Issues: (i) Whether the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made after expiry of the limitation prescribed by Section 153, was without jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the availability of a statutory appeal barred exercise of writ jurisdiction where the assessment proceedings were alleged to be without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made after expiry of the limitation prescribed by Section 153, was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: For the relevant assessment year, the period under the third proviso to Section 153(1), as extended by Section 153(4) upon reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, expired on 31 December 2023. Section 144C(1) required the Assessing Officer to make and forward the draft assessment order within that applicable period. The draft order was made only thereafter. The subsequent final assessment order, demand notice and penalty notice were founded on that time-barred draft order. The later insertions in Sections 153 and 144C reinforced this construction, though the conclusion did not depend upon them.

Conclusion: The draft assessment order was barred by limitation and without jurisdiction; the consequential final assessment order, demand notice and penalty show-cause notice could not survive. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of a statutory appeal barred exercise of writ jurisdiction where the assessment proceedings were alleged to be without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative statutory remedy is a rule of judicial self-restraint and not an absolute bar to jurisdiction under Article 226. Where the impugned proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, the writ court may entertain the challenge. The undisputed expiry of the assessment limitation established such a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The statutory appellate remedy did not preclude writ relief against proceedings that were without jurisdiction. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Expiry of the statutory period for making and forwarding the draft assessment order rendered the assessment process jurisdictionally invalid, notwithstanding the availability of an appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: A draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) must be made and forwarded within the applicable limitation period under Section 153; a draft order made thereafter is without jurisdiction and cannot sustain consequential assessment proceedings.

Issues: Whether the aggregate disallowance of the claimed house-property loss and deductions under Sections 80C and 80D could be sustained on the evidence produced.

Analysis: The claims for house-property loss and Chapter VI-A deductions required evidentiary substantiation. The material produced was partly self-serving and contained inconsistencies, making it unsuitable for accepting the claims in full. Given the limited quantum involved, an ad hoc estimation of income at 10 per cent of the aggregate disallowance was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The aggregate additions were restricted to Rs. 36,344, being 10 per cent of Rs. 3,63,437, taxable at normal rates rather than under Section 115BBE.

Issues: Whether the addition arising from the alleged cash transactions should be confined to an estimated 8% profit element rather than the entire amount.

Analysis: In the assessee's prior assessment years, the departmental authorities had accepted estimation of income at 8% in respect of similar cash transactions. Applying that consistent treatment to the year in question, the addition was directed to be computed only at 8% of the alleged transaction amount of Rs. 2,87,345.

Conclusion: The addition is restricted to Rs. 22,987, being 8% of Rs. 2,87,345; the balance of the addition cannot stand.

Issues: Whether reassessment could be sustained where no addition was made in respect of the income forming the recorded reason for reopening, but additions were made on other matters.

Analysis: Section 147, read with Explanation 3, permits assessment of other income noticed in a validly reopened proceeding, but does not remove the requirement that the income forming the recorded reason for reopening be assessed or reassessed. The long-term capital gains identified in the recorded reasons were not added; the disallowance under Section 54F and the addition under income from other sources were distinct matters. The binding jurisdictional rule therefore precluded sustaining the reassessment solely on those other additions.

Conclusion: The reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was unsustainable and was quashed; the consequential additions, including the disallowance under Section 54F, could not survive.

Issues: (i) Whether reopening of the assessment was valid under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether an addition based on third-party statements without affording cross-examination was sustainable; (iii) Whether the loan-credit addition was sustainable on the evidence of genuineness and repayment.

Issue (i): Whether reopening of the assessment was valid under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Reassessment jurisdiction requires an independent reason to believe, founded on relevant material, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The recorded reasons neither identified a failure to disclose material facts nor demonstrated independent verification of the existing assessment records. They proceeded on factually incorrect material and borrowed satisfaction, without tangible material establishing escapement of income.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and is quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an addition based on third-party statements without affording cross-examination was sustainable.

Analysis: Where an addition rests on third-party statements or material, principles of natural justice require disclosure of such material and an effective opportunity to rebut it, including cross-examination of the persons whose statements are relied upon. The absence of that opportunity left the material untested.

Conclusion: The addition founded on third-party statements without cross-examination was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the loan-credit addition was sustainable on the evidence of genuineness and repayment.

