Issues: Whether the sanction under Section 151 for reopening the assessment was valid where the approving authority merely endorsed that it was a fit case for issuance of notice.

Analysis: Section 151 requires the competent authority to apply its mind before granting sanction for reassessment under Sections 147 and 148. Conflicting views of non-jurisdictional High Courts did not attain binding force merely because the related special leave petitions were summarily dismissed; such dismissal neither attracts the doctrine of merger nor declares law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The construction favourable to the assessee was therefore adopted. The approval, stating only that the case was fit for issuance of notice in view of the Assessing Officer's recorded reasons, disclosed no independent consideration or reasons. Even an administrative sanction must reflect application of mind and cannot be a mechanical endorsement.

Conclusion: The sanction under Section 151 was invalid for want of application of mind, and the consequential reassessment was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A sanction for reassessment must demonstrate the approving authority's independent application of mind; a bare or mechanical endorsement is not a valid statutory approval.

Issues: (i) Whether Infosys BPM Limited, Integra Software Services Private Limited, Vitae International Accounting Services Private Limited and MPS Limited were valid comparables for the assessee's captive IT-enabled services operations; (ii) Whether companies otherwise comparable could be excluded solely for not appearing in the TPO's search matrix; (iii) Whether outstanding receivables from associated enterprises require separate arm's-length benchmarking and the proper interest benchmark for delayed realization; (iv) Whether foreign-exchange gains from restatement of export trade receivables and payables qualify for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether Infosys BPM Limited, Integra Software Services Private Limited, Vitae International Accounting Services Private Limited and MPS Limited were valid comparables for the assessee's captive IT-enabled services operations.

Analysis: Arm's-length benchmarking requires functional comparability after considering the functions performed, scale of operations, business model, intangibles and service profile. Infosys BPM Limited had substantially larger operations, diversified integrated services, significant intangibles and brand value. Vitae International Accounting Services Private Limited derived revenue from accounting, audit, tax and technical-content services, which differed from routine IT-enabled services. MPS Limited provided publishing, digital and platform solutions with a materially distinct functional profile. Integra Software Services Private Limited, however, derived revenue from IT-enabled services and was functionally similar; absence of segmental information did not establish dissimilarity on the facts found.

Conclusion: Infosys BPM Limited, Vitae International Accounting Services Private Limited and MPS Limited must be excluded, while Integra Software Services Private Limited is retained as a comparable. The issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether companies otherwise comparable could be excluded solely for not appearing in the TPO's search matrix.

Analysis: A company that is otherwise comparable and satisfies the applicable filters cannot be rejected solely because it was absent from the TPO's search matrix. The requested companies required verification of their annual reports, functional profile and FAR analysis before their inclusion could be determined.

Conclusion: Rejection solely for absence from the search matrix is unsustainable; the inclusion claims are restored to the Assessing Officer/TPO for verification and decision in accordance with law. The legal issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether outstanding receivables from associated enterprises require separate arm's-length benchmarking and the proper interest benchmark for delayed realization.

Analysis: Trade receivables from associated enterprises constitute an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and require separate benchmarking with reference to the credit period allowed. Interest on delayed realization must reflect the appropriate foreign-currency benchmark; use of the SBI short-term deposit rate was not appropriate.

Conclusion: Separate benchmarking of delayed receivables is upheld against the assessee, but interest must be computed at LIBOR plus 200 basis points after allowing a credit period of 60 days. The issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether foreign-exchange gains from restatement of export trade receivables and payables qualify for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Deduction is confined to income having a direct, immediate and proximate nexus with export activity; the expression "derived from" is narrower than "attributable to". Foreign-exchange gains arising from restatement of trade receivables and payables were held not to satisfy that direct nexus with export income.

Conclusion: Foreign-exchange gains from reinstatement of trade receivables and payables do not qualify for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing computation requires recomputation after exclusion of three comparables and application of the prescribed LIBOR-based rate; the proposed additional comparables require fresh verification, while denial of the Section 10AA deduction is sustained.

Issues: Whether the adjudication based on the mismatch between Forms GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B should be set aside to afford an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice.

Analysis: Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governed the mismatch-based adjudication. The adjudication proceeded because no response was filed to the intimation and show-cause notice. The petitioner asserted that the registered email belonged to its Chartered Accountant, who had not assisted it, and that reconciliation material could establish that the mismatch resulted from delayed supplier returns.

