Issues: (i) Whether a notification under Section 90(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is mandatory for giving effect to a DTAA or protocol that alters the existing domestic legal position; (ii) whether an MFN clause in an earlier DTAA operates automatically to import a later beneficial treaty provision or requires a separate notification; (iii) whether, for an MFN clause using the word "is", the relevant OECD membership must exist when the third-state treaty is entered into with India.

Issue (i): Whether a notification under Section 90(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is mandatory for giving effect to a DTAA or protocol that alters the existing domestic legal position.

Analysis: The treaty-making power of the Union and the power of Parliament to implement treaties were distinguished. A treaty or protocol does not, by its own force, become enforceable in municipal law. Section 90 is the enabling provision through which the Central Government may notify an agreement and thereby make it operational in India. The Court relied on settled precedent to hold that, absent such notification, treaty obligations that affect domestic rights do not become enforceable against assessees.

Conclusion: A notification under Section 90(1) is necessary before a DTAA or protocol altering tax liability can be given effect in India.

Issue (ii): Whether an MFN clause in an earlier DTAA operates automatically to import a later beneficial treaty provision or requires a separate notification.

Analysis: The Court examined India's treaty practice with the Netherlands, France and Switzerland, and held that the earlier treaties and protocols did not self-execute in domestic law. The beneficial treatment granted in later treaties with OECD member States had always been implemented through express notifications under Section 90. The Court held that an MFN clause may create an international obligation, but the corresponding domestic effect in India still requires formal notification when the clause changes the existing legal position.

Conclusion: The MFN clause does not automatically incorporate the later beneficial provision into the earlier DTAA; a separate notification under Section 90 is required.

Issue (iii): Whether, for an MFN clause using the word "is", the relevant OECD membership must exist when the third-state treaty is entered into with India.

Analysis: The Court held that the word "is" bears present signification and must be read contextually. On that construction, the third State must be an OECD member when it enters into the relevant treaty with India if the earlier treaty beneficiary seeks parity under the MFN clause. Later acquisition of OECD membership by that third State does not satisfy the treaty condition. The Court rejected the view that the clause could be triggered by later OECD membership after the third-state treaty had already been concluded.

Conclusion: The relevant date is when India enters into the treaty with the third State, and the third State must be an OECD member on that date.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgments were set aside, the Revenue's appeals were allowed, and the assessees were held not entitled to automatic MFN-based relief without a fresh notification under Section 90.

Ratio Decidendi: A treaty or protocol that changes tax liability is enforceable in India only upon notification under Section 90, and an MFN clause does not by itself import later treaty benefits into an earlier DTAA unless the treaty condition is satisfied on the relevant date and the domestic law is duly notified.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were sustainable in law. (ii) Whether the impugned receipts were taxable in India or eligible for protection under Article 8 of the India-Singapore DTAA.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were sustainable in law.

Analysis: The challenge to reassessment was found to be covered by the Tribunal's earlier common order in the assessee's own case for other assessment years. No change in material facts was shown. The earlier decision had held that the reassessment proceedings and the assessment framed pursuant to them were unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment were held to be invalid and quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned receipts were taxable in India or eligible for protection under Article 8 of the India-Singapore DTAA.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier view on the same receipts and held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Article 8 of the treaty. On that basis, the document and vessel handling charges were not taxable in India in the assessee's hands.

Conclusion: The receipts were held to be not taxable in India in the hands of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on both the jurisdictional and substantive grounds, and the stay request became infructuous.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material facts are unchanged and an earlier binding view in the assessee's own case covers the controversy, reassessment cannot be sustained, and treaty protection under Article 8 excludes taxation of the relevant receipts in India.

Issues: (i) Whether the transaction documents created an assignment of receivables in favour of the lender or merely a security interest by way of pledge; (ii) Whether the receivables constituted actionable claims capable of transfer and therefore fell outside the asset freeze order.

Issue (i): Whether the transaction documents created an assignment of receivables in favour of the lender or merely a security interest by way of pledge.

Analysis: The documents were executed contemporaneously and had to be read together. The facility agreement, escrow agreement, assignment and administration agreement, and power of attorney all showed that the borrower had undertaken to assign the receivables sufficient to meet the principal and interest due under the facility. The use of the word "pledge" in parts of the documentation did not change the substance of the arrangement. Applying the settled rule that the nature of a transaction depends on its substance and not its label, the arrangement was an absolute assignment of the relevant receivables and not a mere security interest.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent; the arrangement was held to be an assignment.

