Issues: (i) Whether refund of reversed Cenvat credit can be denied solely because the original invoices are unavailable and the credit is supported by photocopies of invoices; (ii) Whether a refund claim is inadmissible merely because it is not consequent upon an earlier appellate order.

Issue (i): Whether refund of reversed Cenvat credit can be denied solely because the original invoices are unavailable and the credit is supported by photocopies of invoices.

Analysis: Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 requires prescribed documents to establish duty payment, receipt of goods, identity of the recipient and protection against duplicate or fraudulent credit. However, loss or non-availability of an original invoice does not invariably defeat credit where the defect is satisfactorily explained and the duty-paid nature of the goods, their receipt and use, and eligibility to credit are independently established. The photocopies were not found fabricated or unreliable, and there was no allegation or evidence of fraud, manipulation, or duplicate availment. The factual genuineness and admissibility of the credit had been verified and concurrently accepted.

Conclusion: Otherwise admissible Cenvat credit cannot be denied solely for non-production of original invoices where the underlying transaction is genuine and independently verified.

Issue (ii): Whether a refund claim is inadmissible merely because it is not consequent upon an earlier appellate order.

Analysis: Reversal of credit following an audit objection is not a final adjudication of inadmissibility. A subsequent claim for refund or re-credit requires independent determination on its substantive merits under the applicable statutory framework; the absence of a prior appellate order does not determine the claim's admissibility.

Conclusion: A refund claim is not inadmissible merely because it does not arise from an earlier appellate order.

Final Conclusion: The refund of credit found substantively eligible after verification of the duty-paid transaction remains legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural deficiency in the prescribed credit document does not extinguish substantively established Cenvat credit where the transaction is genuine, independently verified, and free from fraud or duplicate availment.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice invoking the extended limitation under Section 74, based on alleged input-tax-credit mismatch and short payment, was sustainable without pleaded foundational facts establishing fraud, wilful misrepresentation, or suppression of facts.

Analysis: Section 73 permits proceedings in cases not involving fraud, wilful misrepresentation, or suppression, subject to the prescribed limitation linked to the annual return under Section 44 and Rule 80. The limitation under Section 73(10) concerns passing the order, while Section 73(2) requires issuance of notice at least three months before that deadline. The pandemic-related exclusion did not preserve the notice issued after 28.02.2025 under the ordinary limitation. Section 74 permits the longer period only upon satisfaction that fraud, wilful misrepresentation, or suppression caused the tax shortfall or excess credit. An audit objection does not substitute the Assessing Officer's independent satisfaction. The notice contained only a bare assertion of suppression, without facts demonstrating a deliberate device to evade tax or avail excess credit; the Department's reference of the audit objection to the Public Accounts Committee further indicated absence of such satisfaction. Explanation 2 to Section 74, having been omitted from 01.11.2024, could not support the allegation. A protective demand is not a statutory measure under the GST regime.

Conclusion: The notice could not validly invoke Section 74, and the consequential adjudication was unsustainable for want of foundational facts supporting fraud, wilful misrepresentation, or suppression. Fresh proceedings under Section 74 remain permissible only if a notice discloses the requisite foundational facts and the order is made within the remaining extended period.

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue appeal was maintainable where the amount involved was below the monetary threshold prescribed for departmental appeals; (ii) Whether amendment of exported shipping bills from "NO" to "YES" for pursuing MEIS benefit was permissible under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue appeal was maintainable where the amount involved was below the monetary threshold prescribed for departmental appeals.

Analysis: No customs duty, interest, fine or penalty was involved. Even treating the asserted MEIS entitlement as the disputed amount, its value was Rs. 47,19,103/-, below the Rs. 50,00,000/- threshold prescribed for Customs appeals before CESTAT. The dispute did not fall within any identified exception to the monetary-limit policy, and Section 131BA required due regard to such Board instructions.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable under the applicable monetary-limit instruction, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether amendment of exported shipping bills from "NO" to "YES" for pursuing MEIS benefit was permissible under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 149 permits post-export amendment where it is supported by documentary evidence existing at the time of export. During the relevant export period, the provision contained no prescribed limitation period; the subsequently introduced restriction could not be applied retrospectively. Repeated "NO" declarations, delay, and possible fiscal consequences were relevant to discretion but did not create an absolute bar. Amendment of the shipping bills does not itself confer MEIS benefit, which remains subject to independent scrutiny by the competent authority under the applicable scheme.

