Issues: (i) Whether the cash deposits of Rs. 16,89,000, to the extent of Rs. 11,82,300, were unexplained money under section 69A despite the explanation of earlier bank withdrawals; (ii) Whether the addition could be sustained under section 68 solely on bank-account entries.

Issue (i): Whether the cash deposits of Rs. 16,89,000, to the extent of Rs. 11,82,300, were unexplained money under section 69A despite the explanation of earlier bank withdrawals.

Analysis: Under section 69A, the explanation of the nature and source of cash must be tested against the available material and the preponderance of probabilities. Verified bank withdrawals of Rs. 11,99,200 preceded the deposits, and the disputed amount was lower than those withdrawals. No withdrawal was shown to be non-genuine, no deposit preceded its asserted source, and no evidence established that the withdrawn cash had been otherwise spent or deployed. The unproved opening cash balance did not justify rejection of the particular disputed amount. Suspicion arising from retention of cash, frequency of withdrawals, or deposit during demonetisation could not substitute evidence of contrary utilisation. The fixed acceptance of 30% and rejection of 70% lacked a transaction-specific basis.

Conclusion: The cash-flow explanation was acceptable and the addition of Rs. 11,82,300 under section 69A was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition could be sustained under section 68 solely on bank-account entries.

Analysis: Section 68 requires a sum credited in books of account maintained by the assessee. The assessment invoked section 69A, while the reference to section 68 was only alternative and conditional. A bank passbook is not, by itself, a book of account of the assessee, and no qualifying credit in books maintained by the assessee was identified.

Conclusion: The addition could not be sustained under section 68 merely on the basis of bank-account entries, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned addition and the consequential application of section 115BBE do not survive; tax and consequential interest are required to be recomputed in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether a rectification order under Section 154 issued in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist was valid.

Analysis: The entity had been dissolved before issuance of the notice and rectification order, and this fact had been communicated to the assessing authority. An order made against a non-existent entity suffers from substantive illegality, rather than a curable procedural defect under Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Participation in the proceedings does not cure the defect, as there can be no estoppel against law.

Conclusion: The rectification order issued under Section 154 in the name of the non-existent entity was a nullity in law and was quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether share application money and share premium received from domestic and foreign subscribers for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 constituted unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether share application money refunded through banking channels within the same financial year could be added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether share application money and share premium received from domestic and foreign subscribers for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 constituted unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 68, imposing an additional obligation on a closely held company to establish the source of source of share capital, share application money and share premium, was prospective from assessment year 2013-14 and did not apply to the relevant years. The applicable test required proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. The subscribers were shown through PAN and ROC records, audited financial statements, banking trails, confirmations, share-allotment documents and physical verification; several directors also appeared and confirmed the investments. Earlier adverse statements had been retracted. Low returned income, alleged inadequacy of commercial wisdom in charging premium, or suspicion of accommodation entries could not displace the documentary evidence without independent corroboration connecting the credits with the assessee's undisclosed funds.

Conclusion: The relevant share application money and share premium were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The additions sustained for certain subscribers were deleted and the deletions concerning the remaining corporate subscribers were sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether share application money refunded through banking channels within the same financial year could be added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The amounts received from nine subscribers were refunded through banking channels during the same financial year, no shares were allotted, and no balance remained outstanding at year-end. The record did not establish that the refunds were a device to introduce undisclosed money. The mere emergence of a credit entry during the year was insufficient where the surrounding evidence showed that the transaction had been genuinely squared up.

Conclusion: The refunded share application money was not liable to addition as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: For the years preceding the first proviso to Section 68, the documentary evidence and verification of the subscribers established the genuineness of the share-capital transactions, and no unexplained-credit addition survived.

Ratio Decidendi: For assessment years before the first proviso to Section 68 became operative, an assessee company that establishes the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of share subscribers through reliable evidence cannot be subjected to an addition merely on suspicion regarding the subscribers' sources, absent corroboration that the funds represent its undisclosed income.

Issues: Whether penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was sustainable where the claim of replacement expenditure as revenue expenditure involved a debatable capital-versus-revenue issue.

Analysis: Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not apply merely because a deduction claim is not accepted, where the particulars disclosed are neither inaccurate nor false. The characterisation of replacement expenditure as capital or revenue remained unsettled due to divergent judicial views and pending consideration of the identical question by the jurisdictional High Court. The assessee's claim was therefore bona fide and related to a debatable issue; disallowance of the claim did not establish conscious furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not sustainable and was cancelled, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition for cash deposited during demonetisation under Section 115BBE was sustainable despite the explanation of its source through opening cash balance and current-year cash brokerage receipts.

