Issues: Whether an appeal may be filed manually where the rectification order is unavailable on the common portal.

Analysis: The amended appellate procedure permits manual filing of an appeal in FORM GST APL-01 with relevant documents where the order challenged is unavailable on the common portal.

Outcome: The petitioner was permitted to file the appeal within four weeks, without a limitation objection, for decision on merits.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order founded on an analytics report could stand when that relied-upon report was not furnished to the petitioner.

Analysis: The analytics report formed the basis of the classification dispute concerning basic customs duty. Extracting its parameters, entries and core findings in the show-cause notice did not provide an adequate opportunity to meet the case. The relied-upon report and documents were required to be disclosed to comply with the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: Non-supply of the analytics report vitiated the adjudication order; the matter requires fresh adjudication after disclosure of the relied-upon material.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201 for non-deduction of tax on payments to its US parent, despite binding findings that the parent had no permanent establishment in India and the payments were not chargeable to tax in India.

Analysis: The facts for the relevant assessment year were identical to those for prior years in which Section 201 orders against the petitioner had been set aside. The Tribunal's finding, subsequently upheld by the High Court, was that the petitioner was an independent entity and did not constitute a fixed place, service, or agency permanent establishment of the US parent under Article 5 of the India-US DTAA. The Assessing Officer could not disregard those binding decisions merely because the Department intended to challenge them. Section 195 applies only where the payment to a non-resident is chargeable to tax in India; an application under Section 195(2) is required only where the payer accepts that part of the remittance is taxable but requires determination of the taxable portion or tax deductible.

Conclusion: The payments were not subject to tax deduction at source, and the petitioner could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201.

Issues: Whether companies having turnover exceeding ten times that of the assessee may be retained as comparables for determining the arm's length price of software development services.

Analysis: The assessee's turnover was Rs. 33 crores, whereas the turnovers of the four disputed companies ranged from Rs. 2,471 crores to Rs. 1,60,341 crores. Applying the turnover filter, entities with extremely high turnover and brand value were regarded as unsuitable for a fair comparability analysis; companies within a range of up to ten times the assessee's turnover could ordinarily be considered comparable.

Conclusion: Tata Consultancy Services, LTIMindtree Ltd., Mindtree Ltd. and Tata Elxsi Ltd. shall be excluded from the comparable set, and the arm's length price shall be recomputed in accordance with law after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether profit embedded in unaccounted on-money receipts recorded in seized material should be estimated at 15% or at a lower rate.

Analysis: The unaccounted receipts and corresponding cash expenditure constituted an integrated stream of business transactions; therefore, while only the profit element in the receipts was assessable, the expenditure reflected in the same seized material could not be ignored. The 15% rate rested only on a general industry premise, without historical margins, comparable projects, or other tangible support. The fluctuating yearly position, aggregate excess of recorded expenditure over net receipts, the nature and location of the projects, and absence of comparable material rendered a uniform 15% margin excessive. The aggregate deficit was nevertheless not conclusive of absence of taxable income because receipts and expenditure across years and projects were not precisely correlated and the cash expenditure was not independently established.

Conclusion: Profit shall be estimated at 5% of the respective net on-money receipts after adjustment of booking cancellations, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether interest earned on EMI-based loan transactions routed through credit card accounts, including penal interest, is liable to service tax; (ii) Whether the demand of service tax is sustainable on the ground of limitation and whether penalties are imposable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Issue (i): Whether interest earned on EMI-based loan transactions routed through credit card accounts, including penal interest, is liable to service tax.

Analysis: The EMI facilities involved quantified advances repayable over stipulated tenures with interest; use of the credit-card account for disbursal, accounting or recovery did not alter their substantive character as bilateral loan transactions. Interest was consideration for the use of money, rather than consideration for an independent credit-card service. The statutory scheme excluded interest on loans from taxable value before 1 July 2012 and placed lending by way of loans or advances, where consideration is interest, in the negative list thereafter. Transactions in money were also excluded from service. Additional or penal interest on delayed EMIs was compensatory for continued retention of money and could not be re-characterised as consideration for tolerating an act.

