Issues: Whether draft and final assessment orders passed without granting the requested personal hearing through video conferencing were valid.

Analysis: Section 144B(6)(vii) and (viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 incorporates the principles of natural justice in faceless assessment and contemplates a personal hearing through video conferencing where requested. The requested facility could not be availed owing to technical glitches and not due to any default of the assessee; yet the draft assessment order was passed without providing the requested hearing.

Conclusion: The draft assessment order and consequential final assessment order were invalid for breach of the principles of natural justice. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment, demand and penalty notices issued against a company dissolved before issuance of the reassessment notice were valid.

Analysis: The company stood dissolved under Section 302(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 before the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued. Dissolution ended its existence as a juristic person. A valid notice under Section 148 is the foundation for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147; therefore, no reassessment could be initiated or completed against the dissolved entity. Framing an assessment against a non-existent entity is a substantive jurisdictional illegality and not a procedural defect capable of cure under Section 292B.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 and all consequential reassessment proceedings, assessment order, demand notice and penalty notice were void and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interim protection against suspension of the appellant's operations was warranted pending the contemplated inquiry.

Analysis: A strong prima facie case for interim relief was found. The suspension was prima facie not warranted pending inquiry, and the prescribed timeline under Regulation 11(3) appeared not to have been complied with. The merits of any pending inquiry were directed to remain uninfluenced by the impugned appellate order.

Outcome: The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law, and interim stay was granted against the suspension order and consequential public notice pending inquiry.

Issues: (i) Whether owners of seized gold sold without prior notice under Section 150(1) are, if successful in the confiscation proceedings, entitled to its fair market value on the date of release rather than the sale proceeds received by Revenue; (ii) Whether the value of the gold should be released immediately against bank guarantees while Revenue's statutory appeal remains pending.

Issue (i): Whether owners of seized gold sold without prior notice under Section 150(1) are, if successful in the confiscation proceedings, entitled to its fair market value on the date of release rather than the sale proceeds received by Revenue.

Analysis: Section 150(1) mandates prior intimation to the owner before disposal of seized gold. That requirement was admittedly not followed. Revenue cannot rely on the amount realised in the 2021 sale where the owners were deprived of the statutory prior-notice protection.

Conclusion: If the petitioners succeed in the confiscation proceedings, they are entitled to the fair market value of the gold as on the date of the appellate decision directing release, and not merely the historical sale proceeds. Revenue cannot re-agitate this valuation issue before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue (ii): Whether the value of the gold should be released immediately against bank guarantees while Revenue's statutory appeal remains pending.

Analysis: A departmental appeal under Section 129D(2) against the order declining confiscation remains pending. The merits of that appeal, including the objections concerning abatement and confiscation, were left for the appellate authority. An expedited determination with procedural safeguards was regarded as sufficient to balance the parties' interests.

Conclusion: The request for immediate disbursement against bank guarantees is rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) must determine the departmental appeal on or before 31 December 2026, following which the prescribed conditional payment directions will apply.

Final Conclusion: Disposal of seized gold without the mandated prior notice fixes the applicable valuation, upon the owners' eventual success, at the prevailing fair market value rather than the amount realised on sale; the unresolved confiscation dispute remains for appellate adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized gold is disposed of without the statutory prior notice required to its owner, the owner who ultimately succeeds is entitled to its fair market value at the time release becomes due, rather than the historical sale realisation.

Issues: Whether an importer's written acceptance of enhanced assessable value prevents it from challenging the reassessment, and whether declared transaction value may be rejected solely on NIDB or contemporaneous-import data without compliance with the prescribed valuation requirements.

Analysis: Under Section 17(5), an importer's written acceptance of reassessment relieves the proper officer only from issuing a speaking order; it does not waive or extinguish the statutory right to challenge the reassessment. Rejection of declared transaction value under Section 14 and Rule 12(2) requires formation and communication of reasonable doubt regarding the truth or accuracy of the declared value. The acceptance letters did not disclose the alleged contemporaneous-import data or furnish independent material supporting rejection of the declared value. Reassessment based solely on NIDB data, without cogent corroborative evidence and compliance with the sequential valuation rules, is unsustainable.

