Issues: Whether a penalty under section 271(1)(c), founded on a transfer-pricing adjustment that had been set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication, could survive.

Analysis: The transfer-pricing adjustment forming the basis of the penalty had earlier been restored for fresh adjudication because the assessee's submissions and supporting evidence had not been considered, resulting in a breach of principles of natural justice. No finding on the merits of the adjustment had been made. The original adjustment consequently ceased to be a concluded determination, and fresh assessment and penalty proceedings had been initiated independently.

Conclusion: The penalty founded on the set-aside transfer-pricing adjustment could not survive and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalty for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) could be sustained where the assessee subsequently participated in reassessment proceedings, furnished replies, and the assessment was completed otherwise than by best judgment assessment.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is subject to the protection of Section 273B where reasonable cause is established. Although the initial notices were admittedly not complied with, the assessee subsequently cooperated, submitted the requisite replies, and the assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3), rather than under Section 144. The explanation for the initial default was found plausible in light of the subsequent conduct and compliance.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was unsustainable and was deleted for both assessment years, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the share capital and share premium received from the investor companies could be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessee furnished confirmations, PAN details, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements, ledger accounts, share application documents and other records of the investor companies. The stated non-response to notices under Section 133(6) was contradicted by the record, which showed that the investors had directly submitted documents. Common shareholding, low reported income and suspicion of fund layering, without evidence disproving the documents or showing that the assessee's undisclosed income was routed through the investors, did not establish lack of creditworthiness or genuineness. Upon discharge of the initial burden through documentary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, the onus shifted to the Revenue.

Conclusion: The share capital and share premium were satisfactorily explained and could not be added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the final assessment order was barred by limitation under Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The uploading of the DRP directions on the ITBA portal on 29.08.2024 constituted their communication and receipt during August 2024. The specific and mandatory period under Section 144C(13), which operates notwithstanding the general assessment-limitation provisions, required completion of the assessment by 30.09.2024.

Conclusion: The final assessment order dated 29.10.2024 was time-barred and unsustainable in law.

Outcome: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted for a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal should be condoned; (ii) Whether capital-gains exemption allowable under section 54G under the normal provisions must also be given effect in book-profit computation under section 115JB; (iii) Whether the section 54G benefit can be considered despite its omission from the MAT computation in the return; (iv) Whether the section 54G claim can be rejected because the return was filed under section 139(4) on 30.11.2020; and (v) Whether the matter requires remand for verification of the quantum of section 54G relief.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The medical evidence and explanation concerning the director's health, personal difficulties, collection of evidence and change in professional assistance established sufficient cause. Nothing indicated a deliberate delay or any advantage from belated filing; the expression sufficient cause warranted liberal construction to advance substantial justice.

Conclusion: The delay of 60 days was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether capital-gains exemption allowable under section 54G under the normal provisions must also be given effect in book-profit computation under section 115JB.

Analysis: Section 115JB(5) preserves the application of other provisions of the Income-tax Act unless specifically excluded. The section 54G exemption had already been accepted under the normal provisions, and section 115JB contains no exclusion of that relief. The principle permitting capital-gains relief in MAT computation therefore applies equally to section 54G.

Conclusion: The section 54G exemption must be allowed in computing book profit under section 115JB, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the section 54G benefit can be considered despite its omission from the MAT computation in the return.

Analysis: The claim arose from the same transaction and facts already disclosed and accepted under the normal computation, rather than from a new claim requiring fresh factual foundation. A legally admissible relief cannot be denied solely because it was omitted in the return, particularly where the prescribed return form did not provide a specific field for the relevant MAT adjustment. Appellate authorities may entertain such a lawful claim.

Conclusion: The section 54G benefit cannot be denied merely because it was omitted from the MAT computation in the return, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the section 54G claim can be rejected because the return was filed under section 139(4) on 30.11.2020.

Analysis: The CBDT had extended the time for furnishing belated and revised returns for the relevant assessment year until 30.11.2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The return was consequently filed within the extended period. Filing under section 139(4) did not, by itself, negate a substantively available section 54G claim, and no separate condonation under section 119(2)(b) was required on these facts.

Conclusion: The section 54G claim cannot be rejected on account of the return having been filed on 30.11.2020, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the matter requires remand for verification of the quantum of section 54G relief.