Conclusion: A further opportunity to file a reply and supporting reconciliation material was required before a reasoned determination on the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether an adjudication under Section 73 could be sustained when the taxpayer's prior reply explaining an alleged clerical error in the annual return had not been considered.

Analysis: The record showed that a response to the audit intimation had been furnished, explaining that the reported tax figure in the annual return resulted from a clerical error and that no debit notes had been issued for the relevant period. The premise that no response had been made was therefore inconsistent with the material on record. The explanation required consideration before deciding whether the proposal in the show-cause notice was to be confirmed.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the adjudication order and consequential garnishee notice were quashed, with the proceedings restored for submission of a detailed response to the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether interest liability converted into cumulative redeemable preference shares under a corporate debt restructuring arrangement was allowable without disallowance under section 43B(d).

Analysis: Section 43B(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 conditions deduction of specified interest on actual payment. The deletion of the disallowance was sustained on the basis that the High Court decision relied upon by the appellate authority continued to have precedential force. Mere pendency of a special leave petition against that decision, without any stay, reversal, or modification by the Supreme Court, did not displace its binding effect.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 3,32,62,140 under section 43B(d) in respect of the interest liability converted into preference shares was unsustainable and stood deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST order passed without a personal hearing or enquiry was valid.

Analysis: Observance of the principles of natural justice requires a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse tax order. The impugned order was passed ex parte without affording such hearing and without conducting an enquiry.

Conclusion: The ex parte order was unsustainable for breach of the principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether the mismatch-liability order was sustainable when the supplier's GSTR-3B return had been filed within the extended time limit for availing Input Tax Credit under Section 16(5).

Analysis: The record contained the replies, supply documents, supplier certificate and the supplier's GSTR-3B return filed on 07.05.2021. That return was within the extended statutory time limit under Section 16(5). The proper officer relied only on Section 16(4) and disregarded Section 16(5) despite the materials on record.

Conclusion: The liability determination was unsustainable because the asserted Input Tax Credit eligibility required consideration under Section 16(5).

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition seeking contractual refund was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the insurer was entitled to retain the security deposit and unadjusted premium balance, and whether interest was payable on those amounts.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition seeking contractual refund was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 226 permits relief in contractual matters where the action of a public authority is arbitrary and the material facts are documentary and not seriously disputed. The defences of statutory violations, fraudulent claims, lien and set-off were unsupported by contemporaneous documents, proceedings, quantified claims, or any demonstrated adjustment. Reasons not communicated when the money was withheld could not be subsequently constructed through affidavits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the insurer was entitled to retain the security deposit and unadjusted premium balance, and whether interest was payable on those amounts.

Analysis: Under the MoUs, the security deposit could be adjusted only against a financial default. No financial default was established, identified, quantified, or adjusted against the deposit. The unadjusted cash balance represented unconsumed advance premium, and no appropriation towards any liability was shown. The contractual exclusion of interest applied only to the security deposit and not to the unadjusted cash deposit balance.

Conclusion: Retention of the security deposit and unadjusted cash deposit balance was unauthorized. The security deposit was refundable without interest, while the unadjusted cash deposit balance was refundable with simple interest at 7% per annum.

Final Conclusion: The insurer could not retain contractual deposits in the absence of a documented financial default, lawful adjustment, or established liability.

Ratio Decidendi: A public insurer's contractual deposits cannot be retained through an unsubstantiated lien or set-off; writ relief is available where the relevant facts are documentary and the asserted defence lacks contemporaneous support.

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory audit was completed within the prescribed limitation period; (ii) Whether the show cause notice and final audit observations were valid when the audit findings were finalized without the prescribed opportunity to reply.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory audit was completed within the prescribed limitation period.

Analysis: Section 65(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires completion of an audit within the stipulated period from its commencement. Under its Explanation, commencement is the later of the date on which records are made available and the date on which the audit is actually instituted at the registered person's place of business. As the on-site audit was instituted after the documents had been furnished, that later date governed the computation.

Conclusion: The audit was not time-barred; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice and final audit observations were valid when the audit findings were finalized without the prescribed opportunity to reply.

Analysis: Section 65(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 101(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules require the registered person to be informed of audit discrepancies, afforded an opportunity to respond, and have the reply considered before audit findings are finalized. The communication treated as the basis for the show cause notice was only an intimation of discrepancies, not final audit findings. The subsequent final audit observations were also issued without deciding the request for time and without permitting a reply to the discrepancy intimation.

