible view with another. The final assessment order specifically subjected the refund interest to tax at 7.5% under the India-Mauritius DTAA. That determination had not been disturbed through any statutory proceeding. The first rectification order correctly aligned the consequential order with that final assessment determination. The subsequent rectification instead reconsidered the treaty entitlement by reference to the return of income and the absence of detailed discussion in the assessment order. Those matters required legal examination and an argumentative process, and could not constitute an apparent mistake.

Conclusion: The subsequent rectification altering the treaty rate to the domestic-law rate was beyond section 154 jurisdiction; the rectification order was quashed and the 7.5% DTAA rate was required to be applied to the refund interest.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition for alleged unaccounted cash receipts from sale of flats could be sustained on price differentials, internal records, employee statements, electronic communications and an estimated median-rate methodology; (ii) Whether the addition for alleged cash payment towards acquisition of land could be sustained on a notebook seized from the vendor, including under the deeming provisions for unexplained investment or money.

Issue (i): Whether the addition for alleged unaccounted cash receipts from sale of flats could be sustained on price differentials, internal records, employee statements, electronic communications and an estimated median-rate methodology.

Analysis: The seized internal records and buyer-analysis workings showed differing price figures but did not establish that the differential was actually paid and received in cash. The assumed five per cent discount threshold had no statutory, binding commercial or transaction-specific evidentiary basis. The regular books, sale agreements, registered sale deeds and banking receipts were accepted, without defects or rejection of the books. Employee statements were subsequently explained or retracted and were not followed by re-examination or independent purchaser-wise corroboration. The electronic communications and ERP capability indicated discussions or technical possibility, not completed cash transactions. Estimation may quantify an established undisclosed receipt, but cannot establish the existence of such receipt; nor can a suspected pattern be mechanically extrapolated across unrelated transactions without transaction-specific proof.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged unaccounted cash receipts from sale of flats was rightly deleted; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition for alleged cash payment towards acquisition of land could be sustained on a notebook seized from the vendor, including under the deeming provisions for unexplained investment or money.

Analysis: The notebook and its image authenticated the vendor's notation, but did not independently prove that the entry described as cash represented an amount actually paid. Corroboration of cheque entries by bank records could not establish the disputed cash entry. The author of the notebook stated on oath that the cash figure was an expected amount rather than cash received, and this explanation was not disproved through further inquiry or independent evidence. The registered sale deed, regular books and banking trail supported the disclosed consideration, while no material from the assessee established the source, movement, delivery, receipt or utilisation of the alleged cash. The statutory presumption regarding a document found from the vendor could not by itself prove that the assessee made an unrecorded payment. The request to cross-examine the vendor was not granted. Further, neither an additional investment actually made nor ownership or possession of unrecorded money by the assessee was established for invoking the respective deeming provisions.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged cash consideration paid for the land acquisition was rightly deleted; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both deleted additions remain unsustainable because the Revenue did not establish the alleged cash receipts or cash payment through cogent, reliable and transaction-specific evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Price variations, uncorroborated statements, electronic discussions and third-party notations may warrant investigation but cannot sustain additions for undisclosed income or investment unless credible evidence establishes that the alleged cash transaction actually occurred.

Issues: Whether a domestic company that filed Form No. 10-IC and exercised the option under section 115BAA(5) is required to file a fresh Form No. 10-IC for every subsequent assessment year to claim the concessional tax rate.

Analysis: Section 115BAA provides an option to a domestic company to be taxed at the concessional rate, subject to filing Form No. 10-IC under Rule 21AE. The prescribed form records that the option, once exercised for a previous year, cannot be withdrawn for that or any other previous year. The statutory scheme was construed to mean that the option exercised through Form No. 10-IC continues to apply in subsequent assessment years; requiring a fresh form for each succeeding year would render the continuing and irrevocable nature of the option ineffective.

Conclusion: A fresh Form No. 10-IC is not required for each subsequent assessment year once the option under section 115BAA(5) has been exercised; the assessee was entitled to the concessional tax regime for the relevant assessment year.