Analysis: The eligibility and quantum of the section 54G claim had already been accepted under the normal provisions. The MAT claim concerned the same accepted amount and involved no fresh factual enquiry requiring verification.

Conclusion: No remand for verification is warranted, and the accepted section 54G relief must be given effect in the MAT computation, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The book-profit assessment must give effect to the section 54G exemption already accepted under the normal provisions, without denial based on the claim's omission from the MAT computation or the return's filing within the extended period.

Ratio Decidendi: By virtue of section 115JB(5), a capital-gains exemption otherwise available under the Income-tax Act applies in MAT book-profit computation unless section 115JB expressly excludes it.

Issues: Whether the contractual claim for refund of the GST element under Clause 2.14.A was covered by the arbitration clause, thereby justifying dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of an alternative arbitral remedy.

Analysis: The refund claim was founded on the specific tax-reimbursement stipulation in Clause 2.14.A. The arbitration clause did not extend to this dispute. The existence of an arbitration agreement therefore could not justify declining writ jurisdiction on that basis. The merits of the competing interpretations of Clause 2.14.A and the GST-refund claim were left for determination by the High Court within the scope of judicial review.

Conclusion: The GST-refund dispute under Clause 2.14.A does not fall within the contractual arbitration clause, and dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of an available arbitral remedy was unjustified.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could restore the matters to the first appellate authority without adjudicating the revenue appeals and the assessee's cross-objections on merits, despite the reasoned first-appellate order available for one of the assessment years.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated both assessment years alike by relying on the absence of reasons in the first-appellate order for one year, while overlooking that a detailed and reasoned order on the same issues existed for the subsequent year. The relevant factual material and grounds were available before the Tribunal, which was required to undertake adjudication on merits rather than mechanically restoring both matters. The approach disclosed non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's restoration order was unsustainable. Both substantial questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and the Tribunal was required to decide the matters on merits after hearing both sides.

Issues: (i) Whether assessment for 1993-94 completed on 31 March 2001 was time-barred following the amendment to Section 42; (ii) Whether purchases from dealers whose registrations were retrospectively cancelled could be treated as purchases from unregistered dealers where the transactions themselves were not genuine.

Issue (i): Whether assessment for 1993-94 completed on 31 March 2001 was time-barred following the amendment to Section 42.

Analysis: Section 42, as substituted with effect from 31 March 1994 by the Gujarat Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1994, confined the three-year limitation to fresh assessments made pursuant to orders under the specified appellate or judicial provisions. The substituted provision applied to the relevant assessment period and did not prescribe a limitation for completion of an original assessment between 1993 and 31 July 1998.

Conclusion: The assessment was not time-barred; the issue is decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether purchases from dealers whose registrations were retrospectively cancelled could be treated as purchases from unregistered dealers where the transactions themselves were not genuine.

Analysis: Concurrent factual findings established material discrepancies in the purchase and transport documents, including absence of vehicle particulars, inconsistency regarding the destination of goods, and lack of reliable evidence of payment and actual movement of goods. Tax benefits based on purchases require proof of genuine transactions and physical movement of the goods; a retrospective cancellation of the suppliers' registrations does not assist a purchasing dealer whose transactions are not proved genuine.

Conclusion: The purchases were rightly treated as purchases from unregistered dealers; the issue is decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and the treatment of the impugned purchases as purchases from unregistered dealers are sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether petroleum products listed in Schedule II(d) as "kept outside VAT" remain taxable at the first point of sale under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004; (ii) Whether road development cess is leviable on the turnover of sales of petrol, diesel and natural gas.

Issue (i): Whether petroleum products listed in Schedule II(d) as "kept outside VAT" remain taxable at the first point of sale under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 3(1)(b) permits specified Schedule II(d) goods to be kept outside the multi-stage VAT mechanism while being taxed at the first point of sale without input tax credit at notified rates. Petrol and diesel are listed in that Schedule. The expression "kept outside VAT" denotes exclusion from the ordinary multi-stage value-added-tax regime, not exclusion from the operation of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The statutory scheme therefore preserves a single-point levy on such goods.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessee: petrol and diesel remain liable to the notified first-point tax, and no refund of the tax so collected is due.

Issue (ii): Whether road development cess is leviable on the turnover of sales of petrol, diesel and natural gas.