Analysis: The accepted opening cash balance, together with cash brokerage earned before demonetisation and included in the returned income, demonstrated adequate availability of cash for the deposit. The addition was made merely by comparing the cash deposit with the opening balance while disregarding current-year income. The revenue authorities neither disproved the cash brokerage receipts as arising from undisclosed sources nor rejected the books of account or identified any contradiction in the cash-flow explanation. An addition based only on a mathematical difference and conjecture and surmise could not be sustained where the source of cash deposits stood explained.

Conclusion: The cash deposit was satisfactorily explained; consequently, the addition of Rs. 3,38,740 under Section 115BBE was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue could challenge the section 54F relief granted by the first appellate authority without an appeal, cross-objection, or Rule 27 application; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to section 54F deduction for Rs. 72,52,250 claimed as advances to contractors for construction of a residential house; (iii) Whether addition of Rs. 3,95,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) for purchase of a flat below stamp-duty value was sustainable; and (iv) Whether addition of Rs. 40,000 for alleged low household withdrawals could be sustained on estimation alone.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue could challenge the section 54F relief granted by the first appellate authority without an appeal, cross-objection, or Rule 27 application.

Analysis: In the absence of a departmental appeal, cross-objection, or an application under Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, appellate consideration was confined to the grounds raised by the assessee. The assessee could not be placed in a more disadvantageous position as a consequence of pursuing its own appeal.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the section 54F relief already granted was outside the scope of the appeal, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to section 54F deduction for Rs. 72,52,250 claimed as advances to contractors for construction of a residential house.

Analysis: Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires an eligible investment towards purchase or construction of the new residential asset. The claimed advances were unsupported by formal contracts, particulars of work assigned, bills, valuation evidence, or material establishing commencement of construction within the prescribed period. Mere unsubstantiated advances did not establish investment in construction.

Conclusion: Disallowance of section 54F deduction for Rs. 72,52,250 was sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether addition of Rs. 3,95,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) for purchase of a flat below stamp-duty value was sustainable.

Analysis: The deeming provision in section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied where the purchase consideration was below the stamp-duty value. Acquisition of a flat in a multi-storeyed building included rights to use common amenities; the value attributable to facilities such as lifts could not be excluded from the property's value for determining the difference.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 3,95,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether addition of Rs. 40,000 for alleged low household withdrawals could be sustained on estimation alone.

Analysis: An addition for inadequate household withdrawals requires material showing that actual household expenditure exceeded the withdrawals disclosed. No evidence or scientific basis established insufficiency of the declared drawings; the addition rested solely on estimation and suspicion.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 40,000 for alleged low household withdrawals was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The unsupported claim of construction advances and the deemed-income addition for purchase below stamp-duty value remain sustainable, whereas the addition founded solely on estimated household expenditure does not survive.

Issues: (i) Whether the delayed appeals could be rejected in limine; (ii) Whether the addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required fresh factual verification of the claimed compensatory allotment; and (iii) Whether the penalty for under-reporting under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could survive before the factual basis of the addition was determined.

Issue (i): Whether the delayed appeals could be rejected in limine

Analysis: Section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits condonation where sufficient cause is shown. Professional status alone did not establish computer literacy or actual awareness of electronic proceedings, and no advantage was shown to have been gained by the delay. The material facts concerning the property transaction had been raised but remained unexamined.

Conclusion: The in-limine dismissal of the delayed appeals could not be sustained; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required fresh factual verification of the claimed compensatory allotment

Analysis: Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 taxes deemed income arising from receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration when its statutory conditions are satisfied. The claim that the registered plot was allotted as compensation for land acquired after an earlier purchase, rather than being a fresh purchase, had not been factually verified. If established, the allotment could relate back to a transaction preceding the introduction of section 56(2)(x).

Conclusion: The addition could not be sustained without fresh factual determination, and the assessment must be reconsidered after verification; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty for under-reporting under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could survive before the factual basis of the addition was determined

Analysis: Under-reporting of income under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not be conclusively determined while the taxability of the differential property value under section 56(2)(x) remained unverified and required fresh assessment.

Conclusion: The existing penalty could not survive and was deleted; any fresh statutory action depends upon the outcome of the fresh assessment.

Final Conclusion: Taxability of the property transaction requires factual verification of the claimed compensatory allotment, and a penalty founded on unverified taxability cannot be retained.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for under-reporting cannot be sustained where the foundational taxability of the alleged income remains unverified and requires fresh factual determination.

Issues: Whether the addition for alleged cash on-money paid towards purchase of a residential flat could be sustained solely on an uncorroborated third-party statement recorded during search proceedings.