Issues: Whether the denial of exemption claimed for agricultural income as unexplained money, without examination of supporting documentary evidence, warranted restoration for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The claim of agricultural income required substantiation through documentary evidence. Partial material had been furnished during assessment, while sale invoices could not be uploaded because of portal-size constraints and permission was sought to submit them in hard copy. The assessment was completed shortly thereafter without a further opportunity, and the additional evidence was also not admitted in appeal. Since documents supporting the claim were on record but had not been verified by the lower authorities, verification and fresh consideration were necessary.

Conclusion: The addition treating the claimed agricultural income as unexplained money was set aside for de novo verification and adjudication by the Assessing Officer after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Issues: Whether depreciation on fixed assets is allowable as application of income where the cost of acquiring those assets was not claimed as application of income.

Analysis: Section 11(6) bars depreciation as application of income only where acquisition of the relevant asset has already been claimed as application of income in the same or an earlier year, thereby preventing a double deduction. The financial records showed that the capital expenditure on the fixed assets was not included in the revenue expenditure claimed as application of income, while depreciation alone was claimed in respect of those assets. The statutory bar was therefore inapplicable.

Conclusion: Depreciation was allowable as application of income; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the interim status quo protecting the company's assets should continue pending appointment of a valuer and determination of the proposed buyout of the appellant's shareholding.

Analysis: The valuation process contemplated for the proposed share buyout had not commenced because a valuer was yet to be appointed. The earlier continuation of status quo was confined to preserving the position until that process could proceed. The remaining allegations of oppression and mismanagement were not adjudicated in this appeal.

Outcome: The status quo order was continued until the valuation and decision on the buyout proposal.

Issues: Whether an inspection and measurement of premises claimed as part of the liquidation estate could be directed despite a third party's disputed claim of title and possession.

Analysis: Section 60(5) permits adjudication of matters arising from or relating to the liquidation process, but does not ordinarily extend to deciding complex disputed questions of title and possession between third parties. The direction was confined to inspection and measurement for identifying and segregating the area claimed for the liquidation estate. It neither determined title nor disturbed the appellants' possessory rights; any further action by the liquidator was required to be taken in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The inspection and measurement direction was within the permissible scope of the liquidation process and did not adjudicate the disputed ownership or possession rights.

Issues: Whether the order initiating reassessment and the consequential notice were invalid for non-grant of a personal hearing, alleged reliance on material beyond the show-cause notice, and lack of a prima facie basis for escapement of income.

Analysis: The statutory procedure was complied with because a show-cause notice was issued, the petitioner was invited to respond, and the objections were disposed of by a reasoned order. Personal hearing at the preliminary stage is not an absolute right where a substantive opportunity to contest the allegations and produce evidence remains available in reassessment. The alleged unexplained cash credit and cash deposit were intrinsically connected with the information concerning escapement of income and could be considered together. At this stage, only a prima facie opinion is required; examination of the loan's identity, creditworthiness and genuineness belongs to reassessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment initiation was valid; the petitioner must receive a proper personal hearing and consideration of its material during reassessment, with merits left open.

Issues: Whether the allotment and buy-back of shares in the names of job workers constituted a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(C) where the alleged owners acknowledged knowledge of the transactions during cross-examination.

Analysis: Section 2(9)(C) applies where the owner is unaware of, or denies knowledge of, ownership of the property. The statements made during cross-examination in the benami proceedings established that the job workers knew of the share allotment, subsequent buy-back and receipt of consideration in their bank accounts. Those statements prevailed over inconsistent earlier statements recorded in income-tax proceedings. Allegations concerning fictitious trade payables or tax evasion could not independently establish a benami transaction without fulfilment of the statutory requirement that the owner lack knowledge of ownership. The income-tax settlement order could not override the separate benami statute, although it was relevant that the alleged tax issue was independently dealt with.

Conclusion: The share transactions were not benami transactions under Section 2(9)(C), and the refusal to confirm the provisional attachment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction cannot be classified as benami under Section 2(9)(C) when the ostensible owner acknowledges knowledge of the ownership transaction and related consideration; allegations of tax evasion alone do not satisfy the statutory definition.