Conclusion: Amendment under Section 149 was legally permissible, subject to the statutory requirement of contemporaneous documentary evidence, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order permitting the respondent to seek amendment of the shipping bills remains operative, while entitlement to MEIS benefit must be determined independently by the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A post-export amendment of customs documents under Section 149 cannot be denied solely because it may facilitate a fiscal incentive claim or because a later-introduced limitation period is invoked; the governing test is whether contemporaneous documentary evidence supports the amendment under the law applicable at the time of export.

Issues: (i) Whether imported natural rubber latex balloons were classifiable as toy balloons under Customs Tariff Heading 9503 rather than as inflatable rubber articles under Customs Tariff Heading 4016 or festive or entertainment articles under Customs Tariff Heading 9505; (ii) Whether penalties for wilful misclassification and wrongful availment of customs-duty exemption were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether imported natural rubber latex balloons were classifiable as toy balloons under Customs Tariff Heading 9503 rather than as inflatable rubber articles under Customs Tariff Heading 4016 or festive or entertainment articles under Customs Tariff Heading 9505.

Analysis: Heading 4016 is a residual, material-based heading for vulcanised-rubber articles not covered elsewhere, whereas Heading 9503 provides the specific functional classification for toys. The HSN Explanatory Notes expressly include toy balloons in Heading 9503 and are a safe guide to tariff interpretation. Under Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation, the terms of the heading and applicable notes govern classification before recourse to general or residual entries. The explanation inserted by Notification No. 02/2021-Customs also clarifies that toy balloons made of natural rubber latex fall under Heading 9503. Heading 9505 covers festive and carnival articles but does not include latex toy balloons; prior classification of differently described decorative or foil balloons did not govern the classification of the goods in issue.

Conclusion: The balloons are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 9503 as toy balloons, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties for wilful misclassification and wrongful availment of customs-duty exemption were sustainable.

Analysis: The record showed that identical goods had initially been classified under Heading 9503, followed by changes to Headings 4016 and 9505. The proprietor admitted requesting suppliers to alter classification in shipping documents. The change from Heading 9503 to Heading 4016 was linked to avoiding BIS requirements, and the goods were described by a supplier as toy latex balloons. The inconsistent classifications and incorrect availment of exemption established malafide intent rather than a bona fide classification dispute.

Conclusion: The penalties are sustainable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reclassification, consequential differential-duty liability, and penal consequences remain enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are specifically covered by a functional tariff heading and the HSN Explanatory Notes, classification under that specific heading prevails over a general, material-based residual heading.

Issues: (i) Whether enhancement of the declared customs value of imported wall paper from USD 2.2 per kg to USD 3.5 per kg was lawful; (ii) Whether the assessment of a separate Bill of Entry could be quashed because no speaking order was issued following remand.

Issue (i): Whether enhancement of the declared customs value of imported wall paper from USD 2.2 per kg to USD 3.5 per kg was lawful.

Analysis: The declared transaction value was rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 on the basis of higher values of comparable imports available in the National Import Database. The reassessment under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 applied Rule 5 by relying on contemporaneous imports of wall paper at the same commercial level, quantity and country of origin. Of the comparable imports, USD 3.5 per kg was the lowest value. The prior self-assessed import relied upon was not comparable in time, and the available import documents did not establish a material difference in the description or specifications of the goods.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value to USD 3.5 per kg was valid, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment of a separate Bill of Entry could be quashed because no speaking order was issued following remand.

Analysis: Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires issuance of a speaking order. The assessment had already been remanded with a direction to issue such order after affording a personal hearing. In those circumstances, the pending obligation to issue the directed speaking order did not justify quashing the assessment; recourse lay before the concerned customs authority for implementation of the remand direction.

Conclusion: Quashing of the assessment was not warranted, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The comparable-import valuation stands sustained, while the separate remanded assessment remains subject to issuance of the required speaking order by the competent customs authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a declared transaction value is validly rejected on reasonable doubt, customs value may be redetermined from the lowest reliable contemporaneous transaction value of comparable imports satisfying the prescribed criteria.

