Issues: Whether survey-disclosed on-money from sale of flats is assessable upon receipt or in the assessment years in which the sale deeds are registered and title is transferred.

Analysis: Under the project-completion method, income from sale of flats accrues upon execution of the sale deed and transfer of title, rather than upon receipt of advance consideration or on-money. The consistent recognition of the disclosed on-money in the respective years of registration, including subsequent disclosures and undertakings to offer the balance within specified years, warranted the same treatment as had been extended for earlier years.

Conclusion: The sustained balance additions were set aside for limited verification. Amounts found to have been offered to tax in the relevant subsequent years are to be deleted, while any portion not so offered may be assessed in the assessment year under appeal; no further deferment beyond the undertaking period is permitted.

Issues: (i) Whether the interest payable on unconverted CCDs could be assigned a nil arm's length price by treating the CCDs as equity; and (ii) Whether the entire CCD interest was alternatively disallowable under sections 36(1)(iii) and 37(1).

Issue (i): Whether the interest payable on unconverted CCDs could be assigned a nil arm's length price by treating the CCDs as equity.

Analysis: The arm's length principle under Chapter X requires pricing of the actual international transaction. Rule 10AB calls for evidence from a comparable uncontrolled transaction or a sufficiently analysed similar transaction. The CCD terms required future conversion but preserved the issuer's pre-conversion coupon obligation; the holder had neither voting nor dividend rights before conversion. The conversion price was linked to fair market value at the conversion date, and no predetermined conversion ratio was established.

Analysis: Future conversion, long tenure and absence of cash redemption may require comparability adjustments, but do not by themselves establish a nil return. Transaction recharacterisation requires established exceptional circumstances, including a divergence between economic substance and legal form or a commercially irrational arrangement that prevents reliable pricing. No evidence showed that the coupon obligation was sham, that the issuer bore no obligation to pay it, or that a comparable uncontrolled transaction warranted a nil price. The assessee's stated or effective coupon rate was not independently affirmed as arm's length.

Conclusion: The nil arm's length price adjustment is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the entire CCD interest was alternatively disallowable under sections 36(1)(iii) and 37(1).

Analysis: The alternative denial rested substantially on the premise that the unconverted CCDs already represented issued equity. No separate and supported finding established that the funds lacked business utilisation or that the interest was otherwise inadmissible. Whether interest is currently deductible or requires capitalisation of interest depends on the utilisation of funds and the assessee's records. The consequential reduction of the capital work-in-progress or capital asset base also depended on the unsustainable nil-price premise.

Conclusion: The alternative disallowance of the CCD interest is set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Compulsory future conversion cannot, by itself, make a present contractual coupon valueless or sustain the associated alternative denial of the interest claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A compulsorily convertible debenture's future conversion into equity, absent evidence satisfying the exceptional recharacterisation standard and a comparable-based analysis under the prescribed transfer-pricing method, cannot alone justify pricing its pre-conversion contractual interest at nil.

Issues: Whether an order concerning confiscation of a domestic conveyance and Indian currency, redemption fine and penalty is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, or revisable by the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 129A provides an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against an appellate order, except matters falling within the first proviso, including goods imported or exported as baggage, specified un-unloaded import goods, and drawback. The disputed orders concerned a domestically registered car, Indian currency and penalties; these were neither imported nor exported goods, and the vehicle had not been loaded with smuggled goods when seized. The matter therefore did not fall within the statutory exceptions excluding the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction. Since an appeal lay under Section 129A, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 129DD was unavailable.

Conclusion: The proper remedy was an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, and the revision application under Section 129DD was not maintainable. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment initiation based on an alleged deduction of health and education cess was valid when no such deduction had been claimed; and (ii) Whether interest on borrowings used for investment in a subsidiary could justify reassessment under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment initiation based on an alleged deduction of health and education cess was valid when no such deduction had been claimed.

Analysis: The reassessment notice under Section 148A(1) was founded on an audit objection alleging deduction of health and education cess. The record established that no such deduction had been claimed. The material supplied in response to the assessee's request did not disclose verification of this objection before initiation of proceedings. Reassessment action based on an unverified factual premise reflected non-application of mind.

Conclusion: Reassessment based on the alleged deduction of health and education cess was invalid; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on borrowings used for investment in a subsidiary could justify reassessment under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Interest on borrowed funds used for investment in a subsidiary is allowable where the investment is supported by commercial expediency and bears nexus with the business purpose. The business purpose need not be confined to the assessee's own immediate profit-making activity, and the Revenue cannot substitute its commercial judgment for that of a prudent businessman. No distinguishing circumstance was shown to displace the application of this principle to the investment in the subsidiary.

