Issues: Whether income-tax arrears not claimed before the committee of creditors survive after approval of a resolution plan by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: An approved resolution plan is binding upon all stakeholders. Its purpose is to enable the corporate debtor to revive on a fresh slate without being exposed to claims that were not included in the plan. As no claim concerning the impugned tax arrears was placed before the committee of creditors or incorporated in the approved resolution plan, those arrears stood frozen upon approval of the plan.

Conclusion: The income-tax claims not forming part of the approved resolution plan do not survive, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether late-payment charges described as interest on delayed payment for supplied industrial gases constitute a taxable declared service.

Analysis: A declared service must involve consideration. Amounts payable as damages, liquidated damages or penalties for an undesired act, breach or unanticipated situation are consequences of breach and not consideration for any obligation to tolerate an act or situation. Late-payment charges in the nature of such damages, notwithstanding their description as interest, lack the requisite element of consideration.

Conclusion: Late-payment charges received as damages for delayed payment do not constitute a declared service and are not liable to service tax. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the appellant, whose writ petition concerning forfeiture of earnest money deposit was relegated to the statutory remedy, should be permitted to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal notwithstanding the expiry of the ordinary limitation period.

Analysis: Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 provides an efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against measures taken by the secured creditor. Rule 8(7)(f) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 requires disclosure of facts necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of the property; whether non-disclosure of a subsisting attachment falls within that requirement, and whether it was material to the auction purchaser, are matters for the Tribunal. The appellant had pursued the writ remedy diligently after refusal of refund, the Bank had objected only on the ground of alternative remedy, and the challenge disclosed an arguable case.

Conclusion: The appellant may file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within three weeks, which shall be accepted without requiring an application for condonation of delay; the Tribunal shall decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where the investigation is complete, charge-sheet has been filed, charges have been framed, and the trial is in progress.

Analysis: The investigation had concluded, and the matter had progressed to trial after filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges. Custodial interrogation was therefore no longer required.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted, subject to conditions imposed by the investigating officer, continued cooperation, and appearance before the jurisdictional court.

Issues: Whether the order giving effect to the appellate order could stand despite denial of the expressly contemplated opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Analysis: The operative portion of the order dated 29.03.2025 contemplated a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It was conceded that no such hearing had been afforded. The earlier High Court orders had also specifically required an opportunity of hearing. Denial of that opportunity warranted reconsideration by the Assessing Officer, with all contentions kept open.

Conclusion: The order dated 29.03.2025 and the impugned High Court judgment were set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered after hearing the assessee. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an order initiating reassessment could be sustained where the assessee's uploaded reply was not considered and the time to respond was curtailed.

Analysis: The statutory response period was curtailed despite time being available to complete the process. The assessee had sought further time before expiry of the curtailed deadline and uploaded its reply before the order was made. Non-consideration of that reply caused prejudice and constituted an irregularity violating principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The order under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148 were set aside, with a direction to make a fresh determination after considering the reply; this is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest expenditure attributable to borrowings allegedly used for acquiring land was disallowable where the land was used as a business storage yard and sufficient interest-free funds were available.

Analysis: Section 36(1)(iii) allows interest on capital borrowed for business purposes, while its proviso restricts deduction up to the date on which an acquired asset is first put to use. The evidence of deliveries, unloading, electricity consumption and photographs supported the use of the open land as a storage yard for bulky trading stock. Construction of an additional structure on part of the land, shown as capital work-in-progress, did not negate the business use of the remaining land. No specific borrowing or quantifiable interest was identified as directly attributable to construction of the incomplete structure. Further, capital and interest-free loans were sufficient to meet the land cost; in the absence of a direct nexus between interest-bearing borrowings and the investment, the investment was presumed to have been made from interest-free funds.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was not sustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication could be sustained where, after cancellation of registration, the show-cause notice was served only through the common portal without physical service.

Analysis: The show-cause notice was issued more than four years after cancellation of registration and was uploaded only on the common portal. The binding departmental circular required physical service upon persons against whom adjudication proceedings were initiated after cancellation of registration. A person whose registration has been cancelled may not operate the portal and may consequently remain unaware of proceedings commenced through it.