Issue (ii): Whether the receivables constituted actionable claims capable of transfer and therefore fell outside the asset freeze order.

Analysis: Future rent receivables were held to be claims to debt and therefore actionable claims within the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Such claims are transferable by written instrument, and once assigned, the transferee acquires the relevant rights. The freeze order operated against the assets of the borrower, but the assigned receivables no longer remained the borrower's property to that extent. The borrower retained only the residual balance beyond the amount necessary to satisfy the facility liability.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent; the assigned receivables were transferable actionable claims and were outside the freeze order to the extent assigned.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the Court accepted the lender's characterization of the transaction as an assignment of receivables and upheld the NCLAT's view on the nature and effect of the assigned rent streams.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contemporaneous financing documents, read as a whole, show an unconditional transfer of receivables to secure repayment, the transfer is an assignment of an actionable claim and not a mere pledge or security interest; the assignee acquires rights to the assigned receivables, which cease to remain the transferor's assets to that extent.

Issues: (i) whether the arbitral award granting loss of profit could be sustained in the absence of credible evidence; (ii) whether the award was liable to be interfered with as being in conflict with the public policy of India and contrary to the binding remand directions of the High Court.

Issue (i): whether the arbitral award granting loss of profit could be sustained in the absence of credible evidence.

Analysis: A claim for loss of profit in a delayed contract is not established merely by showing prolongation of the work. The claimant must prove that, had the contract been completed in time, it could have deployed its resources elsewhere and earned profit, and that such loss is supported by credible evidence. Formulae such as Hudson's formula may assist in quantification, but they cannot substitute proof of the underlying loss. On the record, the required evidence of alternative opportunities and actual loss of profitability was not produced.

Conclusion: The claim for loss of profit was not proved and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether the award was liable to be interfered with as being in conflict with the public policy of India and contrary to the binding remand directions of the High Court.

Analysis: An arbitral award that disregards the evidence-led basis required by law, or effectively ates an earlier set-aside award despite a limited remand, is vulnerable under the public policy and patent illegality standards. A subordinate adjudicator must abide by the binding effect of a superior court's determination, and an award that seeks to overreach such direction, while resting on no evidence, is perverse and contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.

Conclusion: The award was rightly interfered with as being perverse and in conflict with the public policy of India.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the arbitral award failed, and the rejection of the loss-of-profit claim was upheld with costs left undisturbed except as eased by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for loss of profit in delayed-contract disputes succeeds only on credible evidence of actual lost opportunity, and an arbitral award that grants such compensation without proof, or in disregard of binding remand directions, is perverse and liable to be set aside for patent illegality and conflict with public policy.

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of an ECIR and restraint against coercive action was maintainable and ripe for adjudication when the petitioner was not named as an accused in the predicate FIR or the ECIR, and whether the availability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred such writ relief.

Analysis: The petition was directed against summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and sought quashing of the ECIR, though the ECIR was not on record and the petitioner was not named as an accused in the predicate FIR, the ECIR, or the prosecution complaint. Section 50 confers summons and inquiry powers, while the power of arrest lies separately under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; a summons under Section 50 does not itself authorise arrest. The court further held that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is available to a person apprehending arrest even before a formal accusation or FIR, subject to the statutory conditions applicable in PMLA matters, and therefore the petitioner had an alternate remedy. Since the ECIR was unavailable and the petition rested on an apprehension of possible arrest rather than a substantiated legal infirmity in the ECIR itself, the challenge was held to be premature.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained as premature, and the request for interim protection did not arise.

Ratio Decidendi: A person summoned under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot seek quashing of an ECIR or injunctive protection merely on an apprehension of arrest, because summons power and arrest power are distinct and the remedy of anticipatory bail remains available before formal accusation.

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid in the absence of a specific charge clearly specifying whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income;

(b) Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on additions made on an ad hoc or estimated basis, particularly when the disputed additions were ultimately restricted by the Tribunal to 5% of the disputed purchases;

(c) Whether the findings of the Tribunal regarding bogus purchases and consequent additions constitute a definite finding of fact sufficient to sustain penalty under section 271(1)(c), or whether such findings amount to guesswork;

(d) The correctness of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in light of the above issues.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(a) Validity of the Penalty Notice under Section 274 r/w 271(1)(c)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The provisions of section 271(1)(c) impose penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. The initiating notice under section 274 must specify the nature of the charge, i.e., whether it is for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Precedents relied upon by the assessee include Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs DCIT, PCIT Vs Basanti Property (P) Ltd, CIT Vs SSA's Emerald Meadow, and Paresh Surathiya Vs ITO, which emphasize the requirement of a valid notice specifying the precise charge.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not strike off the inappropriate portion and failed to specify whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessment order also lacked a specific charge. The assessee contended that in the absence of a specific charge, the penalty proceedings are vitiated and the order is void ab initio.