Conclusion: Written acceptance of enhanced value did not preclude the importer from contesting reassessment, and the enhancement of value without compliance with the mandatory customs-valuation requirements was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether an importer's written acceptance of reassessment waives the statutory right to challenge enhancement of declared value; (ii) Whether transaction value may be rejected and enhanced solely on NIDB/contemporaneous-import data and an acceptance letter without compliance with valuation rules.

Issue (i): Whether an importer's written acceptance of reassessment waives the statutory right to challenge enhancement of declared value.

Analysis: Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 confines the consequence of written acceptance of reassessment to dispensing with a speaking order. Such acceptance does not amount to abandonment of the statutory right to question the proper officer's formation of opinion or the merits of reassessment. Rule 12(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 does not contemplate waiver of that substantive right.

Conclusion: Written acceptance of enhanced value does not bar the importer from challenging reassessment; decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether transaction value may be rejected and enhanced solely on NIDB/contemporaneous-import data and an acceptance letter without compliance with valuation rules.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 12(2) requires formation and communication of reasonable doubt regarding the truth or accuracy of the declared transaction value before proceeding to valuation under the sequential rules. Enhancement founded solely on NIDB or contemporaneous-import data requires independent, cogent and justiciable material. An acceptance letter lacking particulars of comparable imports does not establish compliance with those requirements.

Conclusion: Rejection of transaction value and enhancement solely on NIDB/contemporaneous-import data and an unsupported acceptance letter, without compliance with the valuation framework, is unsustainable; decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory right to contest reassessment remains intact, and any departure from declared transaction value must rest on communicated reasons and verifiable material satisfying the customs valuation framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Written acceptance under Section 17(5) only dispenses with a speaking order and does not extinguish the statutory right to challenge reassessment; enhancement of declared value must comply with the mandatory requirements governing rejection of transaction value and cannot rest solely on uncorroborated external data.

Issues: Whether an ex parte assessment order could be sustained where it was not passed on the scheduled hearing date and no notice of the subsequent hearing date was served.

Analysis: In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of an assessment order issued under Section 73 of the GST Act was tested against the principles of natural justice. Where the authority neither decides the matter on the fixed date nor communicates the next date of hearing, an ex parte order results from denial of a fair opportunity of personal hearing.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment order was invalid for breach of the principles of natural justice and was set aside, with a direction for fresh hearing and a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 125, exceeding the maximum limit prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was sustainable.

Analysis: The petitioner had furnished the return, discharged the tax liability, and paid the applicable late fee. The penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed under Section 125 exceeded the maximum limit prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable for exceeding the statutory maximum and was set aside along with the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether the generation of three digitally signed personal-hearing notices on the same date, bearing different numbers and fixing different hearing dates and times, required scrutiny of the State Tax portal and notice-generation process.

Analysis: The three notices were issued and digitally signed within minutes of each other while specifying separate dates and times for personal hearing. This was treated as a serious system lacuna capable of permitting manipulation. A report on the portal functioning and the process enabling such notices was directed from the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, and a fresh appellate order was directed.

Outcome: Report and fresh appellate order directed; matter listed for further hearing.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice for Assessment Year 2018-19, issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year with approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, was valid under the applicable reassessment regime.

Analysis: Under Sections 148, 148A and 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, prior approval for issuing a reassessment notice is required from the authority specified in Section 151(ii), namely the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. The notice dated 02.04.2022 was issued after the three-year period for Assessment Year 2018-19 had expired, but approval was obtained only from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. No extension of time for replying to the Section 148A(b) notice had been sought, and therefore exclusion of such time for limitation purposes was inapplicable. A non-speaking dismissal of a Special Leave Petition does not attract the doctrine of merger or affirm the reasoning of the High Court.

Conclusion: The notice issued without sanction from the authority prescribed by Section 151(ii) was invalid; consequently, the reassessment lacked valid jurisdiction and was quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether the final assessment order passed after DRP directions was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the MLI or its underlying spirit could be invoked to determine PE for assessment year 2020-21; and (iii) Whether the alleged PE and the 30% profit attribution could be sustained on the existing record.

Issue (i): Whether the final assessment order passed after DRP directions was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The retrospective amendment clarified that the limitation under Section 153 governs the passing of the draft assessment order, whereas the final assessment order following DRP directions is governed by Section 144C.

Conclusion: The final assessment order was not time-barred. Against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the MLI or its underlying spirit could be invoked to determine PE for assessment year 2020-21.