Analysis: Section 3(1) of the Tripura Road Development Cess Act, 2015 levies cess on the turnover of sales, subject to deduction for turnover on which cess was paid earlier and a prohibition against more than one-stage levy. "Turnover of sales" includes the sales price and tax levied under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004. Since petroleum products are outside the ordinary VAT mechanism but continue within the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 under the first-point tax regime, their turnover remains a valid basis for cess.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessee: levy of road development cess on the relevant turnover is valid.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme lawfully subjects Schedule II(d) petroleum products to special first-point taxation and permits cess to be computed on their turnover of sales.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods excluded from the multi-stage VAT mechanism but expressly subjected to first-point tax under the governing tax statute remain within that statute and may form the tax-inclusive turnover base for a cess levy.

Issues: Whether the search and seizure proceedings were vitiated by alleged non-service of Form GST INS-02 under Rule 139(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Analysis: Disputed factual assertions concerning preparation and communication of the seizure order could not ordinarily be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction on affidavits alone. The produced Form GST INS-02 recorded the articles seized and bore the petitioner's signature acknowledging physical service; consequently, the statutory requirement of disclosure and service of the seizure order stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The search and seizure proceedings were not invalidated on the ground of non-service of Form GST INS-02.

Issues: Whether writ interference was warranted against pending reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A(3) and Section 148.

Analysis: The impugned order was a prima facie determination capable of reconsideration upon the material furnished during the proceedings. Statutory remedies remained available if an adverse order were ultimately passed, and the objection concerning prior sanction was left open for consideration in those proceedings.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating the merits, with all contentions left open before the competent authority.

Issues: (i) Whether a Look Out Circular issued at a creditor bank's request can continue against personal guarantors merely due to a debt recovery certificate or pending personal-guarantee proceedings, and whether their overseas travel can be conditioned on permission or disclosure of travel plans; (ii) Whether the writ challenge was barred by laches because of knowledge of the Look Out Circular in 2021.

Issue (i): Whether a Look Out Circular issued at a creditor bank's request can continue against personal guarantors merely due to a debt recovery certificate or pending personal-guarantee proceedings, and whether their overseas travel can be conditioned on permission or disclosure of travel plans.

Analysis: The freedom of movement within India and the right to travel abroad under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India may be restricted only in accordance with law; those constitutional rights cannot be waived through a guarantee or other private agreement. A Look Out Circular is intended to secure a person's appearance before an investigating authority or court, and cannot operate as a coercive debt-recovery device. There was no allegation of fraud or criminal proceedings, the debt recovery certificate had not been executed, and no legal authority under the applicable recovery mechanism empowered the bank to procure a Look Out Circular merely upon obtaining that certificate. Pending personal-guarantee proceedings did not contain a travel-restraint order. No law required the petitioners to disclose travel plans to their creditor, and compelled disclosure in these circumstances would intrude upon privacy. The constitutional validity of the executive arrangement permitting banks to seek Look Out Circulars was not adjudicated.

Conclusion: The Look Out Circular could not continue on the existing facts and was liable to be revoked, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ challenge was barred by laches because of knowledge of the Look Out Circular in 2021.

Analysis: Each prevention of foreign travel by reason of the Look Out Circular gave rise to a fresh cause of action.

Conclusion: The plea of delay and laches failed, in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: In the absence of criminal process, a subsisting judicial travel-restraint order, or lawful statutory authority, a personal guarantor's debtor status and an unexecuted debt recovery certificate do not justify continued restraint on foreign travel through a Look Out Circular.

Ratio Decidendi: A creditor-requested Look Out Circular cannot curtail the constitutional right to travel abroad merely to facilitate debt recovery unless the restraint is supported by law or a competent judicial order.

Issues: Whether an ex parte ad-interim injunction should restrain further circulation of allegedly false and defamatory online reports concerning the plaintiff and require their removal and de-indexing pending the suit.

Analysis: Ex parte relief is exceptional and requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The pleaded material indicated that the plaintiff had not been summoned or served with any process or complaint, while the impugned reports portrayed him as an accused and referred to attachment of his shares. The material was prima facie found to be unfair reporting capable of creating sensationalism, shaping public perception and causing continuing reputational harm. The recent and continuing publications did not establish acquiescence. The balance between reputation and dignity under Article 21 and freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) required reporting to remain accurate and non-sensational, subject to the limitations recognised by Article 19(2).

