Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on an allegation of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The differential demand arose from an audit-based verification of the assessee's books of account and invoices, with a prior departmental communication quantifying the liability. The record disclosed no material establishing deliberate suppression of facts or an intent to evade tax. Mere delayed payment and detection upon scrutiny of accounts were insufficient to invoke the extended period of limitation. A show-cause notice issued beyond the normal limitation period raises a jurisdictional challenge and cannot sustain the demand.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; the show-cause notice and consequential demand were time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether dumpers and tippers deployed for transportation integral to composite mining contracts qualify for higher depreciation as vehicles used in the business of running them on hire.

Analysis: Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and sub-item 2(ii) of Item III of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962 allow higher depreciation for motor lorries used in the business of running them on hire. CBDT Circulars No. 609 and No. 652 clarify that the benefit extends to motor lorries used in the assessee's own business of transporting goods on hire, but not in a non-hiring business. The contractual terms established that excavation, loading, transportation, dumping and related operations formed an integrated composite mining contract; the minerals and overburden belonged to the mine owners, and the assessee's dumpers and tippers were deployed to transport those materials under the contractual obligations. These facts brought the case within the applicable principle governing equipment and vehicles supplied on hire for mining and transportation operations, and were materially distinct from cases involving merely occasional hiring or vehicles used ancillary to a different principal business.

Conclusion: Dumpers and tippers used for transportation under the composite mining contracts were used in the business of running them on hire and qualified for depreciation at the higher rate of 30%.

Issues: Whether the 89-day delay in filing the statutory appeal against the assessment order should be condoned and the appellate rejection set aside.

Analysis: The appeal was rejected because it was filed beyond the condonable period. The explanation that the petitioner's accountant was seriously ill and therefore failed to access the portal and communicate the assessment order was accepted as genuine. The admitted recovery of 24.36% of the disputed tax was also taken into account while prescribing the deposit required for restoration of the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The delay of 89 days was condoned and the appellate rejection was set aside, subject to payment of the balance required to make up 25% of the disputed tax after adjusting the amount already recovered. The appellate authority must take the appeal on record and decide it on merits after affording personal hearing.

Outcome: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for consideration.

Issues: (i) Whether provision of a corporate guarantee to an associated enterprise was an international transaction and the applicable arm's-length guarantee fee; (ii) Whether sales commission paid to the US associated enterprise was subject to withholding tax and consequential disallowance; and (iii) Whether the Section 10AA deduction required fresh adjudication based on Form 56F and unit-wise profit computation.

Issue (i): Whether provision of a corporate guarantee to an associated enterprise was an international transaction and the applicable arm's-length guarantee fee.

Analysis: The Explanation to Section 92B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, expressly covers a guarantee issued for an associated enterprise as an international transaction. A corporate guarantee entails inherent risk and enhances the associated enterprise's creditworthiness, requiring arm's-length benchmarking. Precedents fixing the guarantee commission at 0.50% were followed.

Conclusion: The corporate guarantee is an international transaction, and the guarantee commission shall be computed at 0.50% instead of 1%, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether sales commission paid to the US associated enterprise was subject to withholding tax and consequential disallowance.

Analysis: Under Sections 195 and 40(a)(i), withholding is required only where the payment is chargeable to tax in India. The sales and marketing commission did not constitute Fees for Included Services under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The prior decision on identical facts in the assessee's case was followed, no change in law or facts having been shown.

Conclusion: The sales commission was not chargeable to tax in India; no withholding obligation arose, and the disallowance is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Section 10AA deduction required fresh adjudication based on Form 56F and unit-wise profit computation.

Analysis: The deduction was reduced by reallocating common expenditure on turnover basis despite the certified Form 56F, bifurcated profit and loss account, and detailed computation of unit-wise eligible profits. The identical issue for earlier years had been remitted for consideration of those materials, and a similar fresh examination was warranted.

Conclusion: The Section 10AA deduction claim is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering Form 56F, the bifurcated profit and loss statement, and the detailed computation of eligible profits.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustment is reduced and the sales-commission disallowance is removed, while the Section 10AA claim requires a fresh determination on the certified and supporting records.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice issued after omission of Rule 89(4B) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, without a saving clause, had statutory validity.

Analysis: Rule 89(4B) had been omitted by notification dated 08.10.2024 without any saving clause. Omission of a rule without a provision preserving pending or subsequent proceedings renders the omitted rule unavailable as a statutory basis for action. The impugned notice, issued on 02.12.2025 after the omission, was therefore unsupported by any extant statutory authority.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was non est in law and was quashed.