Issues: (i) Whether the corporate debtor's application for initiation of CIRP under Section 10 was liable to be rejected as a malicious use of the insolvency process; (ii) Whether the monetary penalty imposed upon the corporate debtor required interference on proportionality grounds.

Issue (i): Whether the corporate debtor's application for initiation of CIRP under Section 10 was liable to be rejected as a malicious use of the insolvency process.

Analysis: Section 10 permits a corporate debtor to seek insolvency resolution, but the Adjudicating Authority must assess whether the application is a bona fide attempt at resolution and is not being used to frustrate creditor recovery. The filing followed commencement of recovery measures, while substantial hypothecated plant and machinery was found missing, no satisfactory explanation or supporting fixed-asset records were furnished, and the corporate debtor had no meaningful receivables or immovable assets. These circumstances supported the finding that the application sought a moratorium to obstruct recovery proceedings rather than to achieve genuine resolution.

Conclusion: The rejection of the Section 10 application was justified; the application was initiated with malicious intent and amounted to abuse of the insolvency process. This issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the monetary penalty imposed upon the corporate debtor required interference on proportionality grounds.

Analysis: A penalty for fraudulent conduct must be supported by reasons demonstrating the nature and magnitude of the conduct and must conform to the principle of proportionality. The record did not disclose reasons justifying the quantum of Rs. 10 lakh, notwithstanding the finding of malicious intent.

Conclusion: The penalty was excessive and was reduced from Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh. This issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The finding that the insolvency application was a mala fide attempt to secure protection from creditor recovery remains operative, while the financial sanction is recalibrated to a proportionate amount.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for corporate insolvency resolution may be rejected where the surrounding conduct establishes that it is a fraudulent or malicious device to defeat creditor recovery, and any resulting penalty must be reasoned and proportionate.

Issues: Whether admission of an application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process could be sustained when the outstanding financial debt on the date of the admission order was below the statutory default threshold.

Analysis: The admitted payment records showed that the corporate debtor had repaid Rs. 2.25 crore of the principal debt before the admission order. The remaining amount of Rs. 93,88,310 was below the threshold of Rs. 1 crore. The financial creditors had received those payments but had not placed that material fact before the Adjudicating Authority before the order was made. Consequently, the prerequisite default amount for admission under Section 7 was not present on the relevant date.

Conclusion: The admission of the insolvency application was legally unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the appellant.

Issues: (i) Whether detention of imported goods through a panchnama, without a contemporaneous statutory seizure or restraint order, permits the customs authorities to defer the limitation period for issuing confiscation notice; (ii) Whether the conditions imposed for provisional release on the basis of the circular were valid.

Issue (i): Whether detention of imported goods through a panchnama, without a contemporaneous statutory seizure or restraint order, permits the customs authorities to defer the limitation period for issuing confiscation notice.

Analysis: Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires the proper officer to record reasons to believe that goods are liable to confiscation. Where physical seizure is impracticable, the provisos require a statutory order governing custody or restraining dealings with the goods. Instruction No. 01/2017-Cus. dated 08.02.2017 likewise requires an appropriate seizure order, in addition to a panchnama, recording such reasons. A panchnama directing the importer not to deal with the vehicle was only detention and could not substitute the required statutory order.

Analysis: The seizure memo was issued more than a year after detention, followed by the confiscation notice. The authorities could not retain the vehicle indefinitely under the label of detention and then restart the limitation period by issuing a delayed seizure memo. The six-month period, with only the permissible further extension contemplated by Section 110(2), stood exhausted from the detention.

Conclusion: The delayed seizure memo and consequential confiscation notice could not sustain continued retention of the vehicle, which was required to be released.

Issue (ii): Whether the conditions imposed for provisional release on the basis of the circular were valid.

Analysis: The provisional-release conditions requiring a bond and bank guarantee were founded on paragraph 2 of Circular No. 35/2017-Customs dated 16.08.2017. That paragraph had been set aside to the extent it curtailed the adjudicating authority's discretion. Reliance on the invalidated paragraph rendered the conditions unsustainable.

Conclusion: The provisional-release order and its conditions were illegal.