Issues: Whether veterinary-grade active pharmaceutical ingredients, Clopidol (VET) and Amprolium 100% (VET), qualify as drugs and medicines eligible for 5% IGST under Serial No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: The expression "drug" is not defined in the IGST rate notification or the customs law. The inclusive definition in Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 covers medicines for animals and substances intended for use as components of a drug. Active pharmaceutical ingredients and bulk drugs, being pharmaceutical substances used as such or in medicinal formulations, therefore fall within that statutory meaning. The goods were established as veterinary therapeutic APIs, subject to drug-import licensing and intended exclusively for prevention and treatment of coccidiosis in poultry.

Analysis: Serial No. 226 is a description-based entry for all drugs and medicines and extends to goods falling under Chapter 30 or any other chapter. It is not confined to finished dosage forms. The specific entry for drugs and medicines prevails, for rate purposes, over the general Chapter 29 entry for organic chemicals. The products were also not among the drugs listed for nil rate under Serial No. 113 of Notification No. 10/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Conclusion: Clopidol (VET) and Amprolium 100% (VET) qualify as "All Drugs" under Serial No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and are eligible for IGST at 5%, provided they are not specified under Serial No. 113 of Notification No. 10/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Ratio Decidendi: Veterinary APIs and bulk drugs that possess established therapeutic use and statutory recognition as drugs are covered by a specific rate entry for all drugs and medicines, notwithstanding their tariff classification under a general chemical chapter.

Issues: (i) Whether the Section 7 application was maintainable where debt and default exceeding the statutory threshold were admitted, but the corporate debtor disputed the quantum and contractual interest; (ii) Whether Section 10A barred initiation of CIRP for the asserted default; (iii) Whether the partial amount deposited by the corporate debtor required interference with CIRP admission.

Issue (i): Whether the Section 7 application was maintainable where debt and default exceeding the statutory threshold were admitted, but the corporate debtor disputed the quantum and contractual interest.

Analysis: Under Section 7, the relevant enquiry is whether a financial debt and default are established and whether the default exceeds the threshold under Section 4(1). The exact quantification of dues, including the challenge to the agreed interest component, need not be determined at the admission stage. The debt and default were not disputed, the default exceeded the applicable threshold of Rs. 1 crore, and limitation was not challenged.

Conclusion: The Section 7 application was maintainable, in favour of the financial creditor.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 10A barred initiation of CIRP for the asserted default.

Analysis: The OTS had been revoked in January 2020 and payment was demanded before the Section 10A period. The default continued thereafter, and the default recorded in the Section 7 application was dated 28.06.2022, outside the protected period. Section 10A did not immunise a continuing default extending beyond that period.

Conclusion: Section 10A did not bar the CIRP application, in favour of the financial creditor.

Issue (iii): Whether the partial amount deposited by the corporate debtor required interference with CIRP admission.

Analysis: The amount offered was substantially below the financial creditor's claimed dues, and the financial creditor did not accept settlement. The precedent concerning refusal of complete satisfaction of the creditor's claim was therefore inapplicable.

Conclusion: A partial deposit did not warrant interference with the CIRP admission, in favour of the financial creditor.

Final Conclusion: The statutory prerequisites for commencement of CIRP were fulfilled, and neither the Section 10A plea nor the dispute over quantum or partial settlement offer displaced them.

Ratio Decidendi: Once financial debt and default exceeding the statutory threshold are established, admission under Section 7 follows; Section 10A does not protect a default that arose before, or continued beyond, its protected period.

Issues: (i) Whether possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income under the scheduled offence can constitute money-laundering without a specific allegation of bribery; (ii) Whether attachment was impermissible because the properties were acquired through lawful sources and included the spouse's property; (iii) Whether provisional attachment lacked the statutory basis under Section 5(1); (iv) Whether the challenge based on alleged cash deposits was established.

Issue (i): Whether possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income under the scheduled offence can constitute money-laundering without a specific allegation of bribery.

Analysis: Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a scheduled offence. Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 covers concealment, possession, acquisition or use of proceeds of crime and their projection or claim as untainted property. A disproportionate-assets offence does not require an allegation of bribery or acceptance of undue benefit; such allegations concern distinct offences. The dismissal of the discharge application supported the existence of a prima facie case, without prejudging the criminal trial.