Analysis: The recorded purchase consideration was explained through banking channels, provident-fund withdrawal, loans and accumulated savings. The statement under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the builder group's alleged receipt of on-money, did not specifically connect the assessee with the alleged cash payment. No independent material corroborated payment of the impugned amount, and cross-examination of the person whose statement was relied upon was not afforded. A third-party statement may justify further enquiry but cannot, without specific corroboration, establish undisclosed payment by the purchaser.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessment order passed after commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process moratorium was sustainable.

Analysis: A moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was in force when the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order. The approved resolution plan also prohibited government authorities from initiating or continuing proceedings against the company. Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961; accordingly, assessment proceedings could not be initiated or continued during the moratorium.

Conclusion: The assessment order passed during the operative moratorium was unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether foreign tax credit under Section 90 can be denied solely because Form No. 67 was filed after the prescribed due date.

Analysis: Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 does not provide for disallowance of foreign tax credit merely on account of delayed filing of Form No. 67. The requirement to furnish Form No. 67 within the prescribed time is procedural and directory, not mandatory. Where the form has been filed and the foreign tax credit claim is otherwise eligible, a delay in its filing does not extinguish the substantive entitlement.

Conclusion: Foreign tax credit cannot be denied solely for delayed filing of Form No. 67; the claimed credit is allowable subject to verification of the claim and the form.

Issues: Whether commission paid to the Managing Director was allowable as a deduction or was payment in lieu of dividend.

Analysis: Deductibility turned on whether the commission represented remuneration for services rather than a distribution of profits. The payment was authorised by a Board resolution, formed part of the Managing Director's remuneration, was linked to performance and increased profitability, and was subjected to tax deduction at source. Similar commission paid in earlier years had been accepted. Independent declaration of dividend during the relevant year negated the characterisation of the commission as dividend in lieu. Consistency, uniformity and certainty supported acceptance of the payment in the absence of distinguishing circumstances.

Conclusion: The commission was remuneration for services and not payment in lieu of dividend; it was allowable as a deduction and the disallowance was deleted.

Issues: Whether foreign tax credit otherwise available under Section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be denied solely because Form No. 67 prescribed under Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 was furnished after the prescribed due date.

Analysis: Rule 128(9) does not prescribe denial of foreign tax credit as a consequence of delayed filing of Form No. 67. The prescribed timeline for furnishing the form is directory, and a substantive foreign tax credit claim remains admissible where the prescribed form has subsequently been furnished and the claim is capable of verification.

Conclusion: Delay in furnishing Form No. 67 does not by itself disentitle the assessee to foreign tax credit; the claimed credit is admissible after verification.

Issues: Whether receipts from sub-letting commercial premises taken on lease, together with ancillary services, are assessable as business income or income from house property.

Analysis: Section 22 charges the annual value of property under the head of income from house property only in the hands of its owner. The assessee was merely a tenant and not the owner or deemed owner of the premises. The leased premises were systematically commercially exploited by sub-letting the entire premises along with maintenance, security, cleaning, water and repair-related services. The existence of salary income did not preclude the assessee from carrying on an independent business activity.

Conclusion: The sub-letting receipts are assessable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and not under the head "Income from house property", in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 could be invoked to disturb the assessment order allowing deduction of employee stock option scheme expenditure.

Analysis: Revision under section 263 requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer specifically queried the employee stock option scheme expenditure, considered the assessee's supporting explanation and documents, and accepted the claim. Absence of elaborate discussion in the assessment order did not establish lack of inquiry. The view accepting the expenditure was also legally permissible, since the employee stock option scheme discount constituted employee compensation and revenue expenditure deductible under section 37(1). Admission of a challenge against a precedent, without stay or reversal, did not displace that legal position. Revisionary jurisdiction could not be used to substitute the Principal Commissioner's view for a permissible view adopted after inquiry.

Conclusion: Revision under section 263 was invalid, and the assessment order allowing the employee stock option scheme deduction stood.

Issues: Whether a composite assessment order covering more than one tax period is valid under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 73 and 74 was applied to require separate assessment proceedings for each tax period. A composite order spanning multiple tax periods can impair the availability of statutory benefits and the statutory right of appeal. The adopted interpretation precludes a single show-cause notice or assessment order for more than one tax period.

Conclusion: A composite assessment order covering the relevant multiple tax periods was legally unsustainable. The impugned assessment and appellate orders were set aside on the prescribed deposit condition, without precluding separate proceedings in accordance with law for the relevant tax periods.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order under Section 73, rejecting the taxpayer's explanation to the show-cause notice merely as unsatisfactory without addressing the specific response, is sustainable.

