The proviso to Section 85(3A) permits an appeal filed within the further one-month condonable period on sufficient cause and does not expressly require a separate condonation application. For a one-day delay where the appellant has been heard, an explanation may be sought rather than treating the omission as a technical bar. Extended service-tax limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade. Non-payment, non-registration, or non-filing of returns alone does not establish that intent, especially where income-tax-return data was available to Revenue. A demand cannot extend beyond the statutory maximum limitation period.

Refund claims under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 had to be filed within six months from presidential assent to the Finance Bill. As assent was received on 14 May 2016, the filing period expired on 14 November 2016. The six-month limitation was treated as mandatory, and a claim filed on 14 February 2017 was time-barred and liable to rejection. A contrary High Court view was not followed because it had not considered the applicable Supreme Court decision.

Foreign-exchange adjudication proceedings brought by Article 226 writ petitions are allocated to Group IV, which covers adjudication proceedings and miscellaneous matters concerning revenue and tax laws, rather than the residuary Group IX. Rules 8A and 8B require writ petitions to be placed within the prescribed roster classification. The foreign-exchange regulatory framework, its subject matter, and cause-list treatment of foreign exchange as a revenue subject support Group IV allocation.

Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 excludes civil-court jurisdiction only for matters the National Company Law Tribunal is empowered to determine. The Tribunal's jurisdiction over oppression, mismanagement, company affairs and shareholders' rights under Sections 241 and 242 does not extend to declaring a registered sale deed void or non-binding on a company. Civil jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 continues unless expressly or necessarily impliedly excluded. Accordingly, a Commercial Court may adjudicate declaratory relief challenging a registered sale deed.

Foreign currency concealed for export, acquired through unauthorised channels, and unsupported by evidence of lawful acquisition, Reserve Bank permission, or Customs declaration is liable to confiscation for contravening foreign-exchange controls. Confiscability does not automatically require absolute confiscation: discretion to permit redemption must account for the nature of the breach, the value involved, and proportionality. Penalty liability for attempted unauthorised export remains applicable, but penalties may be moderated where those involved acted as carriers and their ownership or ultimate beneficiary status is not established. Redemption and penalty consequences should reflect the proven degree of participation.

Written acceptance of reassessment under section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 dispenses only with a speaking order and does not waive an importer's statutory right to challenge reassessment or value enhancement. Rejection of declared transaction value under section 14 and rule 12(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules requires reasonable doubt as to its truth or accuracy, communicated before applying the sequential valuation rules. NIDB or contemporaneous-import data alone cannot justify enhancement without independent, cogent and verifiable material. An acceptance letter lacking particulars of comparable imports does not establish compliance with the valuation framework.

An importer's written acceptance of an enhanced assessable value under Section 17(5) removes the requirement for a speaking order but does not extinguish the statutory right to challenge reassessment. Declared transaction value may be rejected under Section 14 and Rule 12(2) only after reasonable doubt about its truth or accuracy is formed and communicated. NIDB or contemporaneous-import data, without disclosed supporting material, cogent corroboration, and compliance with sequential valuation rules, cannot alone support enhancement. A reassessment made without these mandatory valuation safeguards is unsustainable.

Customs prosecution for outright smuggling involving precious metals is subject to the revised Rs. 50 lakh monetary threshold introduced by the 16 August 2022 circular, which modified the earlier Rs. 20 lakh threshold while retaining other terms. Where the goods' value falls below the revised threshold, the request for discontinuance must be assessed under that limit. The retained withdrawal provision permits judicial consideration of whether an already-filed complaint should continue; prior prosecution sanction does not itself bar that consideration.

Customs confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act require an established contravention and cannot rest on assumptions about an export destination. Export records, phytosanitary certificates, buyer details and remittance records supported the declared Iranian destination; no alteration of certificates or non-genuine remittances was established. Once a Let Export Order is issued, title to export goods passes to the foreign buyer. Post-export receipt-of-proceeds concerns under foreign-exchange or foreign-trade regimes require action by authorities empowered under those enactments and, absent an independent Customs Act contravention, do not justify Customs confiscation or penalties.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires that a material part of the cause of action arise within the court's territorial limits. Seizure, detention and provisional-release proceedings concerning imported goods at ICD Dadri arose under the Customs Commissioner at Noida, not Delhi. Connections with Delhi-based authorities, classification issues, a Chartered Engineer's certificate and CBIC policy did not create a cause of action in Delhi. Forum conveniens cannot cure an absence of territorial jurisdiction because it applies only where more than one competent forum exists. Challenges to classification and release must therefore be pursued before the appropriate forum.