Conclusion: Interest and additional or penal interest on the EMI loan facilities are not liable to service tax. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of service tax is sustainable on the ground of limitation and whether penalties are imposable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Analysis: The dispute was interpretational, and the transactions were recorded in financial and statutory records, subjected to departmental audits, and known to the Department through earlier proceedings. No evidence established fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax. Mere non-payment under self-assessment could not satisfy the requirements for invoking the extended limitation period or imposing penalty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation is not invocable and penalty is not imposable. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Interest arising from genuine EMI loans, including compensatory interest for delayed instalments, remains outside the service-tax levy, and the absence of wilful suppression also defeats the extended demand and associated penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest on a genuine loan or advance is consideration for the use of money and remains excluded from service tax, including where the loan is administered through a credit-card account or the interest is charged for delayed repayment.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail in alleged GST-evasion offences.

Analysis: The investigation had concluded; the petitioners had remained in custody for about four months; and the alleged offences carried a maximum sentence of five years and were triable by a Magistrate. The proposed evidence was documentary and the witnesses were official, making the likelihood of witness influence or evidence tampering negligible. As the trial had not commenced and was unlikely to conclude shortly, continued pre-trial detention was not warranted.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to regular bail, subject to appropriate safeguards.

Issues: Whether discretionary relief under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be refused where the assessee had offered and paid tax on the same interest income in two assessment years because of revision of Form 26AS by the deductor.

Analysis: Special circumstances for exercising discretion cannot be confined to a predetermined formula and must be assessed from the contextual facts. The same interest income was taxed in both assessment years after the deductor shifted its reporting through a revised Form 26AS. The assessee acted promptly by pursuing rectification and revision remedies from 2019; the eventual delay resulted substantially from the pending and rejected proceedings. Payment of tax twice on the same income constituted genuine hardship, and refusal of relief would result in unjust enrichment of the Revenue.

Conclusion: The rejection of condonation relief under Section 119(2)(b) was unsustainable; the assessee was entitled to submit a revised return for the relevant assessment year, subject to verification in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether reassessment could be initiated where the oil and gas exploration expenses and preliminary expenses had been examined during the original scrutiny assessment and accepted without additions.

Analysis: The reassessment reasons merely reflected a different view from that taken in the original scrutiny assessment. The assessee had replied to the relevant queries concerning all matters forming the basis of reassessment, and the Assessing Officer had accepted those replies without making additions. The absence of reproduction of the corresponding queries in the appellate order did not establish that the matters had not been examined. Reopening on the same material after such examination constituted a mere change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid as being founded on a mere change of opinion, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether consideration received for assignment and surrender of rights, claims and entitlements connected with disputed partnership property and pending litigation was taxable as income from other sources; (ii) Whether expenditure claimed against interest income was allowable without evidence of its direct nexus with earning that income.

Issue (i): Whether consideration received for assignment and surrender of rights, claims and entitlements connected with disputed partnership property and pending litigation was taxable as income from other sources.

Analysis: The character of the receipt depended on the true nature of the right surrendered, rather than the description used in the deed. A proprietary or beneficial interest may constitute property notwithstanding that it is intangible. Conversely, where the right retained was only a right to pursue litigation or claim damages, it was a mere right to sue, which is not transferable under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On either characterisation, the one-time consideration for complete divestment of the underlying proprietary or litigative rights was capital in nature. Section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies only to a receipt having the character of income and cannot convert an intrinsically capital receipt into taxable income merely because it is not charged under capital gains.

Conclusion: The consideration was a capital receipt and was not taxable as income from other sources; the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether expenditure claimed against interest income was allowable without evidence of its direct nexus with earning that income.

Analysis: Deduction under Section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires proof that expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for making or earning income chargeable under the head income from other sources. The fact that the expenditure was lower than the interest income did not establish the requisite nexus, and no cogent supporting material was produced.

Conclusion: The expenditure claim was not allowable for want of evidence establishing its direct nexus with the interest income, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The gross consideration for surrender of the disputed rights could not be assessed under the residuary head as revenue income, while the unsupported expenditure claim against interest income remained disallowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A one-time receipt for complete surrender of proprietary rights or a mere litigative right is capital in character, and the residuary head cannot tax it unless it first constitutes income.

Issues: (i) Whether consideration for regional support services constituted royalty under Article 12(3)(a) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether such consideration constituted fees for technical services under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Issue (i): Whether consideration for regional support services constituted royalty under Article 12(3)(a) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The regional services comprised strategic, operational, sales, financial, legal, human-resources, marketing and communication support. Royalty requires consideration for the use or right to use specified intellectual property or information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. The service arrangement did not transfer any proprietary information, or confer a right to use commercial, industrial or scientific experience. Application of the service provider's own knowledge and experience in rendering support is distinct from imparting or transferring that knowledge for independent use by the recipient. The confidentiality obligation further precluded commercial exploitation of exchanged information by the recipient.