Conclusion: Possession and projection of disproportionate assets as untainted property can prima facie amount to money-laundering notwithstanding the absence of a bribery allegation.

Issue (ii): Whether attachment was impermissible because the properties were acquired through lawful sources and included the spouse's property.

Analysis: The attachment was restricted to the quantified value of disproportionate assets after accounting for known income, loans and expenditure, rather than extending to assets proportionate to lawful income. The claim that the spouse's property derived from her independent source did not displace the finding concerning the amassed disproportionate assets, particularly when the discharge application had been dismissed.

Conclusion: The attachment to the extent of the disproportionate assets, including the challenged spouse-related property, was not shown to be unlawful.

Issue (iii): Whether provisional attachment lacked the statutory basis under Section 5(1).

Analysis: The predicate offence and the apprehension of alienation supplied the basis for immediate attachment. No order evidencing a prior attachment by the investigating agency was produced despite opportunity; the asserted prior attachment could therefore not invalidate the provisional attachment.

Conclusion: The statutory requirements for provisional attachment under Section 5(1) were satisfied.

Issue (iv): Whether the challenge based on alleged cash deposits was established.

Analysis: No bank statement or documentary material was produced to controvert the finding concerning cash deposits.

Conclusion: The challenge concerning cash deposits was not established.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of attachment of property representing the quantified disproportionate assets remains legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A scheduled disproportionate-assets offence may generate proceeds of crime, and their possession, acquisition or projection as untainted property attracts the money-laundering framework; attachment may validly be maintained to the quantified extent of such assets where the statutory basis is established.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order under Section 73 was non-speaking and violative of the principles of natural justice for non-consideration of the reconciliation and reply.

Analysis: Reasons required of a quasi-judicial authority depend upon the facts, the noticee's response, and the nature of the controversy. The adjudication order reflected application of mind to the discrepancies between GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9, the reply, and the opportunity of hearing. The assessee bore the burden to substantiate the claimed input tax credit and explain the discrepancies through documentary evidence, rather than merely a reconciliation chart. Recording that reconciliation had not been made constituted a sufficient basis to reject the explanation where no further factual explanation or evidence had been furnished. The assessee also did not seek additional time before the adjudicating authority for filing further material.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was not completely non-speaking and did not warrant interference on the asserted ground of breach of natural justice; the factual objections may be urged with further evidence in appellate proceedings.

Issues: (i) Whether the taxpayer had established reversal of the excess input tax credit forming the disputed demand; (ii) Whether interest and penalty attributable to the disputed input tax credit required fresh computation and consideration of statutory waiver.

Issue (i): Whether the taxpayer had established reversal of the excess input tax credit forming the disputed demand.

Analysis: The reconciliation statements, DRC-03 debit entries and revenue acknowledgement in DRC-04 established reversals through the electronic cash and credit ledgers that covered the disputed excess input tax credit. The absence of a reason in column 8 of DRC-03 did not invalidate the reversals, since that field is optional. The benefit under Section 16(5) also displaced the objection based on the time limit in Section 16(4) for the specified financial years.

Conclusion: The reversal of the disputed excess input tax credit stood established, in favour of the taxpayer.

Issue (ii): Whether interest and penalty attributable to the disputed input tax credit required fresh computation and consideration of statutory waiver.

Analysis: The first appellate order did not determine the interest and penalty consequences of the residual demand. Demands under Section 73 for the relevant period fall within Section 128A, which permits waiver of interest or penalty subject to compliance with the prescribed procedure. Computation is required in accordance with the applicable departmental instructions after affording a hearing.

Conclusion: The question of interest and penalty is remitted for fresh computation, with the taxpayer entitled to seek waiver under Section 128A if liability is determined.

Final Conclusion: The finding that the principal excess input tax credit had been reversed remains undisturbed, while the consequential interest and penalty liability is to be determined afresh by the first appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Documented DRC-03 reversals corroborated by ledger debits, reconciliation material and revenue acknowledgement cannot be rejected merely because the optional reasons field in DRC-03 is blank; consequential interest and penalty must be separately determined under the applicable statutory framework.