Disposal of seized gold without statutory prior notice to its owner under Section 150(1) makes the applicable valuation, if confiscation proceedings ultimately favour the owner, the fair market value on the date release is directed rather than the historical sale proceeds. A pending departmental appeal against non-confiscation leaves abatement and confiscation merits for appellate determination. Immediate disbursement of the gold's value against bank guarantees is not available while that appeal remains unresolved; expedited appellate determination and subsequent conditional payment govern release.

Interim protection against suspension of operations was considered warranted pending a contemplated inquiry because a strong prima facie case for relief existed. The suspension appeared prima facie unjustified, and the prescribed timeline under Regulation 11(3) appeared not to have been followed. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law, with a stay on the suspension order and consequential public notice pending inquiry. The pending inquiry was directed to proceed without influence from the impugned appellate order.

Section 153C applies "belongs to" only to seized money, bullion, jewellery and other valuable articles or things; seized documents and books require satisfaction that they "pertain to" or "relate to" the other person. Using "belongs to" for documents fails the jurisdictional requirement under strict construction of taxing statutes. The ten-assessment-year period, computed under Explanation 1 to Section 153A from the end of AY 2024-25, excludes AY 2014-15 where notice was issued on 16 May 2023. For AY 2017-18, the sole addition fell below the applicable pecuniary threshold.

Reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 cannot be sustained where the transactions cited in the recorded reasons yield no addition and the assessment instead makes Section 69 additions on distinct, unrelated amounts. The recorded information concerned specified deposits, a payment to a non-resident, and a reportable account statement, while the Section 69 additions did not arise from those matters. Because no addition was made on the recorded grounds, the reopening lacked legal sustainability and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Tax-computation reversals of expense and litigation provisions previously added back may neutralise income credited on reversal and preserve deductions for actual business expenditure, provided the provisions and prior-year treatment are separately identifiable and no double deduction or non-business element arises. Education cess falls within the non-deductible tax, surcharge and cess bar under Explanation 3 to section 40(a)(ii), including its retrospective operation from 1 April 2005. Section 14A read with Rule 8D does not permit an expenditure disallowance solely because investments are held when no exempt income is earned in the relevant year.

Exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) cannot be rejected merely because section 11 was selected in the return or Form 10BB was not furnished, where the educational activity and receipts are already disclosed and the audit-report requirement does not apply. Pre-primary, primary and secondary sections within one statutorily recognised school constitute a single educational institution; their receipts must be aggregated, making the exemption unavailable where the prescribed threshold is exceeded. Denial of exemption requires taxable income to be computed under normal provisions after admissible revenue expenditure, depreciation and statutory allowances, while application of income and capital expenditure are not automatically deductible.

Penalty for under-reported income under section 270A requires determination of under-reported income under section 270A(3) after the relevant threshold is met, followed by consideration of the exclusion for bona fide explanations and full disclosure under section 270A(6)(a). Where a return is first filed under section 148, the prescribed computation compares assessed income with the maximum amount not chargeable to tax; the entire assessed income cannot be treated mechanically as under-reported. Acceptance of disclosed income without variation, supported explanation of property investment, and tax deduction at source may establish bona fides and full disclosure, excluding the income from penalty.

Foreign tax credit remains available where payment of foreign tax and the corresponding credit claim are undisputed, notwithstanding delayed furnishing of Form 67. The Form 67 requirement under Rule 128(9) operates as a directory procedural condition and does not prescribe forfeiture of a treaty-based credit entitlement. Consistency with the established approach requires that procedural delay alone not defeat foreign tax credit; the credit claim should therefore be allowed.

Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA confines fees for included services to technical or consultancy services that make technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or a process available for the recipient's independent use. Identified offshore goods supplies, without separate service, software, or know-how charges, are distinguished from technical or included services. Routine visa, relocation, sales, finance, accounting, payroll, and HR support similarly do not meet the make-available requirement. Appellate jurisdiction may entertain additional claims and evidence needed for substantial justice despite no revised return, while income reversals based on settlements and credit notes remain subject to factual verification under the real income doctrine.

Rectification under Section 154 may address an omission to levy mandatory Section 234B interest where the statutory conditions are satisfied and the omission is an apparent mistake rather than a debatable issue. A lower-deduction certificate under Section 197 authorises deduction at a reduced rate only for the projected income it covers; it does not change the recipient's obligation to revise current-income estimates and pay advance tax on income exceeding that estimate or subsequently recharacterised. Where legally deductible tax was not deducted from such excess income, the recipient bears the resulting advance-tax shortfall and Section 234B interest. The interest amount requires lawful verification, computation, and an adequate hearing.