Analysis: The relevant MLI provisions were admittedly inapplicable to the assessment year. The existence of a PE must therefore be determined strictly under Article 5 of the India-United Kingdom Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement applicable for that year.

Conclusion: Neither the MLI nor its underlying spirit can be invoked to determine PE for the relevant year. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged PE and the 30% profit attribution could be sustained on the existing record.

Analysis: Determination of a dependent-agent PE requires examination of the actual contractual arrangements and conduct, including control over pricing, credit risk, contractual obligations, performance responsibility, and the Indian entity's role in soliciting, negotiating, securing and processing orders. Fixed-place and service PE require separate satisfaction of their respective treaty conditions; the Revenue bears the burden of establishing a PE. Acceptance of an earlier assessment concerning another group entity does not create an estoppel for the relevant year. If a PE is found, profit attribution must follow a functions, assets and risks analysis. Arm's-length remuneration does not determine PE existence, but may eliminate further attribution where it fully captures the relevant functions and risks; ad hoc attribution is impermissible.

Conclusion: The PE issue and related profit attribution were remitted for fresh treaty-compliant determination; no final finding on PE or attributable profits was made. In favour of the assessee to the extent of remand.

Final Conclusion: The limitation challenge fails, while the PE inquiry and any profit attribution must be redetermined independently under the applicable treaty, without reliance on the MLI or an ad hoc percentage of receipts.

Ratio Decidendi: PE existence and resultant profit attribution must be determined independently for each year under the applicable treaty on the actual functions, assets, risks and conduct of the parties, and cannot rest on inapplicable MLI principles, prior group assessments or ad hoc attribution.

Issues: (i) Whether donations forming part of mandatory corporate social responsibility expenditure are eligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite their non-deductibility under Section 37(1) of that Act. (ii) Whether the assessment order allowing that deduction was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue so as to permit revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether donations forming part of mandatory corporate social responsibility expenditure are eligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite their non-deductibility under Section 37(1) of that Act.

Analysis: Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) excludes mandatory corporate social responsibility expenditure under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 from business-expense deduction. That exclusion operates only in computing business income and does not bar an independent statutory deduction under Chapter VI-A where the payment otherwise qualifies as a donation under Section 80G.

Conclusion: Donations forming part of mandatory corporate social responsibility expenditure were eligible for deduction under Section 80G, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order allowing that deduction was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue so as to permit revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Revisionary jurisdiction requires both an erroneous assessment order and prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. The assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer sought particulars and supporting documents for Chapter VI-A deductions under Section 142(1), and the assessee furnished donation details and receipts. The claim was thus examined with application of mind. A different view on the deduction did not render the assessment erroneous.

Conclusion: The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; revision under Section 263 was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisionary order was quashed and the assessment allowing the Section 80G deduction for the qualifying corporate social responsibility donations remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked where an assessment, after inquiry and application of mind, adopts the legally sustainable view that disallowance of mandatory corporate social responsibility expenditure under Section 37(1) does not bar a qualifying Section 80G deduction.

Issues: Whether penalty for under-reporting of income under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained where the income declared in the original return and processed under Section 143(1) remained unchanged in reassessment without any addition or disallowance.

Analysis: Section 270A(2)(a) requires a comparison between the assessed income and the income determined on processing of the return to establish under-reporting. The original return disclosed income of Rs. 45,83,888, which was accepted on processing under Section 143(1). The same income was returned in response to reassessment proceedings and was ultimately accepted without any variation. The statutory conditions for treating the entire returned income as under-reported were therefore not established.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 270A was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted.

Issues: Whether interest earned by a co-operative society from investments with a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 80P(2)(d) permits deduction of interest or dividend income received from investments with another co-operative society. A co-operative bank remains a species of co-operative society for this purpose. Section 80P(4), which excludes a co-operative bank itself from claiming the deduction, does not disentitle a co-operative society from claiming deduction on interest received from a co-operative bank.

Conclusion: Interest received by the agricultural co-operative society from a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the addition is deleted.

Issues: Whether the entire Rs. 12,03,500 cash-deposit addition under section 69A, taxable under section 115BBE, should be sustained where the supporting cash records were self-prepared and unaudited.

Analysis: Section 69A governs unexplained money, while the charge under the Income-tax Act is on income and not on gross receipts. The cash records, bank material and related documents produced did not justify complete acceptance because the books were self-prepared and not subject to audit. At the same time, the material did not warrant taxing the entire cash deposit as income. An estimated profit component was considered appropriate to account for the inconsistencies while protecting revenue.