Conclusion: The regional support-service consideration was not royalty, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether such consideration constituted fees for technical services under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Analysis: Even assuming that any service was managerial, technical or consultancy in nature, Article 12(4)(b) required that technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process be made available so that the recipient could independently apply it. No material established such independent capability. Continued provision of the same services also showed that the recipient had not acquired the ability to apply any technical knowledge or know-how without assistance.

Conclusion: The regional support-service consideration was not fees for technical services, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The receipts were business profits and, absent a permanent establishment in India, were not chargeable to tax in India.

Ratio Decidendi: Consideration for support services is neither royalty nor fees for technical services where the provider merely applies its own knowledge in performing the services without transferring a right to use information or making technical capability independently available to the recipient.

Issues: Whether excess stock found during survey, being stock of the assessee's regular trading business and explained as acquired from suppressed business profits, was assessable as unexplained investment under section 69B attracting section 115BBE, or as undisclosed business income under normal provisions.

Analysis: Section 115BBE applies consequentially only where income is validly chargeable under one of the specified deeming provisions, including section 69B. Excess stock of the same nature as regular business stock, found at regular business premises, and contemporaneously explained as having been acquired from undisclosed profits of that business, retains its business character unless material establishes an independent or extraneous source. The absence of purchase records established non-disclosure but did not, by itself, establish an unexplained source. The accounting entries introducing the stock into the books did not reduce the surrendered income: the purchase debit was reflected in closing stock, creditor entries were reversed, and the disclosed amount remained credited as taxable income. Consequently, no deduction, allowance, or set-off against deemed income arose.

Conclusion: The excess stock was undisclosed business income assessable at the normal rate and was not unexplained investment under section 69B; section 115BBE was inapplicable. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the long-term capital gain from sale of dematerialised equity shares was genuine and eligible for exemption, and whether additions for the sale proceeds and consequential commission expenditure were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee furnished documentary material establishing the purchase, dematerialised holding and sale of shares. The transactions were routed through banking channels, and the supporting evidence was not disproved by any independent inquiry or material linking the assessee to alleged accommodation-entry providers. The adverse inference rested on general investigation material and the alleged status of another entity, without establishing that the assessee's specific transactions were bogus. Applying binding precedent and judicial consistency, the evidentiary onus stood discharged. The commission addition was consequential to the addition for the sale proceeds.

Conclusion: The long-term capital gain claim could not be denied, the addition under Section 68 was deleted, and the consequential addition under Section 69C was also deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether deduction under section 80IB could be denied where the audit report in Form No. 10CCB was timely prepared and uploaded as an attachment to the tax-audit report because separate electronic filing of that form was unavailable on the portal.

Analysis: The audit report was signed before the return-filing due date and its scanned copy was uploaded with Form No. 3CA-3CD on the date of filing the return. The Revenue did not disprove the absence of a separate electronic-filing facility or offline utility for Form No. 10CCB. The subsequent electronic filing after the facility became available confirmed compliance with the statutory requirement in substance. A technical deficiency not attributable to the assessee could not defeat the deduction.

Conclusion: The assessee substantially complied with the requirement of furnishing Form No. 10CCB; deduction under section 80IB must be allowed. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the customs broker for abetment of import undervaluation was sustainable in its quantum.

Analysis: The declared value of premium-brand engines was less than 10% of the redetermined value, supporting the finding that the goods had been knowingly undervalued. However, the customs broker had sought first-check examination before assessment, thereby bringing the consignment to the department's notice. The earlier licensing-regulation proceedings also recorded that the broker could not be held wholly responsible for the undervaluation, and a separate penalty had already been paid. In view of the broker's bona fide conduct and diligence, the penalty of Rs.15,00,000 was considered exorbitant relative to the established liability.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustained but reduced to Rs.1,00,000; the issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the imported petroleum product declared as Naphtha under tariff item 27101229 could be reclassified as Natural Gasoline Liquid under tariff item 27101290; (ii) Whether WhatsApp chats and related digital material could support allegations of misdeclaration.

Issue (i): Whether the imported petroleum product declared as Naphtha under tariff item 27101229 could be reclassified as Natural Gasoline Liquid under tariff item 27101290.