Analysis: The loan transactions were recorded in the books and supported by ledger accounts, PAN particulars, bank statements, confirmations, and repayment details. Subsequent repayment of the loans supported the genuineness of the credits and did not justify their treatment as unexplained cash credits.

Conclusion: The loan-credit addition was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The invalid reopening and the independent defects in the loan-credit addition render the reassessment demand unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment jurisdiction cannot be invoked on borrowed satisfaction or factually incorrect reasons lacking independently verified tangible material establishing escapement of income.

Issues: Whether an addition for unexplained money could be sustained solely on an unsigned excel sheet recovered from a third party, without cross-examination of the relevant persons or independent corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The material relied upon consisted of an unsigned third-party excel sheet that did not identify or bear the signature of the assessee. An adverse addition founded on such material required an opportunity to cross-examine the persons connected with it and independent evidence establishing that the alleged cash payment had actually been made. In the absence of cross-examination and corroboration, the excel sheet remained an unreliable third-party document incapable of supporting the addition.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable and was deleted.

Issues: Whether cash receipts recorded in the regular books as collections from identified business debtors could be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 69A applies where money is established to be unexplained. The disputed receipts were recorded in the regular books and were supported by party-wise ledgers, identified debtor particulars, audited accounts, sales and purchase registers, stock records and VAT returns. No defect was identified in the underlying business records, the books were not rejected, and no independent verification was undertaken from the identified parties. The absence of debtor confirmations alone could not displace the documentary evidence or establish unexplained money. Acceptance of Specified Bank Notes during demonetisation, without contrary material connecting the receipts to undisclosed income, also did not establish an unexplained source. Suspicion could not substitute proof.

Conclusion: The receipts were not established to be unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition for unexplained investment in intangible assets and the consequential depreciation disallowance required verification; (ii) Whether the assessed-income computation, based on adjustments in the intimation under section 143(1), involved duplication of disallowances.

Issue (i): Whether the addition for unexplained investment in intangible assets and the consequential depreciation disallowance required verification.

Analysis: Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies to investments whose nature and source remain unexplained, while section 115BBE governs their taxation. The difference between the recorded cost of intangible assets and the supporting documents produced could not be determined without examining the books of account, invoices, agreements, ledgers, payment records, salary records, and evidence concerning software customisation and development. The depreciation disallowance was consequential to the addition.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained investment and the consequential depreciation disallowance are remitted for fresh verification and adjudication.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessed-income computation, based on adjustments in the intimation under section 143(1), involved duplication of disallowances.

Analysis: Verification was required by comparing the original and revised returns, the intimation under section 143(1), the computation of income, tax audit report, and assessment order to ascertain whether the disputed expenses had already been disallowed and whether the assessment duplicated those disallowances.

Conclusion: The computation issue is remitted for verification and fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The disputed additions and computation adjustments must be reconsidered on verification of the relevant records after providing a reasonable opportunity to furnish supporting evidence and explanations.

Issues: (i) Whether the relevant date of import for applying an import-policy restriction under the Foreign Trade Policy is the date of shipment or dispatch or the date of filing of the Bill of Entry or clearance for home consumption; (ii) Whether Notification No. 02/2026-27 applies to goods dispatched and arrived in India before its electronic Gazette publication merely because the Bills of Entry were filed thereafter.

Issue (i): Whether the relevant date of import for applying an import-policy restriction under the Foreign Trade Policy is the date of shipment or dispatch or the date of filing of the Bill of Entry or clearance for home consumption.

Analysis: Paragraph 1.05(b) of the Foreign Trade Policy, read with paragraphs 2.17(a) and 11.11 of the Handbook of Procedures, 2023, defines the date of import by reference to shipment or dispatch from the supplying country. For air imports, the relevant Airway Bill evidencing departure from the last airport in the exporting country is determinative. The Bill of Entry or out-of-charge date is relevant under Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 for determining the rate of customs duty, but does not govern the applicability of an import-policy restriction under the Foreign Trade Policy.

Conclusion: The relevant date of import for the import-policy restriction is the shipment or dispatch date determined under the Foreign Trade Policy and Handbook of Procedures, not the post-notification Bill of Entry or clearance date. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Notification No. 02/2026-27 applies to goods dispatched and arrived in India before its electronic Gazette publication merely because the Bills of Entry were filed thereafter.