Conclusion: The show cause notice and final audit observations were invalid and were quashed; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The audit must be finalized only after permitting a response to the discrepancy intimation and considering that response in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice founded on audit discrepancies cannot be sustained unless the audit findings have been finalized after giving the registered person the prescribed opportunity to respond and considering the response.

Issues: Whether purchases of traded edible oils from associated enterprises were required to be benchmarked under the Other Method using contemporaneous independent market quotations instead of the Transactional Net Margin Method, and whether the consequential arm's-length adjustment required recomputation.

Analysis: Selection of the most appropriate method depends on the nature of the international transaction, the functional profile, and the availability and reliability of comparable uncontrolled data. The Other Method, based on contemporaneous market quotations, had been accepted for identical purchase transactions in the assessee's earlier assessment year. No material change in the transactions or functional profile was established to justify departure from that approach. A different methodology applied in another taxpayer's case could not displace the principle of consistency without material similarity of facts. Consequential computation was required to give effect to the directions on comparables, margin recomputation, and working-capital adjustment upon verification of reliable data.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee: the Other Method is to govern the benchmarking of the impugned purchase transactions, and the consequential arm's-length adjustment is to be recomputed in accordance with the applicable directions after verification.

Issues: (i) Whether a mark-up on reimbursement of salary and travel costs of employees seconded to associated enterprises was warranted; (ii) Whether one-fifth of amalgamation expenditure paid in the financial year 2011-12 was deductible for the assessment year 2016-17 under Section 35DD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite the earlier appointed date of amalgamation.

Issue (i): Whether a mark-up on reimbursement of salary and travel costs of employees seconded to associated enterprises was warranted.

Analysis: The employees were seconded temporarily, and the salary and travel costs were recovered from the associated enterprises strictly on a cost-to-cost basis without any mark-up. The reimbursement was not a consideration for a continuing service. The same treatment had been accepted in other assessment years, and the bilateral advance pricing agreement also recognised recovery of such secondment costs at cost. In the absence of any change in facts, a contrary transfer-pricing treatment was impermissible under the rule of consistency.

Conclusion: No mark-up was chargeable on the cost-to-cost reimbursement of seconded employees' salary and travel costs; the related transfer-pricing adjustment was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether one-fifth of amalgamation expenditure paid in the financial year 2011-12 was deductible for the assessment year 2016-17 under Section 35DD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite the earlier appointed date of amalgamation.

Analysis: The amalgamation expenditure was incurred and paid only in the financial year 2011-12 after approval of the amalgamation. Computing the five-year deduction period from the appointed date would require the assessee to claim deduction before incurring the expenditure, contrary to the principle of impossibility of performance. The deduction had also been accepted for the preceding four assessment years without any change in facts.

Conclusion: The fifth annual instalment of the amalgamation expenditure under Section 35DD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowable for the assessment year 2016-17, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing addition on secondment-cost reimbursements and the disallowance of the fifth instalment of amalgamation expenditure could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of changed facts, consistently accepted cost-to-cost reimbursement treatment cannot be replaced by a transfer-pricing mark-up, and an amortised deduction must run from the year in which the underlying expenditure was actually incurred.

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed comparable was functionally comparable at the entity level to the assessee's software-development services; (ii) Whether the AO/TPO was required to recompute comparable margins in accordance with the DRP's directions; (iii) Whether the interest adjustment on outstanding receivables required verification of balances linked to an Indian entity and a transaction-specific determination of the arm's length interest rate.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed comparable was functionally comparable at the entity level to the assessee's software-development services.

Analysis: Functional comparability under the Transactional Net Margin Method must be established from the comparable's actual business and financial profile for the relevant year. General and undated website descriptions could not reliably establish the nature or extent of its activities during that year. The comparable undertook multiple activities, including infrastructure management, network operations, cloud computing, engineering and quality-assurance services, besides software development. In the absence of segmental revenue and results, its entity-level margin could not be reliably compared with that of a software-development service provider.

Conclusion: The disputed comparable is not a valid entity-level comparable and must be excluded from the final set of comparables; this finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the AO/TPO was required to recompute comparable margins in accordance with the DRP's directions.

Analysis: The AO/TPO was bound by the directions issued under Section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring computation of comparable margins under the extant rules after considering the assessee's submissions. Retention of earlier margins without the directed verification warranted recomputation of the margins and median after revising the comparable set.