Key evidence and findings: The copy of the notice under section 274 r/w 271(1)(c) dated 09.03.2015 and the assessment order were examined, showing absence of clear specification of charge.

Application of law to facts and treatment of competing arguments: While the assessee argued invalidity of the notice, the Tribunal did not expressly decide on this issue as the appeal succeeded on other grounds. The issue was rendered academic due to the findings on the penalty leviability on estimated additions.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue finally but noted the deficiency in the notice. However, since the appeal succeeded on the second issue, this point was not determinative.

(b) Levy of Penalty on Estimated/Ad hoc Additions

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 271(1)(c) penalty is leviable when there is concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. However, various judicial precedents, including Manish Dhiraj Lal Munjal Vs ACIT, ITO Vs Bomayawala Readymade Stores, Nazar Inmex Pvt Limited Vs ITO, and ACIT Vs Shivam Project, have held that penalty is not leviable on estimated or ad hoc additions as such additions do not conclusively establish concealment or inaccurate particulars.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer initially made an addition of Rs. 7.15 Crore (100% of disputed purchases) on account of bogus purchases. On appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 5% of the entire turnover, and subsequently the Tribunal further restricted it to 5% of the disputed purchases, representing an estimated average profit ratio in the industry.

The Tribunal emphasized that such estimated additions are ad hoc and do not conclusively prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It relied on the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Vijay Proteins Limited Vs CIT, which held that no penalty is leviable on estimated additions.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal relied on the quantum assessment orders, appellate orders, and the final restriction of additions to 5% of disputed purchases. It also noted consistent judicial pronouncements against penalty on estimated additions.

Application of law to facts and treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's finding of bogus purchases was a definite finding of fact, not guesswork, and thus penalty was justified. The Tribunal rejected this contention by clarifying that the ultimate addition was restricted on an ad hoc basis and hence no penalty could be sustained on such additions. The Tribunal followed the precedent in Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd (supra), where penalty was deleted on similar grounds.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on ad hoc or estimated additions and accordingly deleted the penalty levied on the additions of bogus purchases that were restricted to 5% of disputed purchases.

(c) Nature of Tribunal's Findings on Bogus Purchases and Their Sufficiency for Penalty

Relevant legal framework and precedents: For penalty under section 271(1)(c), there must be a finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars based on clear evidence. Mere estimation or guesswork does not suffice. The Tribunal's findings must be definite and based on material.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged that the Revenue argued that the Tribunal's finding of bogus purchases was definite. However, since the additions were ultimately restricted to an ad hoc percentage (5%), the Tribunal concluded that the additions were not based on conclusive evidence but on an estimation reflecting average profit margins.

Key evidence and findings: The sequence of orders restricting the additions from 100% to 5% of disputed purchases was critical. The Tribunal noted that the final figure was an estimate, not a precise quantification of concealed income.

Application of law to facts and treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal gave precedence to the principle that penalty cannot be levied on estimated additions, regardless of the Tribunal's factual findings of bogus purchases. The Revenue's submission that the findings were not guesswork was rejected on the basis that the penalty must be linked to conclusive concealment, which was not established.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the findings on bogus purchases, while upheld, did not justify penalty on the basis of estimated additions.

(d) Correctness of Penalty Levy and Upholding of CIT(A) Order

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 271(1)(c) penalty requires satisfaction that concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars has occurred. The validity of penalty depends on the nature of additions and the procedural correctness of notice and proceedings.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer levied penalty at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded based on the addition of Rs. 2,98,97,701/-, which was 5% of the disputed purchases as per CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty. However, the Tribunal, on further appeal, restricted the additions to 5% of disputed purchases and held that penalty on such estimated additions is not sustainable.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal relied on the assessment order, CIT(A) order, and its own quantum order restricting additions. It also noted that the assessee did not file a reply to the show cause notice, but procedural lapses in notice issuance were also noted.

Application of law to facts and treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal balanced the procedural defects in notice issuance and the substantive issue of penalty on estimated additions. It found that penalty was unsustainable on the restricted addition and deleted the penalty accordingly.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c), and did not find justification for penalty on ad hoc additions.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"Thus, we find that ultimately the addition was restricted to 5% being average profit ratio in the industry. Such disallowance was restricted by following decisions of various benches of Tribunal and by following some decisions of jurisdictional High Court."