Conclusion: The addition is restricted to Rs. 1,20,350, being 10% of Rs. 12,03,500, taxable at normal rates and not under section 115BBE; the issue is decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether estimated additions for alleged on-money receipts from sale of flats could be sustained under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without corroborative evidence of the assessee's receipt.

Analysis: The seized material evidenced on-money receipts of a specified amount which had been accepted as income and offered to tax by the person managing the project. The further additions were derived by applying an average sale rate to other flat sales, without material evidencing that the assessee had received additional on-money. An addition under Section 69A cannot rest solely on such uncorroborated estimation.

Conclusion: The estimated additions for alleged on-money receipts under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained and are deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether a 20% ad hoc disallowance of claimed business expenditure was sustainable without rejection of audited books or identification of bogus or unsupported expenditure; (ii) Whether the disallowance for cash payments under section 40A(3) required fresh verification of the payment recipients, business expediency, and the exceptions under Rule 6DD(e).

Issue (i): Whether a 20% ad hoc disallowance of claimed business expenditure was sustainable without rejection of audited books or identification of bogus or unsupported expenditure.

Analysis: The expense entries and apparent discrepancies in nomenclature were explained through ledger extracts, cash-book details, and supporting vouchers. The audited books were not rejected, no particular expenditure was found bogus or unsupported, and no defect was identified in the revised clarification. A blanket 20% disallowance founded merely on doubts arising from differently described entries was therefore conjectural.

Conclusion: The ad hoc disallowance of business expenditure is deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance for cash payments under section 40A(3) required fresh verification of the payment recipients, business expediency, and the exceptions under Rule 6DD(e).

Analysis: Section 40A(3) restricts deductions for specified cash payments, while Rule 6DD(e) provides an exception for payments for specified animal-husbandry produce, including hides and skins. The record required verification of whether payments exceeding the threshold were made to different persons, whether business expediency justified the payments, and whether the statutory exception applied. These matters had not been adequately examined.

Conclusion: The cash-payment disallowance is set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and recomputation.

Final Conclusion: The unsupported ad hoc expense disallowance is removed, while the cash-payment question requires fresh statutory verification.

Ratio Decidendi: An ad hoc disallowance of expenditure cannot rest on conjecture where audited books are not rejected and no expenditure is found bogus or unsupported.

Issues: Whether rejection of the rectification application was valid where no mistake apparent from the record was established.

Analysis: Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits correction only of a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be invoked to review or reopen an issue requiring reconsideration beyond that limited jurisdiction. The original appeal had not been admitted under Section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 because the delay in filing it was not condoned. The rectification application did not demonstrate any apparent mistake in that order. The grounds concerning the merits of the deduction claim and consequential interest were not adjudicated because the appeal was confined to rejection of rectification.

Conclusion: Rejection of the rectification application was valid; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest earned on fixed deposits and Kisan Vikas Patras, though assessable under the head income from other sources, must be included in book profit for computing the ceiling of partners' remuneration under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Explanation 3 to Section 40(b) adopts the net profit shown in the partnership firm's profit and loss account as the basis for book profit. The applicable measure is the commercial profit reflected in that account, rather than only the income computed under the head profits and gains of business or profession. The interest income formed part of the profit and loss account, and no contrary authority was shown to justify its exclusion from book profit.

Conclusion: Interest on fixed deposits and Kisan Vikas Patras included in the profit and loss account cannot be excluded while determining book profit for allowable partners' remuneration; the consequential disallowance was deleted.

Issues: Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016-17 was barred by limitation, thereby invalidating the reassessment.

Analysis: Section 149(1)(a) permitted reassessment notice within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The extended period under Section 149(1)(b) was available only where the prescribed material revealed escaped income of at least Rs. 50 lakhs. The recorded figure of Rs. 57,57,235 included Rs. 17,00,500 twice, as that amount formed part of the total cash deposits of Rs. 26,30,500. After excluding the duplicate counting of income, the alleged escaped income was Rs. 40,56,735, below the statutory threshold. A valid jurisdictional notice within limitation was necessary to assume reassessment jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notice dated 27.03.2023 was barred by limitation; consequently, the reassessment order was without jurisdiction and stood quashed.