Issues: Whether the ITAT could reject a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by introducing new grounds and reappreciating matters beyond a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: Section 254(2) confines rectification jurisdiction to correcting a mistake apparent from the record and does not permit a review on merits or reappreciation of the matter. The rejection relied on new considerations concerning distributor confirmations and patterns of cash receipts, which did not form the basis of the rectification grounds or the original appellate order.

Conclusion: The ITAT exceeded its rectification jurisdiction under Section 254(2) in rejecting the application on new grounds, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the IT segment's AE and non-AE transactions could be separately benchmarked; (ii) Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment could be computed at entity level rather than confined to AE international transactions; (iii) Whether an upper turnover filter of Rs. 200 crore had to be applied in selecting IT comparables; and (iv) Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D was correctly computed.

Issue (i): Whether the IT segment's AE and non-AE transactions could be separately benchmarked.

Analysis: Under the TNMM, rule 10B(1)(e)(i) requires comparison of the net profit margin from the international transaction with the AE, while rule 10B(2) requires consideration of functions, assets and risks. The segmental profit and loss account formed part of the transfer-pricing study and was subsequently certified. Audit of segmental accounts is not mandatory, and the absence of audit did not justify rejection of the segmentation. The AE and non-AE segments had materially different risk profiles and margins; a blended margin distorted the tested international transaction. The same segmentation had also been accepted for the ITeS segment and in other years without any identified change in facts.

Conclusion: Segmentation of the AE and non-AE IT transactions must be accepted for benchmarking purposes, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment could be computed at entity level rather than confined to AE international transactions.

Analysis: Arm's length price determination concerns income arising from international transactions with AEs. An entity-level margin and adjustment that include domestic and other non-AE transactions do not measure the margin of the controlled international transaction.

Conclusion: Any transfer-pricing adjustment must be confined to AE international transactions and cannot be computed at entity level, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether an upper turnover filter of Rs. 200 crore had to be applied in selecting IT comparables.

Analysis: Turnover materially affects assets, risks, scale and operating margins. Large enterprises with substantially higher turnover are not comparable to a smaller captive service provider merely because they operate in the same broad software-services field.

Conclusion: An upper turnover filter of Rs. 200 crore must be applied while selecting comparables and recomputing the arm's length price, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D was correctly computed.

Analysis: The assessee's shareholder funds substantially exceeded its investments; therefore, interest expenditure was not liable to disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii). For rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments capable of yielding exempt income may be included, rather than all investments indiscriminately.

Conclusion: The interest-component disallowance is not warranted, and the indirect-expense component must be recomputed using only exempt-income-yielding investments after verification, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The arm's length price and the exempt-income expenditure disallowance require fresh computation on the stated segmental, comparability and investment bases.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the TNMM, benchmarking and any consequential transfer-pricing adjustment must be based on the AE international transaction, not on a blended entity-level margin that includes non-AE transactions having materially different functional and risk profiles.

Issues: Whether an ECIR under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can survive against the petitioners after quashing of the sole predicate FIR.

Analysis: The ECIR was founded solely on the FIR alleged to constitute the scheduled offence. Under Sections 2(1)(u) and 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, proceeds of crime must arise from criminal activity relating to a subsisting scheduled offence. Where the scheduled-offence case is quashed by a competent court, no money-laundering action can continue against the person in relation to property allegedly linked to that offence. Since the FIR had been quashed and no scheduled offence remained against the petitioners, the Enforcement Directorate lacked jurisdiction to continue proceedings under the ECIR against them.

Conclusion: The ECIR was quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioners, their directors, partners, employees and shareholders.

Outcome: The special leave petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and merits.

Issues: Whether an appeal against an advance ruling may determine the classification of a materially different product on the basis of revised packaging and a post-ruling test report that were not before the original Authority.

Analysis: The scope of appellate jurisdiction under Sections 100(1) and 101(1) is confined to the advance ruling and the factual foundation on which it was rendered; it does not permit a new case at appellate stage or an original determination on a materially altered factual matrix. The subsequently produced soap differed in physical appearance, description and packaging from the product originally presented as laundry soap. The later test report did not identify the relevant batch, manufacture details or other particulars establishing that the tested sample was the original product. No contemporaneous technical or manufacturing material established identity or equivalence between the two products.

Conclusion: No. The subsequently presented product and later test report could not be substituted for the product and record underlying the advance ruling, and its classification was not determined in the appeal.

Outcome: Delay condoned and the Special Leave Petition dismissed; the question of law was kept open.

Issues: Whether reassessment may be initiated on the same transfer-pricing material after the Assessing Officer failed to pass a final assessment order within the statutory period following a draft assessment order.