"In our considered view the addition was ultimately restricted by Tribunal on ad hoc to the extent of average profit ratio."

"In view of the binding decision of jurisdictional High Court, which otherwise have followed in many cases, therefore, respectfully following the same, we do not find any justification in levying the penalty by assessing officer on the additions of bogus purchase, which were ultimately restricted on estimation average of profit in the similar business."

"Considering the fact that assessee succeeds on his secondary submission, therefore adjudication on other submissions has become academic."

Core principles established include:

- A penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained on additions made on an estimated or ad hoc basis, even if the additions relate to bogus purchases.

- The validity of a penalty notice under section 274 requires clear specification of the charge, either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars; absence of such specification may vitiate penalty proceedings.

- Findings of fact by the Tribunal must be definite and based on conclusive evidence to sustain penalty; estimated additions do not meet this threshold.

Final determinations:

- The penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on additions restricted to 5% of disputed purchases was deleted.

- The appeal by the assessee was allowed on the ground that penalty is not leviable on estimated additions.

Issues: (i) Whether the activity undertaken by the appellant in relation to outbound tours is taxable under section 65(105)(n) of the Finance Act, 1994, having regard to sections 65, 66 and 67 of that Act; (ii) Whether the dispute for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2011 requires determination of taxable territory for levy of service tax.

Issue (i): Whether the activity undertaken by the appellant in relation to outbound tours is taxable under section 65(105)(n) of the Finance Act, 1994, having regard to sections 65, 66 and 67 of that Act.

Analysis: The amended definition of "tour operator" was held to cover planning, scheduling, organising or arranging tours by any mode of transport, with the inclusive part not restricting the main part of the definition. The earlier interpretation of the pre-amendment regime was held not to control the amended provision. Taxability of outbound tour activity was stated to depend on the facts of the case and the intent of the charging and valuation provisions.

Conclusion: The taxability of the appellant's activity was not finally determined and was left to be decided on the facts of the case under the relevant charging and valuation provisions.

Issue (ii): Whether the dispute for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2011 requires determination of taxable territory for levy of service tax.

Analysis: The relevant period fell before the negative list regime. In that regime, the levy turned on whether the service fell within the enumerated taxable service and whether it was rendered in India, and not on a separate taxable territory analysis applicable under the later regime.

Conclusion: Taxable territory was held not to be a factor for the dispute for the relevant period.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the appeal must be decided on its own facts and under the applicable Finance Act provisions, and that taxable territory was not a separate determining issue for the period in dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: For the pre-negative list service tax regime, taxability of a service must be determined by the statutory charging framework and the factual nature of the service rendered, while the later concept of taxable territory does not govern such disputes.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail on medical grounds under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the medical material showed such grave sickness or infirmity that treatment could not be adequately provided in custody.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 creates a limited exception to the twin bail conditions and may be invoked only where the accused is sick or infirm in a manner that is life-threatening or otherwise of such seriousness that adequate treatment cannot be provided in jail or referral hospitals. The applicant's medical condition was examined through the AIIMS Medical Board report and the jail medical record. The AIIMS report stated that inpatient admission was not required, that hospitalization in any particular hospital was unnecessary, and that the applicant could be treated on an outpatient basis at a jail referral hospital with rehabilitation and follow-up. The jail record also showed continuing treatment, physiotherapy, and access to referral hospital care. The Court further balanced the prisoner's right to medical treatment against the State's interest in fair investigation and found that the available material did not establish a condition warranting release on medical bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was not shown to be suffering from a life-threatening sickness or infirmity justifying release on regular bail, and the prayer for bail was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Medical care in custody was found adequate on the record, and the exceptional relaxation under the bail provision was held unavailable on the facts.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, medical bail can be granted only when the accused's sickness or infirmity is so grave that effective treatment is not available in custody or referral care.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration could be set aside and the registration restored where the cancellation order was unreasoned and the governing GST framework was intended to facilitate, rather than exclude, assessees from the tax regime.

Analysis: The petition challenged cancellation of GST registration without reasons. The decision was informed by earlier rulings granting relief in similar matters and by the object of the GST enactments, which is to bring taxpayers into compliance and secure tax collection. The Court noted that the GST framework, the allied rules and notifications, including the relaxation reflected in Notification No. 52/2020-Central Tax dated 24.06.2020 and the consequences under Section 47 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, showed a legislative and administrative approach of enabling compliance. It further observed that an interpretation permanently debaring revival of registration would be inconsistent with the guarantees under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was liable to be set aside and GST registration was to be restored in favour of the petitioner.