Analysis: The classification framework placed the burden of proof on Revenue to displace the declared classification. Applying the Most Akin Test, the conflicting test reports did not establish that the product most closely resembled Natural Gasoline Liquid. The reports of specialised petroleum-testing agencies, based on substantially more detailed testing parameters and supplied samples, positively placed the product within the light Naphtha range, whereas the departmental reports were based on comparatively limited testing. The detailed specialised reports were preferred. The Benefit of Doubt arising from inconclusive or competing scientific material also operated against reclassification. The Common Parlance Test and the recognition of Natural Gasoline Liquid as a species within the broader genus of Naphtha further did not support disturbing the declared classification.

Conclusion: The declared classification as Naphtha under tariff item 27101229 could not be disturbed; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether WhatsApp chats and related digital material could support allegations of misdeclaration.

Analysis: Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962 governed the Admissibility of Electronic Evidence. The statutory conditions for computer printouts, including the required certification or a legally admissible substitute, were not established. The digital material was also unsupported by admissible corroborative statements, with the required examination and cross-examination absent. No demonstrated commercial benefit from the alleged change of origin was established.

Conclusion: The WhatsApp chats and associated electronic material could not be relied upon to sustain allegations of misdeclaration; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Revenue failed to displace the declared classification through reliable scientific evidence or legally admissible corroborative material, rendering the contrary adjudicatory findings unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared classification cannot be displaced where Revenue fails to discharge its evidentiary burden through reliable testing applying the appropriate classification standard and relies on electronic material that does not satisfy statutory safeguards of admissibility.

Issues: Whether customs-duty appeal proceedings may continue after approval of the corporate debtor's resolution plan under the insolvency law.

Analysis: An approved resolution plan binds all creditors, including governmental authorities. Claims not forming part of the approved plan stand extinguished, and proceedings concerning such pre-approval statutory dues cannot be initiated or continued. The status of the disputed statutory dues under the approved plan was not disclosed; nevertheless, the binding effect of the plan or the extinguishment of excluded dues precluded continuation of the pending proceedings.

Conclusion: The appeal proceedings could not continue following approval of the resolution plan.

Issues: (i) Whether tax and recovery proceedings under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act could survive after approval of a clean-slate resolution plan settling government claims; (ii) Whether the statutory pre-deposit made for the tax appeal was refundable after extinguishment of the tax liability under the approved resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether tax and recovery proceedings under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act could survive after approval of a clean-slate resolution plan settling government claims.

Analysis: Under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, an approved resolution plan binds all stakeholders, including statutory authorities. A clean-slate resolution plan freezes claims included in it and extinguishes prior statutory dues not forming part of it, precluding initiation or continuation of proceedings for such dues. The tax department's claims for the relevant assessment years had been addressed under the approved plan.

Conclusion: The appellate order confirming the assessment and directing recovery was without jurisdiction and could not survive. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory pre-deposit made for the tax appeal was refundable after extinguishment of the tax liability under the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The pre-deposit under Section 26(6A)(c) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 formed part of the disputed tax demand. As the approved resolution plan provided for full settlement of the department's dues, retaining the pre-deposit beyond the amount allocated under that plan would be impermissible.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit is refundable with applicable interest. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Approval of the resolution plan extinguished the pre-resolution tax demand and required release of the related appellate pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: An approved clean-slate resolution plan binds governmental authorities and extinguishes pre-approval statutory claims not preserved by the plan, preventing their enforcement and requiring refund of deposits retained solely against such claims.

Issues: Whether the power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 can be invoked only upon material indicating wilful undervaluation with fraudulent intent to evade stamp duty; and whether the prior decisions imposing that requirement state the correct law.

Analysis: The competence of the statutory authority to issue a notice was distinguished from the alleged impropriety in setting its jurisdiction in motion. Section 47-A(1), on its plain terms, requires reason to believe that the market value or consideration has not been truly set forth, without expressly requiring proof of a culpable mindset. Importing fraudulent intention as an independent jurisdictional condition was considered inconsistent with literal construction of a taxing statute and capable of defeating a valuation-based enquiry. However, the contrary view had been expressed in binding three-Judge Bench decisions. Judicial discipline therefore required referral rather than departure from that precedent.

Outcome: The questions concerning the correctness of the precedent requiring wilful undervaluation and fraudulent intent were referred for consideration by a larger Bench; no final determination of stamp-duty liability or validity of the notice was made.