Outcome: Ex parte ad-interim restraints, takedown, de-indexing and preservation directions were issued in respect of the identified content and substantially similar subsequently identified content, pending the suit.

Issues: (i) Whether the arm's length price of intra-group GHO Non-IT, GHO IT and RHO services could be determined at nil; (ii) Whether assessed income had to be computed after giving effect to the CPC rectification order; (iii) Whether the employee-contribution disallowance was sustainable; (iv) Whether a further depreciation adjustment was warranted where book depreciation had already been added back and tax depreciation claimed.

Issue (i): Whether the arm's length price of intra-group GHO Non-IT, GHO IT and RHO services could be determined at nil.

Analysis: Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 10AB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 require determination of the arm's length price through an applicable prescribed benchmarking method. On materially identical facts, the receipt of India-specific intra-group services had been established through supporting material, while the nil valuation did not result from the required Rule 10AB exercise. The rule of consistency required following the binding position already settled for identical transactions.

Conclusion: The nil arm's length price and the transfer-pricing adjustment for the GHO and RHO services were deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether assessed income had to be computed after giving effect to the CPC rectification order.

Analysis: The original intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was superseded in relevant part by the subsequent rectification order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which recomputed the total income. The final assessment could not proceed on the unrevised figure in the original intimation.

Conclusion: Assessed income was directed to be recomputed after giving effect to the rectification order, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the employee-contribution disallowance was sustainable.

Analysis: Under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the relevant ESI contribution was paid before its stipulated due date. The contrary date in the tax-audit report was treated as an inadvertent reporting error.

Conclusion: The employee-contribution disallowance was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether a further depreciation adjustment was warranted where book depreciation had already been added back and tax depreciation claimed.

Analysis: The computation showed that book depreciation had been added back and depreciation allowable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been claimed. Verification of the stated computation was required before giving consequential effect.

Conclusion: The depreciation adjustment was directed to be verified and consequential effect given, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing addition and employee-contribution disallowance could not be retained, and the assessed income was required to reflect the rectified computation and the verified depreciation claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where actual receipt of intra-group services is established, the arm's length price cannot be determined at nil without undertaking the prescribed benchmarking analysis.

Issues: (i) Whether the manufacturing-segment transfer-pricing adjustment required consideration of adjustments for capacity underutilisation and customs-duty differences, and re-evaluation of comparables under Rule 10B(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; (ii) Whether the ECB interest adjustment based on a single comparable with materially different credit, scale and risk attributes could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the manufacturing-segment transfer-pricing adjustment required consideration of adjustments for capacity underutilisation and customs-duty differences, and re-evaluation of comparables under Rule 10B(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis: Rule 10B(3) requires an uncontrolled transaction to be treated as comparable only where differences do not materially affect profit, or reasonably accurate adjustments can eliminate their material effects. The first year of commercial operations involved a substantially higher depreciation ratio owing to underutilised capacity and a substantially higher customs-duty burden than the selected comparables. The claims were rejected without examining audited data to determine whether quantified adjustments could neutralise these differences. Functional comparability of the final set of comparables also required fresh examination.

Conclusion: The manufacturing-segment adjustment was set aside for fresh determination of the arm's length price after examination of material differences, quantified comparability adjustments, and functional comparability.

Issue (ii): Whether the ECB interest adjustment based on a single comparable with materially different credit, scale and risk attributes could be sustained.

Analysis: Benchmarking under Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 remains necessary despite compliance with RBI all-in-cost ceilings. A single comparable transaction involving an entity with fundamentally different credit profile, scale and risk attributes could not provide a reliable benchmark for the ECB interest rate.

Conclusion: The ECB interest adjustment was set aside for fresh arm's length benchmarking after considering an appropriate set of comparable transactions.

Final Conclusion: Both transfer-pricing determinations require fresh, fact-specific comparability analysis after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Material operational or credit-risk differences affecting transfer-pricing margins or price must be evaluated through reasonably accurate comparability adjustments, and a benchmark founded on a materially dissimilar single comparable cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether the ex parte adjudication could stand where the show-cause notice and adjudication order were uploaded only under the GST portal's "Additional Notice and Orders" tab without separate intimation, preventing the petitioner from replying.