Conclusion: The proposed disallowance of interest on borrowed funds invested in the subsidiary was unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Neither audit objection furnished a valid legal foundation for reopening the assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be sustained where the audit-objection basis is factually unverified or fails to disclose a legally sustainable disallowance.

Issues: Whether the intimation computing taxable income, and the consequential rejection of the rectification and revision applications, were sustainable despite the disclosed expenditure having not been addressed.

Analysis: The statutory processing, rectification and revision mechanisms under Sections 143(1), 154 and 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 require consideration of material particulars in the return and a Reasoned Order. The computation was confined to receipts and the exemption claim while disregarding the expenditure disclosed in the return. The revision order did not address this material aspect, demonstrating Non-application of Mind. The communication rejecting rectification was also devoid of reasons.

Conclusion: The intimation and the orders rejecting rectification and revision were unsustainable and were set aside; a fresh rectification application was directed to be decided afresh in light of the return and the stated observations.

Issues: Whether revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could be exercised where the reassessment had been completed after inquiries on the same information relied upon for revision.

Analysis: Exercise of revisionary jurisdiction requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The reassessment record showed that notices were issued, the assessee furnished explanations and supporting material, and the assessment was completed after considering that material. The revision was founded on the same portal information that formed the basis of reassessment, but no error or discrepancy in the assessee's explanation was identified and no further inquiry was undertaken to displace the material already on record. A perceived need for further inquiry, without establishing a lack of inquiry or a demonstrable error causing prejudice, could not justify revision.

Conclusion: The prerequisites for invoking section 263 were not satisfied, and the revisionary order was invalid; the conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the purchase and holding of agricultural land in the appellant's name constituted a benami transaction.

Analysis: The analysis applied the indicia of source of consideration, possession, custody of title documents, relationship between the persons involved, motive and subsequent conduct. The appellant's statement under Section 19(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 disclosed limited financial means and stated that he signed the sale deed at another person's direction for payment. His later affidavit claiming personal funds was rejected as unsupported, inconsistent with the registered sale consideration, delayed, and containing an implausible future-date reference. Documentary evidence concerning the compensation amount, its cash withdrawal by a person associated with the alleged beneficial owner, and the links between the persons involved corroborated the original statement and disproved the asserted independent purchase.

Conclusion: The transaction was benami; the appellant was the benamidar and the other person was the beneficial owner.

Issues: (i) Whether prior Customs adjudication precluded determination of contraventions under FEMA; (ii) Whether the seized electronic records and statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could establish the FEMA contraventions; (iii) Whether the FEMA contraventions and the individual appellant's liability could extend to projected amounts beyond documented transactions.

Issue (i): Whether prior Customs adjudication precluded determination of contraventions under FEMA.

Analysis: Customs proceedings concerned valuation of imported goods and duty assessment under the Customs valuation framework, whereas the foreign-exchange proceedings concerned unlawful dealing in or transfer of foreign exchange. The rejection of transaction-value redetermination based on extrapolation in the Customs proceedings did not bar an independent determination founded on the requirements and evidence applicable under FEMA.

Conclusion: Prior Customs adjudication did not preclude determination of the FEMA contraventions. The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized electronic records and statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could establish the FEMA contraventions.

Analysis: Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 required a presumption of truth, unless rebutted, for documents seized under that Act or another law. The electronic records were linked with manufacturer and supplier invoices, packing lists, banking entries and the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The forensic examination recorded intact seals and identified the seized hard disks, pen drive and flash drive. No material established tampering or rebutted the statutory presumption. The standard applicable to the adjudication was preponderance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of proof.

Conclusion: The seized electronic records and the Section 108 statement were accepted as reliable evidence of the FEMA contraventions. The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the FEMA contraventions and the individual appellant's liability could extend to projected amounts beyond documented transactions.

Analysis: The documentary data supported foreign-exchange contraventions in relation to 363 import bills involving USD 14,01,850, approximately equivalent to Rs. 7,42,27,152. Allegations founded solely on projections or extrapolation beyond the documented entries lacked corroborative evidence and could not be sustained. The individual appellant was in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business and was consequently liable for the proved contraventions under Section 42(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Conclusion: Liability was confined to the documented contraventions and did not extend to projected amounts. The penalties were reduced to Rs. 75,00,000 for the company and Rs. 25,00,000 for the individual appellant. This issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The foreign-exchange determination was sustained only to the extent supported by the seized and corroborated records, while unsupported extrapolated allegations were excluded and the penalties were recalibrated accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: An unrebutted statutory presumption under Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, supported by corroborative electronic and documentary material, can establish foreign-exchange contraventions on a preponderance of probabilities, but liability cannot be extended to amounts based only on uncorroborated extrapolation.