Issues: (i) Whether a transfer-pricing adjustment for notional interest on delayed receivables from associated enterprises was sustainable where equivalent extended credit was allowed to non-associated enterprises without interest; (ii) Whether the arm's length interest rate for a United States dollar-denominated loan to an associated enterprise had to be benchmarked with reference to United States dollar LIBOR; (iii) Whether foreign-currency expenditure on telecommunication charges and technical services outside India was excludible from export turnover for deduction under Section 10A.

Issue (i): Whether a transfer-pricing adjustment for notional interest on delayed receivables from associated enterprises was sustainable where equivalent extended credit was allowed to non-associated enterprises without interest.

Analysis: The assessee had uniformly allowed extended credit to both associated and non-associated enterprise customers without charging interest on delayed payments. Applying the binding jurisdictional principle and consistency with the assessee's preceding assessment year, a notional interest adjustment on associated-enterprise receivables was not warranted.

Conclusion: The notional interest adjustment on delayed associated-enterprise receivables was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the arm's length interest rate for a United States dollar-denominated loan to an associated enterprise had to be benchmarked with reference to United States dollar LIBOR.

Analysis: For an international transaction denominated in United States dollars, the appropriate benchmark is the interest rate applicable to that currency rather than domestic borrowing rates or rates for another currency. Consistency required application of the approach adopted in the assessee's earlier assessment year.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer was directed to benchmark the loan by applying the United States dollar LIBOR-based approach, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether foreign-currency expenditure on telecommunication charges and technical services outside India was excludible from export turnover for deduction under Section 10A.

Analysis: The expenses had not been recovered from customers and were not included in the assessee's turnover. Applying the prior-year decision, such expenditure could not be excluded from export turnover while computing the Section 10A deduction.

Conclusion: The foreign-currency expenditure was not to be excluded from export turnover for Section 10A computation, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing and Section 10A computations were directed to be revised in accordance with the assessee's accepted positions on the substantive issues.

Ratio Decidendi: A notional interest adjustment cannot be imposed on associated-enterprise receivables where comparable non-associated enterprise receivables are allowed the same interest-free credit period; foreign-currency loans must be benchmarked by reference to the transaction currency's LIBOR-based rate.

Outcome: The writ petition was closed with a direction to the petitioner to respond to Form GST RFD-03 within two weeks, and for the respondent to consider the response and pass orders in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.

Issues: (i) Whether pre-CIRP statutory and government liabilities not forming part of the approved resolution plan stood extinguished on approval of the plan. (ii) Whether the resolution applicant was entitled to the clarification that all necessary approvals for implementation of the plan could be obtained within 18 months without adverse consequences, or only within the statutory period of one year or such longer period as provided by the relevant law.

Issue (i): Whether pre-CIRP statutory and government liabilities not forming part of the approved resolution plan stood extinguished on approval of the plan.

Analysis: The approved resolution plan was treated as a comprehensive arrangement for the corporate debtor as a going concern. Once the plan is approved, claims and dues of all persons, including government and local authorities, that are not part of the resolution plan do not survive against the corporate debtor. The clarification sought was consistent with the settled position that unresolved past liabilities outside the plan cannot be revived after approval.

Conclusion: The pre-CIRP liabilities of the corporate debtor not included in the resolution plan stood extinguished from the date of approval of the plan.

Issue (ii): Whether the resolution applicant was entitled to the clarification that all necessary approvals for implementation of the plan could be obtained within 18 months without adverse consequences, or only within the statutory period of one year or such longer period as provided by the relevant law.

Analysis: The operative part of the approval order did not fix a special period of 18 months. The applicable statutory framework required the resolution applicant to obtain necessary approvals within one year from the date of approval, or within such period as provided under the relevant law, whichever is later. The clarification therefore aligned the order with the statutory timeline rather than the longer period sought in the plan.

Conclusion: The clarification was granted only to the extent that necessary approvals had to be obtained within one year from the date of the order or within such period as provided by the relevant law, whichever is later.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed to the extent of clarifying extinguishment of excluded pre-CIRP liabilities and the statutory timeline for obtaining approvals, and the matter stood disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: On approval of a resolution plan, pre-CIRP claims not forming part of the plan stand extinguished, and implementation-related statutory approvals must be obtained within the period fixed by the governing insolvency law or the relevant enabling statute, whichever is later.