Final Conclusion: Customs authorities must exercise seizure powers through the statutory procedure and cannot use prolonged detention without a valid order to defeat the prescribed time limits; the vehicle must be released within two weeks, with costs imposed on the authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: A panchnama-based detention cannot replace a reasoned statutory seizure or restraint order under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the authorities cannot defer the statutory limitation for confiscation proceedings by subsequently issuing a seizure memo after prolonged detention.

Issues: Whether the revision of the block assessment was sustainable when the assessment order was found not to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Analysis: The revisional order was based on alleged non-consideration of seized entries concerning cash loans and interest. Section 263 requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Loss of revenue alone, or disagreement with a permissible view taken by the Assessing Officer, does not justify revision. The decision rests on the Tribunal's factual findings concerning the assessment.

Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable. The question was answered in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Revision of an assessment requires both an error in the assessment order and resulting prejudice to the interests of the Revenue.

Issues: Whether a retrospective statutory amendment introduced after the Tribunal's original order constitutes a mistake apparent from the record permitting recall or rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The original order was rendered under the law prevailing at that time and had quashed the reassessment notice for want of jurisdiction. The subsequent insertion of Section 147A by the Finance Act, 2026, even with retrospective operation, could not retrospectively convert the concluded order into an apparent error. The restoration liberty in the original order was contingent on final settlement of the issue by the Supreme Court, which had not occurred. The rectification power is confined to an apparent mistake and cannot be used to review a concluded decision on the basis of a subsequent legislative development.

Conclusion: The subsequent retrospective amendment did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; recall of the original order was not permissible.

Issues: Whether disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt dividend income must be computed only with reference to investments that yielded exempt income.

Analysis: Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 requires the disallowance to be confined to investments that actually generated income not forming part of total income. Inclusion of the entire investment portfolio for this purpose was not justified. The assessee's computation based on the average value of dividend-yielding investments was required to be verified.

Conclusion: The disallowance is restricted to Rs.59,793, subject to verification by the Assessing Officer, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be quashed in writ jurisdiction despite the statutory adjudicatory process under Section 8; (ii) Whether income-tax findings accepting the explanation for cash used in acquiring the property precluded an inquiry or attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (iii) Whether the alleged defective composition of the Adjudicating Authority rendered the prior provisional attachment void.

Issue (i): Whether a provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be quashed in writ jurisdiction despite the statutory adjudicatory process under Section 8.

Analysis: Section 5(1) permits provisional attachment on recorded reasons to believe founded on material in the authorised officer's possession. Section 8 provides for notice, reply, hearing and adjudication on whether the property is involved in money-laundering, followed by appellate remedies. Judicial review may test the existence of relevant material and the legality of the decision-making process, but not undertake a mini-trial on the sufficiency, truth or probative value of disputed evidence. The material referred to in the attachment order, including statements concerning cash payments and the acquisition of the property, was sufficient to negate a contention that there was no material or jurisdictional foundation at all.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment was not liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction, and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether income-tax findings accepting the explanation for cash used in acquiring the property precluded an inquiry or attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Income-tax proceedings determine whether an investment, expenditure or cash component is unexplained for taxation purposes, whereas proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 determine whether property was directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Acceptance of a cash explanation in income-tax proceedings does not establish its criminal provenance or grant immunity from an inquiry under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The material relied upon for the attachment, including statements recorded after the income-tax orders, had not been adjudicated in those proceedings. The absence of a banking trail was not conclusive where the alleged transactions were stated to have been conducted in cash; the competing explanations of source and nexus required evidentiary adjudication under Section 8.

Conclusion: The income-tax findings did not bar the money-laundering inquiry or provisional attachment, and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged defective composition of the Adjudicating Authority rendered the prior provisional attachment void.

Analysis: The provisional attachment was made by an authorised officer under Section 5(1), while proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 are subsequent and distinct. Section 6(5) contemplates exercise of jurisdiction through Benches constituted with the Chairperson and one or two Members. In any event, a challenge concerning the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority is severable from the validity of the prior attachment; a defect in the subsequent adjudicatory forum cannot retrospectively invalidate an independent attachment order. Interim orders in pending proceedings concerning the Authority's composition did not furnish a final contrary declaration of law.