Analysis: Proceedings under Section 73 require observance of principles of natural justice, including adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond. Uploading the show-cause notice and adjudication order only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, prevented the petitioner from responding to the notice and constituted a breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication order was quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, with a direction to permit a reply and undertake fresh reasoned adjudication after affording a hearing.

Issues: Whether the concurrent finding that the creditors lacked creditworthiness for purposes of the unsecured-loan addition under Section 68 was perverse.

Analysis: Section 68 places the initial burden on the assessee to establish the identity of the creditor, the creditor's financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transaction through cogent evidence. Confirmations or cheque payments do not by themselves establish creditworthiness where the creditors deny the loans or cannot satisfactorily explain the source of funds and preceding cash deposits. The concurrent factual appreciation by the assessing and appellate authorities disclosed failure to discharge that burden.

Conclusion: The finding on lack of creditworthiness was not perverse; the question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether transfer of the entire business undertaking without consideration to a distinct registered person constitutes a supply under GST. (ii) Whether the transfer is a supply of goods or a supply of services. (iii) Whether the transfer is covered by Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. (iv) Whether stock and fixed assets are taxable where the business does not qualify as a going concern.

Issue (i): Whether transfer of the entire business undertaking without consideration to a distinct registered person constitutes a supply under GST.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has an inclusive scope and encompasses specified supplies made without consideration. The proposed arrangement transfers the entire undertaking, including assets, liabilities, employees, rights, customers and operations, from one registered person to another. Such comprehensive transfer was treated as a supply notwithstanding that it is without consideration and is not in the ordinary course of business.

Conclusion: The transfer of the entire business undertaking constitutes a supply under GST.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer is a supply of goods or a supply of services.

Analysis: Entry 4(c) of Schedule II excludes a business transferred as a going concern from deemed supply-of-goods treatment on cessation of taxable person status. A business undertaking transferred as a whole is not movable property qualifying as goods under Section 2(52); being neither goods, money nor securities, it falls within services under Section 2(102).

Conclusion: The transfer of the business undertaking amounts to a supply of services.

Issue (iii): Whether the transfer is covered by Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: Serial No. 2 grants nil-rate treatment to services by way of transfer of a going concern as a whole or an independent part thereof. Although the arrangement provides for continuity of operations, employees, assets and liabilities, no documentary evidence was furnished to establish that the business satisfies the requirements of a going concern.

Conclusion: The transfer is covered by Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 only if the business qualifies as a going concern.

Issue (iv): Whether stock and fixed assets are taxable where the business does not qualify as a going concern.

Analysis: Under Entry 4(c) of Schedule II, goods forming part of business assets are deemed supplied immediately before cessation of taxable person status unless the business is transferred as a going concern. The going-concern exception is therefore unavailable where that condition is not met.

Conclusion: Stock, closing stock and other business assets are supplies of goods and are taxable at the rates applicable to the respective goods if the business does not qualify as a going concern.

Final Conclusion: A comprehensive transfer of the undertaking is characterised as a supply of services, with nil-rate treatment dependent upon proof that the undertaking is transferred as a going concern; otherwise, the transferred business goods attract tax as deemed supplies.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer of a business undertaking as a going concern is a supply of services eligible for the Serial No. 2 exemption, whereas failure of the going-concern condition results in deemed supply-of-goods treatment for business assets upon cessation.

Issues: Whether a complete e-rickshaw kit supplied in completely knocked down condition is classifiable as the finished electrically operated vehicle and taxable at 5% GST.

Analysis: Rule 2(a) governing interpretation of the Import Tariff permits classification of a complete article supplied unassembled where the goods retain the essential character of that article. Tariff item 87038040 covers three-wheeled vehicles propelled solely by an electric motor, and Serial No. 441 of Schedule I to Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) prescribes 5% GST for electrically operated vehicles. Classification as an e-rickshaw in CKD condition requires cumulative satisfaction of four conditions: all components necessary for one complete e-rickshaw must be supplied together as a single identifiable kit; the kit must require only assembly without addition of an essential component; the purchase order, invoice, packing list and contemporaneous records must consistently describe an e-rickshaw in CKD/SKD condition; and the actual consignment must correspond with those records.

Conclusion: On fulfilment of all four conditions, the CKD kit is classifiable as the finished electrically operated three-wheeled vehicle under tariff item 87038040 and attracts GST at 5% (2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST) on its composite value. Failure to fulfil any condition results in classification as individual parts taxable at the rate applicable to those parts.