Conclusion: The software-development-services adjustment must be recomputed after applying the DRP's directions and revising the comparable set; the matter is decided in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (iii): Whether the interest adjustment on outstanding receivables required verification of balances linked to an Indian entity and a transaction-specific determination of the arm's length interest rate.

Analysis: The claim that part of the outstanding balance related to an Indian entity required factual verification. Further, arm's length interest cannot be fixed through mechanical adoption of a uniform spread over LIBOR. The appropriate rate must reflect the associated enterprise's financial standing and creditworthiness, along with the rate that would apply in a comparable uncontrolled transaction on relevant terms.

Conclusion: The interest adjustment requires fresh verification and determination of the arm's length rate on the stated parameters; this relief is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing computation must exclude the functionally unsuitable comparable and be recalculated under the DRP's margin directions, while the receivable adjustment must reflect verified domestic balances and a transaction-specific interest benchmark.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Transactional Net Margin Method, a company carrying on multiple functions without reliable, relevant-year segmental information cannot be used as an entity-level comparable for a software-development service provider.

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 54,734 attributed to purported accommodation entries could be sustained in respect of share trades in Padmanabh Industries Ltd. and Kushal Ltd.; (ii) Whether closing-stock valuation of unlisted shares after an approved demerger could be adjusted below their pre-demerger acquisition cost under ICDS-VIII

Issue (i): Whether disallowance of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 54,734 attributed to purported accommodation entries could be sustained in respect of share trades in Padmanabh Industries Ltd. and Kushal Ltd.

Analysis: Contract notes, demat records evidencing delivery, securities transaction tax payments, and banking-channel transactions supported the share trades conducted in the ordinary course by a regular securities trader. No material established that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries. The Rs. 1,000 transaction in Padmanabh Industries Ltd. had in fact yielded a disclosed profit, rather than a loss. On the preponderance of probabilities, the disallowances lacked factual basis.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 54,734 is unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether closing-stock valuation of unlisted shares after an approved demerger could be adjusted below their pre-demerger acquisition cost under ICDS-VIII

Analysis: Section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and ICDS-VIII governed the valuation question. Following the approved demerger, the project-division assets ceased to form part of the original company and securities were allotted in the resulting companies. The original acquisition cost consequently required apportionment between the retained shares and the securities received under the demerger. Documentary evidence substantiated the reduction to Rs. 1,800 per share, and retaining the pre-demerger cost of Rs. 2,000 per share would produce a distorted valuation. The rule concerning actual cost for securities acquired in exchange supported the adjusted valuation.

Conclusion: The adjusted closing-stock valuation is valid and the addition of Rs. 4,30,00,000 is unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjustments for the share transactions and closing-stock valuation cannot be retained in the assessment.

Issues: Whether the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) preserves input tax credit entitlement where the returns for the relevant tax period were filed after the prescribed due date but before 30.11.2021.

Analysis: Section 16(5), effective retrospectively from 01.07.2017, permits input tax credit in respect of returns pertaining to financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 where the return was furnished by 30.11.2021. The relevant returns, though delayed, had been filed between April 2019 and August 2019, and thus fell within the statutory cut-off. The amendment was not in force when the adjudication order was made but governed the relevant tax period.

Conclusion: Delayed filing of the relevant returns did not defeat the petitioner's entitlement to input tax credit under the retrospectively inserted Section 16(5).

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 after the applicable limitation period was valid.

Analysis: The notice concerning assessment year 2015-16 was issued on 29.07.2022. The governing Supreme Court position recognised that notices for that assessment year issued on or after 01.04.2021 could not be completed within the period preserved under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The notice was therefore beyond limitation.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was time-barred and was quashed; all consequential proceedings were set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment was valid without issuance of a notice under section 143(2) after the assessee elected to treat its original return as the return in response to notice under section 148; (ii) Whether the absence of signature by an authorised person on that election invalidated the return and reassessment.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment was valid without issuance of a notice under section 143(2) after the assessee elected to treat its original return as the return in response to notice under section 148.

Analysis: An assessee may communicate that its earlier return be treated as the return furnished in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such communication makes the earlier return operative for reassessment purposes from the date of the communication. Issuance and service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is mandatory for completing a reassessment under sections 147 and 148. The assessment record and assessment order disclosed no issuance of such notice.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid for want of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of signature by an authorised person on that election invalidated the return and reassessment.