Conclusion: Service solely through the common portal after cancellation of registration was insufficient in the circumstances, and the resulting ex parte adjudication was invalid.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of as the refund claim was entertained and allowed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's access to furnish Form GSTR-1 on the GST common portal should be restored pending consideration of the departmental proceedings.

Analysis: The request for restoration required consideration of the petitioner's response and supporting documents in the pending departmental adjudication. No finding was rendered on the allegations concerning the registration or on the petitioner's entitlement to portal access.

Outcome: The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation to the issuing authority, which must decide it by a reasoned order after personal hearing; portal activation was directed only if the authority finds the petitioner to be a bona fide registered proprietor.

Issues: Whether an adjudication under the GST law could be sustained without affording a personal hearing where an adverse decision was contemplated.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 mandates an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The show-cause notices did not provide the petitioner a personal hearing. The notices and adjudication order were uploaded only under the portal tab titled 'Additional Notice and Orders', which resulted in a delayed reply and supported the procedural challenge.

Conclusion: The adjudication was invalid for denial of the mandatory opportunity of personal hearing and required fresh determination after considering the reply.

Issues: Whether petitioner No. 1 was entitled to anticipatory bail.

Analysis: The allegations prima facie disclosed the petitioner's involvement in a conspiracy involving forged invoices issued in the names of non-existent firms, collection of tax amounts without their deposit, and resultant wrongful loss. The investigation was at a nascent stage, and custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the manner of commission of the offences and to obtain material establishing the petitioner's connection with the fictitious firm. Pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy to be exercised cautiously, and no exceptional circumstance was established.

Conclusion: Petitioner No. 1 was not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Issues: Whether cognizance of alleged offences for non-compliance with summons could be taken without proof that the summons had been duly served and received.

Analysis: Sections 206 and 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 required a sustainable basis for alleging deliberate or wilful non-compliance with summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The available material contained only tracking records and did not establish due service or acknowledgment of the summons. Mere issuance of summons, without proof of service, could not establish deliberate disobedience or evasion, nor disclose a prima facie case for taking cognizance.

Conclusion: The refusal to take cognizance was sustained, as absence of proof of due service of summons precluded a prima facie allegation of wilful non-compliance.

Outcome: The application for condonation of delay and the Special Leave Petition were dismissed on the ground of delay, with questions of law left open.

Issues: Whether revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be continued and an order passed against a corporate debtor during the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Admission of the corporate debtor into the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 triggered the statutory moratorium. Section 14 prohibits institution or continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor during that period, and Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent enactments. The jurisdictional precedent applied establishes that income-tax proceedings cannot be initiated or continued while the moratorium operates, though proceedings may be revived after its cessation if permissible in law.

Conclusion: The revisional order passed during the subsistence of the moratorium was unsustainable; the revisional proceedings may be revived and reframed after cessation of the moratorium in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of addition under Section 68 for share capital and share premium was justified; (ii) Whether the reassessment initiated under Sections 147 and 148 was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the deletion of addition under Section 68 for share capital and share premium was justified.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 68 imposes the additional obligation to explain the source of the shareholder's funds only upon a company in which the public are not substantially interested. As the assessee was a listed public company, that additional source-of-source obligation did not apply; nevertheless, it remained required under the main provision to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. The assessee furnished PAN and tax details, bank records, share application and allotment documents, demat records, shareholder responses and financial material. The shares were electronically credited to investors' demat accounts and were approved for listing. No specific defect in this evidence was identified, and no independent enquiry was conducted after the assessee discharged its initial onus.

Conclusion: The deletion of the Section 68 addition was justified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment initiated under Sections 147 and 148 was valid.

Analysis: The recorded reasons relied on the assessee's balance sheet already furnished with the original return and did not disclose any new or fresh tangible material. The alleged short-term capital loss did not result in any disallowance in the reassessment. The allegation concerning excessive share premium under Section 56(2)(viib) was inapplicable to the listed company, while the eventual Section 68 addition was founded on a distinct allegation concerning shareholder creditworthiness and not on the stated reasons for reopening.