Conclusion: The objection concerning the composition of the Adjudicating Authority did not invalidate the provisional attachment, and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The statutory adjudicatory mechanism remains the forum for determination of the provenance of the cash, the alleged nexus with proceeds of crime, and the ultimate character of the attached property.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is founded on relevant material and statutory adjudication under Section 8 is available, writ jurisdiction cannot be used to resolve disputed questions concerning the criminal provenance and nexus of the property; a subsequent objection to the Adjudicating Authority's composition does not retrospectively invalidate the attachment.

Issues: Whether gains arising from investments in shares and securities, including transactions made through a portfolio management service, are taxable as capital gains or business income.

Analysis: Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 15.06.2007 require the character of share transactions to be determined from the totality of relevant circumstances, including the assessee's conduct, the nature of holdings, frequency and volume of transactions, and whether the securities were held as investments or stock-in-trade. A portfolio management service is a professionally managed investment mechanism in which securities remain directly owned by the investor; transactions executed by the portfolio manager do not, by themselves, establish that the investor carries on a share-trading business. The investment character must be determined holistically rather than solely from the number of transactions undertaken by the portfolio manager.

Conclusion: Gains from the disputed share and securities transactions, including short-term gains arising through the portfolio management service, are taxable as capital gains and not as business income.

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated under Section 153C after delayed recording of the satisfaction note, following completion of assessments of the searched persons under Section 153A, were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The satisfaction note was recorded 24 months after completion of the Section 153A assessments of the searched persons. Applying the binding jurisdictional precedent and the Tribunal's earlier decision on materially identical facts, the requisite satisfaction and consequential action under Section 153C must be undertaken immediately after, or contemporaneously with, completion of the searched person's assessment. A delay of 24 months was inordinate and did not satisfy this jurisdictional requirement.

Conclusion: The Section 153C proceedings were barred by limitation; the consequential assessments were invalid and liable to be quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether payment made pursuant to a revised Form-3, which prescribed a deadline already expired when it was issued, satisfied the payment requirement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and required issuance of Form-5.

Analysis: The revised Form-3 was issued on 29.10.2021 but required payment by 30.09.2021, making literal compliance impossible. Section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 requires determination and certification of the payable amount, while Section 5(2) permits payment within fifteen days of receipt of that certificate followed by intimation to the designated authority. The declarant paid the revised determined amount on the following day and submitted Form-4, thereby complying with the statutory period.

Conclusion: The payment validly complied with Section 5(2); the demand and interest founded on alleged non-compliance with the impossible deadline were unsustainable, and the designated authority was required to record payment and issue Form-5.

Issues: Whether licensing receipts characterised as royalty and received from non-resident customers were taxable in India under Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 13(2) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, having regard to the source rule in Article 13(7).

Analysis: Under Section 90(2), domestic-law chargeability must first be established before determining whether the treaty restricts taxation. For royalty payable by a non-resident, Section 9(1)(vi)(c) requires that the licensed right, property or information be used for the payer's business carried on in India or for earning income from an identifiable Indian source. Inclusion of India in a multi-territorial licence, without customer-specific material identifying the payer's Indian business or Indian-source income and its connection with the royalty payment, does not establish that statutory nexus. Explanation 5 to Section 9(1)(vi) permits direct or indirect commercial use but does not dispense with these source conditions or the Revenue's burden to establish them.

Analysis: Article 13(6), concerning effective connection with the recipient's permanent establishment, operates separately from Article 13(7), which concerns the payer's residence or permanent establishment for determining the situs of royalty. On the factual premise that declarations establishing the absence of Indian permanent establishments or fixed bases of the non-resident payers were available, and absent contrary material, the cumulative conditions in the second limb of Article 13(7) were not met. Even if Article 13(2) could operate independently of Article 13(7), domestic-law deemed accrual under Section 9(1)(vi)(c) was not established on the record.

Conclusion: Subject to limited verification of the no-permanent-establishment declarations, the licensing receipts from non-resident customers cannot be taxed in India under Section 9(1)(vi)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or Article 13(2) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer-pricing comparable set under the Transactional Net Margin Method was correctly determined; (ii) Whether the draft and final assessment orders were barred by limitation or without jurisdiction; (iii) Whether the assessment was vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice; (iv) Whether foreign tax credit is available in respect of income exempt under section 10AA.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer-pricing comparable set under the Transactional Net Margin Method was correctly determined.