Analysis: A defect concerning signature or verification is curable under section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and does not render the return non est without an opportunity for rectification. The unsigned communication did not negate the assessee's election to treat the original return as its return in response to the notice under section 148.

Conclusion: The absence of an authorised signature did not validate the reassessment or displace the jurisdictional defect, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional annulment of the assessment remained undisturbed, and the additions did not require adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier return is validly adopted as the return in response to a reassessment notice, complete absence of the mandatory notice under section 143(2) invalidates the reassessment; a curable signature defect does not alter that consequence.

Issues: Validity of the reassessment initiation where the recorded reasons incorrectly stated that no original scrutiny assessment had been made and did not record the assessee's failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts.

Analysis: The recorded reasons proceeded on the premise that the return had only been processed under Section 143(1), whereas an assessment under Section 143(3) had in fact already been completed. The reopening was initiated after the stipulated period from the end of the relevant assessment year. The recorded reasons neither reflected application of mind to the completed scrutiny assessment nor identified any material fact not fully and truly disclosed by the assessee, despite that failure being a jurisdictional requirement under the first proviso to Section 147.

Conclusion: The assumption of reassessment jurisdiction was invalid; the reassessment and consequential assessment order were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether capital gains from the sale of property gifted by the assessee's husband had to be clubbed and assessed in the husband's hands under Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 64(1)(iv) ordinarily requires income arising from an asset transferred by a spouse without adequate consideration to be included in the transferor-spouse's income. The disclosure that the sale proceeds funded the fixed deposits and that the property had been received from the husband was made only in response to the final show-cause notice, after expiry of the period for initiating reassessment against the husband. The husband had also not filed a return of income. The delayed claim was treated as an attempt to avoid assessment of the income in either spouse's hands.

Conclusion: The capital gain was not required to be assessed in the husband's hands, and its assessment in the assessee's hands was sustained. [Against Assessee].

Issues: Whether penalty for under-reporting under section 270A could be sustained where the assessee had fully disclosed software-development expenditure and its accounting treatment, but the Revenue treated the claimed revenue expenditure as capital loss.

Analysis: Section 270A(6)(a) excludes an amount from under-reported income where the assessee offers a bona fide explanation and discloses all material facts necessary to substantiate it. The expenditure and its accounting treatment, including the separate components relating to impairment of an internally developed software asset and capital work-in-progress, were disclosed in the audited financial statements. The dispute concerned the legal characterisation of disclosed expenditure as revenue or capital, rather than any fictitious claim, false factual statement, inflated expenditure, or suppression of material facts. Rejection of an arguable legal claim in quantum proceedings does not, by itself, establish that the explanation was not bona fide.

Conclusion: The conditions for exclusion under section 270A(6)(a) were satisfied; the amount could not be treated as under-reported income, and the penalty under section 270A was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a creditor's insolvency petition is maintainable where no act of insolvency under Section 6(1) is established; and (ii) Whether the resulting insolvency adjudication may survive against non-appellant debtors when the petition itself is incompetent.

Issue (i): Whether a creditor's insolvency petition is maintainable where no act of insolvency under Section 6(1) is established.

Analysis: Section 9(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 imposes conjunctive and mandatory conditions for a creditor's petition, including occurrence of an act of insolvency within the prescribed period. Although the creditors had cited Section 10, the misdescription did not invalidate the petition and it was treated as one under Section 9(1). An attempt or intention to alienate property, unlike an actual transfer falling within Section 6(1), is not an act of insolvency. Mere failure to repay a debt may found a money claim but does not by itself satisfy the statutory condition for insolvency proceedings.

Conclusion: In favour of the appellant: the creditor's insolvency petition was not maintainable because no qualifying act of insolvency was established.

Issue (ii): Whether the resulting insolvency adjudication may survive against non-appellant debtors when the petition itself is incompetent.

Analysis: Absence of the mandatory statutory foundation for the creditor's petition constituted a jurisdictional defect going to the root of the insolvency proceedings. An adjudication founded on such an incompetent petition could not be selectively retained against some of the persons proceeded against.

Conclusion: The insolvency adjudication could not survive against the non-appellant debtors and was invalid in its entirety.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency proceedings lacked statutory foundation and could not sustain adjudication or consequential liquidation measures against any person proceeded against, without prejudice to the creditors' lawful remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: A creditor's insolvency petition requires strict fulfilment of the conditions in Section 9(1), including an actual statutory act of insolvency; mere non-payment of debt or an attempted transfer of property is insufficient.