Conclusion: The recorded reasons were invalid and the reassessment proceedings and reassessment order were quashed ab initio, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Section 68 addition cannot survive, and the reassessment founded on invalid recorded reasons has no legal effect.

Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jodhpur had territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction to cancel the assessee's registration under sections 12AA(3) and 12AA(4).

Analysis: The power conferred on a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to cancel charitable registration requires the particular authority to possess jurisdiction over the assessee under section 120 and the applicable jurisdictional orders or notifications. The exemption jurisdiction over persons in Gujarat claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 was assigned to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad. Notification No. 70/2014 permits a Central Commissioner to exercise functions in cases assigned under section 127 to Assessing Officers subordinate to that Commissioner; proof of such assignment is a foundational jurisdictional fact.

Analysis: Mere centralisation of assessment proceedings with a Central Circle does not automatically transfer the distinct jurisdiction concerning registration and cancellation. Despite the specific challenge, the Revenue produced no order under section 127, jurisdictional notification, or other instrument establishing assignment of the assessee's registration proceedings to an Assessing Officer subordinate to the concerned Principal Commissioner. The impugned order's recital of centralisation could not establish the terms, scope, or legal effect of an unproduced transfer order.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jodhpur to cancel the registration was not established; the cancellation order was without jurisdiction and was quashed, with restoration of the registration on its original terms.

Ratio Decidendi: A Central Commissioner may cancel charitable registration only upon demonstrable statutory and jurisdictional authority; centralisation of assessment proceedings, without proof of a valid jurisdictional assignment, does not confer independent cancellation jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of share capital and securities premium claimed to have been received in assessment year 2006-07 could be rectified under section 154 for assessment year 2011-12; (ii) Whether the addition of Rs.40 lakh as share application money received during the relevant year was rectifiable under section 154.

Issue (i): Whether the addition of share capital and securities premium claimed to have been received in assessment year 2006-07 could be rectified under section 154 for assessment year 2011-12.

Analysis: Section 154 permits correction of an obvious and patent mistake, not resolution of a debatable issue through extended reasoning. The record for rectification is not confined to the assessment order and may extend to the assessee's records for other assessment years. If the share capital and securities premium were in fact received in assessment year 2006-07, their addition in assessment year 2011-12 would constitute an error capable of rectification after verification of the supporting material. The issue required factual verification of the material filed by the assessee and coordinated consideration with the pending appeal against the original assessment.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee; the rectification claim concerning share capital and securities premium was restored for fresh adjudication after verification of the evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of Rs.40 lakh as share application money received during the relevant year was rectifiable under section 154.

Analysis: The amount was received during the relevant assessment year. Its addition under section 68 rested on the absence of satisfactory evidence of the creditor's identity, source of credit, and genuineness of the transaction. Determining those matters required appreciation of evidence and a long-drawn inquiry, rather than correction of a prima facie mistake apparent from the record.

Conclusion: Against the assessee; the addition of Rs.40 lakh was not rectifiable under section 154.

Final Conclusion: The rectification claim relating to share capital and securities premium requires fresh, coordinated determination on the evidentiary record, while the claim relating to the in-year share application money remains outside the scope of rectification.

Ratio Decidendi: For rectification, the relevant record may include the assessee's connected assessment records, and an addition made in an incorrect assessment year may be corrected if the error becomes apparent on verification of that record; an issue requiring substantive proof and appreciation of evidence cannot be rectified under section 154.

Issues: Whether a 30% ad hoc disallowance of commission expenditure was sustainable where the assessee furnished recipient-wise, PAN, TDS and payment details, but no specific commission payment was found to be non-genuine or non-business.

Analysis: Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 places the initial burden of establishing business expenditure on the assessee. That burden stood sufficiently discharged through documentary evidence comprising commission-recipient details, PAN particulars, TDS records, Form No. 26Q and payment details. The commission was integral to the referral-based business model, and the revenue authorities did not identify any particular recipient as non-existent or any identified payment as bogus, excessive or unrelated to business. The estimated benchmark of commission at 20% to 25% of turnover lacked comparable cases, market data or other cogent material. The commission ratio was also broadly consistent with the assessee's ratios in preceding years.

Conclusion: The 30% ad hoc disallowance of commission expenditure was unsustainable and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.