Analysis: An adjudicating authority performing a quasi-judicial function must address the specific issues raised in the response to the show-cause notice. A bare assertion that the written explanation is unsatisfactory, without reasons demonstrating its consideration, does not constitute valid adjudication. The admitted facts were covered by the earlier decision applying this requirement.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable for failure to give reasons and to consider the taxpayer's response, requiring fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune-13 lacked jurisdiction to decide the assessee's appeal after its automated allocation under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021.

Analysis: The Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 provides for automated allocation of electronically filed appeals by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, leaving the assessee with no choice of appellate authority. The appeal was allocated to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune-13, and the Assessing Officer received the appeal memorandum and an opportunity to participate but raised no jurisdictional objection at that stage. A literal cumulative reading of the jurisdictional entry in CBDT Notification No. 113/2022 dated 13.10.2022 would require a transfer-pricing order, arm's-length-price grounds, and related penalties in every case, producing the absurd result that certain arm's-length-price appeals would have no designated appellate forum. The entry therefore requires purposive and harmonious construction, without treating all stated conditions as cumulatively mandatory.

Conclusion: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune-13 validly exercised jurisdiction over the allocated appeal; the Revenue's jurisdictional objection fails, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the FIR and criminal proceeding should be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permits quashing where the FIR allegations, taken at face value, do not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence or where continuation would amount to abuse of process of court. The engagement memorandum required filing of the audit report in Form 10BB; the subsequent request for Form 10B followed the revised requirement. The materials also showed that the revised report was ultimately filed after a delay of 37 days with an explanation. These facts did not furnish a basis for criminal breach of trust, cheating, extortion, or any other alleged offence.

Conclusion: The FIR did not prima facie disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioner, and continuation of the criminal proceeding was an abuse of process of court warranting quashing.

Issues: (i) Whether foreign currency concealed and carried for export without evidence of lawful acquisition, Reserve Bank permission, or Customs declaration was liable to confiscation; (ii) Whether absolute confiscation of the seized foreign currency should be modified by permitting redemption on payment of fine; (iii) Whether the penalties imposed for the attempted illegal export required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether foreign currency concealed and carried for export without evidence of lawful acquisition, Reserve Bank permission, or Customs declaration was liable to confiscation.

Analysis: Regulation 5 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2015 prohibits export of foreign currency without general or special permission of the Reserve Bank, while Regulation 7 permits export of foreign exchange obtained by drawal from an authorised person in accordance with the governing framework. The currency was concealed, not declared before Customs, admittedly acquired through unauthorised channels, and unsupported by documents evidencing lawful acquisition or authority to export. These circumstances established an attempted export contrary to the foreign-exchange regime and attracted confiscation under Sections 113(d) and 113(e) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The foreign currency was liable to confiscation under Sections 113(d) and 113(e) of the Customs Act, 1962; against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether absolute confiscation of the seized foreign currency should be modified by permitting redemption on payment of fine.

Analysis: Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits exercise of discretion to allow redemption even where goods are confiscable. Confiscability alone did not require absolute confiscation; the nature of the contravention, value of the currency, and proportionality of the consequence required a balanced exercise of discretion. Redemption was therefore made available through separately allocated fines of Rs. 3,50,000 each for the respective portions of the currency.

Conclusion: Absolute confiscation was modified by granting an option to redeem the confiscated currency on payment of the prescribed redemption fines; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties imposed for the attempted illegal export required reduction.

Analysis: Liability to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 followed from the established attempt to export currency through unauthorised channels. However, the material indicated that the persons penalised lacked the financial capacity to be the actual owners or ultimate beneficiaries and were functioning as carriers; the actual beneficiaries were not conclusively identified. These factors warranted a proportionate reduction in penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty liability was sustained, but the penalty on each assessee was reduced from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000; in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The currency remains confiscable for unauthorised attempted export, but absolute confiscation is replaced with redemption on stipulated fines and the penal consequences are moderated.

Ratio Decidendi: Where foreign currency is liable to confiscation for unauthorised export, discretion to permit redemption must be exercised judicially and proportionately, with penalties reflecting the proven degree of participation.

Issues: Whether a best-judgment order for non-filing of the return could be sustained where the return was filed shortly after expiry of the condonable period together with tax, interest and late fee.

Analysis: The return was filed with payment of tax, interest and late fee after a marginal delay beyond the prescribed and condonable periods. In these circumstances, the belated return warranted scrutiny under Section 61 of the applicable GST enactment. The period from this order until completion of scrutiny was directed to be excluded in computing limitation for proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the applicable GST enactment.

Conclusion: The impugned best-judgment order was quashed, and the belated return was directed to be scrutinised in accordance with law.