Analysis: A notification acquires legal force only upon its electronic Gazette publication and cannot operate retrospectively without statutory authority. The restrictive notification could therefore operate only prospectively and could not affect goods already dispatched and arrived before publication. Its clauses excluding transitional arrangements did not alter this position. A subsequent executive memorandum lacked statutory force and could neither override the policy-defined date of import nor retrospectively expand the notification's application; conditional import authorisations did not redress that entitlement.

Conclusion: No. The restrictive notification is inapplicable to goods dispatched and arrived before its electronic Gazette publication, notwithstanding subsequent filing of Bills of Entry. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Goods whose shipment or dispatch predates the effective publication of a restrictive import-policy amendment remain governed by the pre-existing import policy, and that position cannot be altered through a subsequent executive clarification.

Ratio Decidendi: For import restrictions under the Foreign Trade Policy, the policy-defined shipment or dispatch date governs the date of import; the customs clearance date applicable to duty assessment and an executive clarification cannot retrospectively vary that policy framework.

Issues: Whether cognizance for an alleged contravention of Section 217(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: At the cognizance stage, scrutiny is confined to the complaint and supporting material for determining whether a prima facie case exists; defence material and explanations cannot be evaluated through a mini-trial. The complaint and supporting documents disclosed allegations of non-cooperation with the investigation, and the cognizance order reflected application of mind to that material.

Conclusion: The cognizance and issuance of process for the alleged offence under Section 217(4), punishable under Section 217(6), of the Companies Act, 2013 were not liable to be quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned; (ii) whether a pure question of law arising from facts on record could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal; (iii) whether the disallowance required fresh adjudication with an opportunity of hearing.

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

Analysis: The limitation provisions require sufficient cause for delay. The explanation referred to pandemic disruption, the managing director's ill health and the advice previously available; the supporting affidavit was not controverted. The substantial delay and lack of vigilance were balanced against the costs paid.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a pure question of law arising from facts on record could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The scope of adjustments under Section 143(1) is confined to those enumerated in the provision. The challenge to the adjustment's permissibility was a pure question of law arising from facts already on record, although it had not been specifically raised before the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The legal ground could be raised before the Tribunal, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance required fresh adjudication with an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The first appellate authority had sustained the disallowance on the basis of the retrospective character of the statutory amendments without examining the permissible scope of the adjustment or the effect of the subsequent Supreme Court decision. Its order was passed the day after the scheduled hearing without a further opportunity.

Conclusion: The disputed disallowance was set aside for fresh adjudication after a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The permissibility of the adjustment and the disputed deduction remain for fresh determination; the separate relief concerning bonus and gratuity remains undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A pure question of law arising from facts already on record may be raised at the appellate stage even if it was not specifically raised before the first appellate authority.

Issues: Whether investments that did not yield exempt income during the relevant year could be included in the average investment value for computing the disallowance.

Analysis: Section 14A and Rule 8D govern the computation of expenditure relating to exempt income. The Tribunal relied on precedent distinguishing investments that yielded exempt income during the relevant year from the broader investment portfolio. The assessee's own computation used its income-yielding mutual fund investments.

Conclusion: No. The additional disallowance of Rs. 2,14,98,928 was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Only investments that actually yield exempt income during the relevant previous year are included in the average investment value for computing disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D.

Issues: Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54F for residential properties jointly allotted under a joint development agreement.

Analysis: Section 54F provides for deduction in respect of qualifying investment in residential property. Four properties were jointly allotted to the assessee and two co-owners, and one co-owner had been granted the deduction in respect of the same properties. Although entitlement must be assessed individually, no material factual or legal distinction was identified to justify different treatment.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54F for his proportionate interest in the residential properties, computed according to the statutory formula.

Ratio Decidendi: Although deduction entitlement must be assessed individually, different treatment of co-owners on the same material facts requires a distinguishing factual or legal basis.

Issues: Whether the interim restraints on the applicant's property and bank accounts should be vacated or modified pending determination of the liquidator's application.