Analysis: Rule 10B(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 requires functional comparability through a functions, assets and risks analysis. The Transactional Net Margin Method tolerates routine differences in costs, turnover, and similar commercial factors, but does not dispense with the threshold requirement that the tested party and comparable undertake broadly similar activities. Entities deriving revenue from software products, licensing, specialised design services, or proprietary intellectual property, without reliable segmental data, cannot be benchmarked at entity level against a routine software-support and information-technology-enabled-services provider for arm's-length analysis.

Analysis: The exclusion of four functionally dissimilar comparables was justified. The retention of the comparable having an alternative accounting year was also justified because it satisfied the relevant functional and turnover filters and audited quarterly results enabled financial-year recomputation. The rejection of the assessee-selected comparables was supportable on account of divergent functions, inadequate export turnover, specialised activities, or absence of segmental results. Verification directions concerning three other candidates under the related-party-transaction, persistent-loss, and data-availability filters were properly maintained.

Conclusion: The comparable-set determination and the verification directions are sustained; no further exclusion or inclusion is warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the draft and final assessment orders were barred by limitation or without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Following a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, the draft assessment was made within the extended statutory period. The final assessment also followed the Dispute Resolution Panel's treatment of the objections as invalid within the period prescribed by section 144C(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The assessment orders are within limitation and valid; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessment was vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The record established that notice, opportunity to file written submissions, and an effective hearing were afforded, and that the comparable-company objections received company-wise consideration.

Conclusion: There was no breach of the principles of natural justice; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether foreign tax credit is available in respect of income exempt under section 10AA.

Analysis: Income eligible for deduction or exemption under section 10AA remains income chargeable to tax and included in total income for the relevant statutory purpose. Foreign Tax Credit under sections 90 and 91 is consequently not denied merely because the corresponding income is exempt in India. The applicable treaty ceiling, limiting credit to Indian tax attributable to income taxable in the source State, continues to govern the computation.

Conclusion: Foreign tax credit must be recomputed by including income exempt under section 10AA, subject to the applicable treaty ceiling; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The first appellate determinations on transfer-pricing comparability and foreign-tax-credit computation remain operative.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Transactional Net Margin Method, tolerance of routine commercial differences does not override the requirement of functional comparability under Rule 10B(2); entities with materially different functions or unavailable segmental data cannot be adopted as comparables.

Issues: Whether rectification under section 154 to recompute interest under section 234A was valid where the return had been filed within the time extended during the COVID-19 period.

Analysis: E-verification of a return relates back to its original filing date and cannot cause the return to be regarded as filed only on the verification date. The return was filed within the period extended for compliances during the COVID-19 pandemic; consequently, the premise for charging interest was erroneous.

Conclusion: No interest under section 234A was leviable, and the rectification order under section 154 was illegal and unsustainable.

Issues: Whether a recovery plaint could be rejected as ex facie barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, despite signed balance confirmations and deductions and deposits of tax at source relating to the loan transaction.

Analysis: Rejection of a plaint on limitation is permissible only where the bar is apparent from a meaningful reading of the plaint and its relied-upon documents. Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 require consideration of acknowledgments and payments that may affect computation of limitation. Signed balance confirmations and tax deducted at source and deposited to the creditor's account, including deductions up to 31.03.2015, raised a triable issue as to acknowledgment and payment on account of the debt. The binding jurisdictional precedent recognised that deposit of tax deducted at source against the relevant transaction may constitute payment for purposes of Section 19. The ultimate evidentiary and legal effect of the documents requires determination on evidence and cannot be conclusively resolved at the threshold.

Conclusion: The suit was not liable to rejection at the threshold on limitation, and no jurisdictional error or patent illegality was established in the refusal to reject the plaint.

Issues: Whether the enhanced turnover threshold for composition levy applied to the petitioner's 2018-19 tax period.

Analysis: The enhanced composition-levy threshold arose from the amendment to the proviso to Section 10(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Notification No. 02/2019-Central Tax dated 29.01.2019 did not make the enhanced threshold available for the relevant tax period. The corresponding implementation through Notification No. 14/2019-Central Tax dated 07.03.2019 took effect from 01.04.2019, applying only to the succeeding tax period.

Conclusion: The enhanced composition-levy threshold was unavailable for the 2018-19 tax period; the issue is decided against the assessee.