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be imposed where the show-cause notice neither proposed confiscation of the goods nor established that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Analysis: Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires consideration of whether the offending goods are liable to confiscation. Penalty under Rule 26 is attracted only where the person concerned knows or has reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. The show-cause notice did not propose confiscation, and the orders below did not record any finding that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: The statutory preconditions for penalty under Rule 26 were not met; the penalty imposed on the assessee was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit was required to be computed from the actual date of utilisation until reversal of the credit.

Analysis: Section 50(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 88B(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, requires interest to be calculated on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit for the period from its actual utilisation to its reversal. The assessing authority verified that the credit of Rs. 48,643 was utilised on 14.08.2023 and reversed on 24.10.2024, covering 437 days, and accepted that the original assessment had incorrectly adopted an earlier commencement date for interest.

Conclusion: The interest liability stands revised to Rs. 13,977, and the assessment is to be modified accordingly.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation and the underlying show-cause and adjudication proceedings could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the GST portal's 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation.

Analysis: Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides the appellate framework. The show-cause notice was uploaded only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, resulting in the petitioner being unable to respond. This denied an effective opportunity to contest the proposed demand and violated principles of natural justice. The statutory appeal had been dismissed solely on limitation without an examination on merits.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, adjudication order and appellate order were set aside, with directions for issuance of a fresh show-cause notice, opportunity of hearing, and fresh reasoned adjudication in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication order could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation, preventing a response.

Analysis: An adverse GST adjudication requires effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice, in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Uploading the notice only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, left the assessee unable to submit a reply and constituted a denial of natural justice.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication order and consequential notices were set aside, with fresh adjudication to be undertaken after receipt of the assessee's reply and after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the GST adjudication order was vitiated for being non-speaking and for non-application of mind to the taxpayer's reply.

Analysis: Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding State enactment required a reasoned adjudication of the show-cause notice. The adjudication order did not properly address the detailed reply filed by the taxpayer and contained no cogent reasons for its determination. Its cryptic nature disclosed non-application of mind and perversity. The merits of the tax demand were not examined.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable for want of reasons and non-application of mind. A fresh determination is required after considering the taxpayer's reply and granting an adequate personal hearing, without any expression on the merits.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when it was made mechanically without considering the registered person's reply to the show-cause notice.

Analysis: A cancellation decision must reflect due application of mind to the response furnished to the show-cause notice. The acknowledged reply was available on record, whereas the cancellation order proceeded on the erroneous basis that no reply had been filed. The show-cause notice and cancellation order consequently suffered from non-consideration of the reply and lacked proper application of mind. The merits concerning restoration of registration were left for fresh determination by the competent authority after hearing the petitioner.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration was unsustainable for failure to consider the reply and required fresh consideration by the competent authority through a speaking and reasoned decision.

Issues: (i) Whether mechanical rejection of delay condonation seeking leave to respond to a show-cause notice was valid; (ii) Whether adjudication without a personal hearing could stand.

Issue (i): Whether mechanical rejection of delay condonation seeking leave to respond to a show-cause notice was valid.

Analysis: The explanation for failure to respond to the electronic notice was not addressed. The rejection contained no reasons for declining condonation and was therefore mechanical rather than a reasoned determination.

Conclusion: The rejection of condonation of delay was invalid and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether adjudication without a personal hearing could stand.

Analysis: The show-cause notice excluded a personal hearing despite the statutory requirement of such hearing for adjudication. Fair adjudication requires an effective opportunity to submit a reply and to be heard.

Conclusion: Adjudication without affording a personal hearing could not stand; the assessee must be given an opportunity to reply and be heard, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Further statutory adjudication must be undertaken only after receipt of the reply, grant of personal hearing, and issuance of a reasoned order.

Ratio Decidendi: A mechanical and unreasoned refusal to condone delay, coupled with denial of the statutorily required personal hearing, is inconsistent with fair adjudicatory procedure.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the demand on grounds of limitation, jurisdiction, and clubbing of different financial years should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The questions concerning limitation, jurisdiction, and permissibility of clubbing different financial years involve disputed questions of fact and law that can be effectively adjudicated by the appellate authority under the statutory appeal mechanism. No merits determination was made, and all legal issues were left open.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy, with protection against coercive action until the appeal attains finality.

Issues: Whether the appellate order could stand where the petitioner was unable to file an appeal within the prescribed period because the adjudication order uploaded on the GST portal had not come to its notice.

Analysis: Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes the appellate remedy and limitation. The adjudication order had been uploaded under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, and the petitioner became aware of it only upon receiving a recovery notice. In these circumstances, denial of an opportunity to pursue the statutory appeal warranted intervention and a merits-based hearing.

Conclusion: The appellate order was quashed, and the appellate authority was required to entertain and decide the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.