Analysis: The draft assessment order had proposed a transfer-pricing adjustment after detailed scrutiny, and the assessee had communicated that it would not approach the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Assessing Officer did not pass the consequential final assessment order within the period prescribed under the statutory framework. The subsequent proceedings under sections 148A and 148 were founded on the identical transfer-pricing adjustment and material already considered in the scrutiny proceedings; no fresh material was shown to have emerged. Reassessment cannot be used to overcome or indirectly extend the limitation resulting from failure to complete the original assessment.

Conclusion: Reassessment on the same material, after the original assessment proceedings lapsed for want of a final assessment order within limitation, was impermissible.

Issues: Whether respondents to customs appeals could be excluded from participation at the admission stage and denied an opportunity to raise the appeals' maintainability despite their prior admission.

Analysis: The appeals had already been admitted before the scheduled admission hearing, while no interim relief had been granted. Procedural fairness required that the affected respondents be permitted to participate in the appellate proceedings and raise all legally permissible contentions, including the objection to maintainability. Admission of the appeals did not preclude an expeditious consideration of their maintainability.

Conclusion: The petitioners are entitled to participate in the High Court appeals and raise the issue of maintainability, which must be considered expeditiously notwithstanding admission of the appeals.

Issues: Whether assessment orders could stand where show-cause notices were uploaded only on the GST portal, the taxpayer did not respond, and no personal hearing was afforded.

Analysis: Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises portal uploading as a valid mode of service. However, where repeated portal notices elicit no response, the officer must explore other prescribed modes, preferably registered post, to ensure effective service rather than merely complete a procedural formality. Confirmation of the show-cause proposals without a personal hearing in those circumstances denied an effective opportunity to respond.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment orders were invalid for want of effective service and an opportunity of personal hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether writ jurisdiction could be exercised despite the alternative remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal when ineffective communication and breach of natural justice were alleged; (ii) Whether rejection of the statutory appeal as time-barred was sustainable where the adjudication order was uploaded under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab and the delay explanation was not addressed.

Issue (i): Whether writ jurisdiction could be exercised despite the alternative remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal when ineffective communication and breach of natural justice were alleged.

Analysis: Article 226 of the Constitution of India permits exercise of writ jurisdiction notwithstanding an alternative remedy where breach of natural justice is alleged. The challenge concerned the effective communication of the adjudication order and the appellate rejection of the appeal on limitation, warranting consideration under writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The existence of a further appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction in the circumstances alleged.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the statutory appeal as time-barred was sustainable where the adjudication order was uploaded under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab and the delay explanation was not addressed.

Analysis: Section 107(1) of the CGST and MGST Acts makes limitation run from communication of the decision. Communication requires sufficient knowledge of the decision to enable an effective statutory remedy. Uploading the order under a tab not designated for notices and orders did not establish such communication; routine filing of returns through the portal could not establish knowledge of an order placed there. The appellate order also failed to disclose reasons for rejecting the explanation for delay.

Conclusion: The limitation dismissal could not stand; the delay was condoned and the statutory appeal was restored for a merits decision after personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The statutory appeal must receive adjudication on merits upon application of the communication requirement under section 107(1), without any pronouncement on the underlying tax demand or the alleged denial of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under section 107(1), an order uploaded on a non-designated portal tab is not effectively communicated unless it imparts sufficient knowledge to enable effective pursuit of the statutory remedy; routine portal use for filing returns cannot substitute for such communication.

Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning the 20-day delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: Section 260A(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits admission of an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period where sufficient cause is established. A justice-oriented and pragmatic approach applies to short delays, while considering the conduct of the applicant and the need to advance substantial justice. The delay was short, arose in the governmental approval process, and the appeal was filed promptly after approval; the circumstances did not disclose lethargy or dilatory conduct.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was established, and the 20-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

Issues: Whether a deduction for a provision made towards an approved gratuity fund was allowable under Section 40A(7)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether revision under Section 263 could be invoked by applying the actual-payment requirement under Section 43B(b).

Analysis: Section 40A(1) contains a non obstante clause, and Section 40A(7)(a) disallows provisions for gratuity except where the provision falls within Section 40A(7)(b), which specifically covers contributions towards an approved gratuity fund. Section 43B(b) applies generally to gratuity-related deductions on an actual-payment basis. Since Section 40A(7)(b) specifically addresses approved gratuity funds whereas Section 43B refers generally to gratuity funds, the provisions are reconcilable and the specific provision prevails over the general provision. The contrary disallowance view therefore involved a debatable issue and could not sustain revisionary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The provision towards contribution to an approved gratuity fund was deductible under Section 40A(7)(b), and revision under Section 263 on the basis of Section 43B(b) was not sustainable. The issue was resolved in favour of the assessee.