Analysis: The SFIO report and supporting documents indicated a prima facie role in the alleged fraudulent activities. The collateral money-laundering proceedings had not attained finality. Section 35 of the Companies Act, 2013 was considered in relation to potential personal liability despite the absence of proof that company assets had personally benefited the applicant. Allowing unrestricted dealings with property could prejudice recovery for creditors.

Conclusion: The property restraints remain in force. The applicant may operate the bank account subject to quarterly reporting of withdrawals and expenditure. The liquidator's principal application remains pending.

Ratio Decidendi: A prima facie case of personal liability for corporate fraud may justify interim protection of assets even without proof that company assets were received personally.

Issues: Whether the addition for unaccounted receipts based on an impounded document was sustainable despite the assessee's retraction and denial of the document, and whether a substantial question of law arose.

Analysis: Section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 creates a rebuttable presumption concerning the ownership and truth of documents found during a survey. Part of the impounded document corresponded with recorded receipts. The retraction was treated as an afterthought, and no cogent material was produced to rebut the presumption. The addition rested on the document rather than the survey statement alone.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 4,06,360 was sustained against the assessee; no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: A corroborated document found during a survey may support an addition where the statutory presumption of its ownership and truth is not rebutted by cogent evidence.

Issues: Whether the assessment could be revised for failing to question the stamp duty valuation of properties sold.

Analysis: Section 43CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits substitution of actual consideration with stamp duty value where the latter exceeds it. The valuation certificates covered the entire property, and no sale was identified where stamp duty value exceeded actual consideration. The revisional authority's objection concerned the correctness of the stamp duty authority's valuation certificate.

Conclusion: The assessment was not shown to be erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue; the revision was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Revenue authorities cannot question a stamp duty authority's valuation certificate under Section 43CA as a basis for treating an assessment as erroneous in revision under Section 263.

Issues: Whether the share-sale gains were liable to be treated as unexplained cash credits and denied long-term capital gains exemption.

Analysis: Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee supplied contract notes, broker and demat account details, transaction statements, ledgers and bank records, and had paid securities transaction tax. The scrip and brokers had not been blacklisted during the relevant period. The assessing and appellate authorities recorded no findings connecting the assessee's transactions to the alleged market-price fluctuations.

Conclusion: The exemption and deletion of the addition were upheld. No substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: General information about share-price manipulation, without findings linking it to the assessee's documented transactions, does not justify treating the gains as unexplained cash credits or denying the exemption.

Issues: (i) Whether the proprietor-subcontractor was liable for the full service tax on the works contract; (ii) whether the confirmed demand for the extended period was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the proprietor-subcontractor was liable for the full service tax on the works contract.

Analysis: The services were supplied by a proprietary firm as subcontractor. Notification No. 30/2012-S.T. provided for partial reverse charge, with the recipient responsible for half the tax. The calculation also accounted for tax already deposited by the subcontractor.

Conclusion: The subcontractor was liable for only 50% of the service tax, with the balance payable by the recipient, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the confirmed demand for the extended period was sustainable.

Analysis: Conflicting tribunal decisions on subcontractors' liability preceded resolution by a larger bench, making the issue interpretational. The demand was substantially reduced after valuation and consideration of partial reverse charge, and there was no evidence that the subcontractor had charged service tax to the main contractor.

Conclusion: The confirmed demand for the extended period was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed service-tax demand cannot be recovered.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a subcontractor's non-payment arises from a bona fide belief supported by conflicting tribunal decisions and suppression is not established, the extended limitation period cannot be invoked.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal was filed 28 days after the three-month filing period, within the additional month contemplated by Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Although supporting documents had not been produced before the appellate authority, the explanation for the delay appeared genuine.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the rejection of the appeal was set aside. The appeal was directed to be re-presented for determination on merits after a hearing.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns should be revoked and the registration restored.

Analysis: The petitioner had not filed returns from July 2025 and had not responded to the show-cause notice, leading to cancellation of registration. Financial difficulties were accepted as a genuine explanation for the default. Revocation and restoration were made conditional upon enabling portal access, filing all pending returns, and payment of tax dues, interest, and belated-filing fees without adjustment against unutilised or unclaimed input tax credit. Any input tax credit may be utilised only after departmental scrutiny and approval.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was revoked and GST registration was directed to be restored, subject to the stipulated compliance conditions, in favour of the assessee.