Contingent liabilities disclosed in an audit report cannot be adjusted during return processing where the amount was neither debited to the profit and loss account nor claimed in computing total income. The adjustment mechanism for audit-report expenditure not considered in total income applies only where an expenditure exists; a performance guarantee disclosed solely as a contingent liability does not meet that condition. Verification of the return, audit report and computation already on record does not involve admission of additional evidence, so the procedure governing additional evidence is not engaged. The processing adjustment is therefore unsustainable and its deletion remains effective.

Reassessment initiated more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year requires sanction under Section 151(ii) from the specified higher authorities: the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Director General. Approval granted by the Principal Commissioner does not satisfy this jurisdictional precondition for issuing a Section 148 notice. Consequently, a notice issued on such unauthorised approval is without jurisdiction, and the resulting reassessment and consequential disallowance of deduction cannot survive.

Suppressed sales represent gross trading receipts, not taxable income in their entirety, because they include the cost of goods as well as profit. Matching purchase data across two software systems established only invoice-backed recorded purchases and did not rule out unbilled cash purchases; barcoding independently controlled inventory. In the absence of supplier evidence, payment trails, audit logs, undisclosed cash, excess stock, or assets supporting a 100% margin or higher profit rate, only the gross-profit element in the unrecorded turnover was taxable. Additions of the full suppressed-sales value were deleted, while income offered on a gross-profit basis was accepted.

Section 144C(13) requires a final assessment conforming to Dispute Resolution Panel directions to be completed within the statutory period. The COVID-19 exclusion of limitation applied only to proceedings instituted by litigants before judicial or quasi-judicial forums; it did not extend the Department's deadline to complete assessments under the Income-tax Act. Consequently, an assessment completed after that deadline remained time-barred, and the earlier quashing of the assessment disclosed no mistake apparent from the record warranting recall.

Under the pre-restriction statutory formulation, a resident individual taxable under section 115BAC(1A) and within the prescribed total-income ceiling is analysed as eligible for section 87A rebate against income-tax on total income, including tax on qualifying short-term capital gains under section 111A. Section 111A fixes the special-rate computation but contains no express rebate exclusion. The explicit exclusion for specified long-term gains in section 112A(6) supports this distinction. Later limiting language in section 87A must be applied according to the statutory period concerned.

Extended limitation under section 149(1)(b) may operate where books, documents or evidence reveal escaped income meeting the prescribed monetary threshold and represented as an asset, qualifying expenditure, or entries in books of account. These categories operate disjunctively; qualifying book entries may therefore provide an independent jurisdictional basis without resolving whether cash entries are assets. Handwritten and digital records may be treated as books where possession, control, corroboration, and attribution establish their nexus with the taxpayer.

Favourable testing by an accredited laboratory required release of the detained goods despite the department's pending appeal. Earlier directions for representative sampling and laboratory testing had attained finality because no appeal was filed against them. A proposed referral test could not justify continued withholding of the goods or negate those directions. The High Court required release within 48 hours and issuance of a detention certificate for the entire detention period until release.

Under the former reassessment framework, the time or extended time allowed for responding to a Section 148A(b) show-cause notice is excluded when computing limitation for the consequential notice. If the period remaining immediately after that exclusion does not exceed seven days, the sixth proviso supplies a seven-day residual period. The Section 148A(d) order and reassessment notice form a linked statutory sequence and must be completed within the resulting limitation period.

For restaurant services supplied through e-commerce operators, the operator pays GST under section 9(5), including where the restaurant is unregistered. Tax must be discharged entirely in cash, without using input tax credit. The operator need not collect tax at source or file GSTR-8 for these supplies, but tax collection at source continues for supplies not notified under section 9(5). Operators issue restaurant-service invoices and report the supplies in GST returns; registered restaurants include the value in aggregate turnover and make specified return disclosures.

Mandatory representative sampling of seized ganja requires records to identify source packets, show sampling from each packet or prior homogenisation, and document prescribed sample quantities. Standing Order No. 1/89 also requires sampling in the presence of witnesses and the person from whom the substance was recovered. Material non-compliance may justify an adverse inference against the prosecution and support release on bail where seizure records do not establish representative sampling.

Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 made the challenged order appealable through the statutory appellate route, leading to non-entertainment of the writ petitions. The writ petitions were dismissed, while petitioners remained free to raise all questions in appeal. The appellate authority is to consider and decide those questions expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ganja under the NDPS Act comprises only flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding seeds and leaves unless accompanied by such tops. Where seized material includes leaves, seeds and stalks without separate quantification of qualifying tops or prima facie proof that excluded components were accompanied by them, commercial quantity under Section 20(c) remains doubtful. Mixing material from two separately seized bags before drawing samples also prevents the forensic sample from reliably representing each bag's contents. These deficiencies can support bail by creating prima facie doubt about commercial quantity and the reliability of sampling.

Section 44 of the PMLA removes committal to the Special Court but does not exclude the criminal complaint procedure incorporated through Sections 46 and 65. Section 71 gives priority to the PMLA only where an actual inconsistency exists. Where the BNSS governs cognizance, the first proviso to Section 223(1) requires a meaningful hearing for the proposed accused before cognizance. The safeguard is distinct from exemptions from complainant examination, is mandatory and substantive, and permits submissions on legal sufficiency and prima facie material without converting the stage into a merits trial.

GST adjudication resulted in an order after the company did not respond to the show-cause notice or participate in the personal hearing. Following expiry of the appeal limitation, a rectification application was filed and remains pending. The issue concerns recourse during pendency of rectification where the show-cause notice is alleged to be vague and to contain repeated demands on the same issues.

Late-filing charges for Bills of Entry are calculated by excluding 4 September 2019 from the delayed-presentation period. The limited exemption applies only to that date and addresses filing difficulties caused by heavy rainfall. Presentation time limits remain governed by section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, and regulation 4(1) of the Bill of Entry (Forms) Regulations, 2018. The directions operate as a standing order for officers and staff.

Related-party status under the IBC extends to indirect corporate control through a subsidiary chain. Section 5(24)(i), read with the Companies Act definitions incorporated through Section 3(37), recognises a corporate debtor as a step-down subsidiary where an upstream holding company controls it through another subsidiary; direct shareholding is not required. Board-composition control is an independent basis for related-party classification under Section 5(24)(l), supported by appointment rights, voting arrangements, management rights and substantive control evidence. A related financial creditor is excluded from representation, participation and voting in the Committee of Creditors under the first proviso to Section 21(2), while remaining able to pursue adjudication of its claim.

Temporary continuation of outside-laboratory testing applies to pending Group-I customs samples, particularly first-check samples, to address testing delays. Specified food, petroleum and feed-related samples may be tested by one designated laboratory, while organic chemicals, dyes, pigments, pharmaceutical products and certain metal samples may be tested by another. Importers or owners must bear testing costs. Operational difficulties may be raised with the customs officer in charge, and implementation measures are treated as standing instructions.

Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is limited to determining whether a complaint prima facie discloses offences; it cannot be used for a mini-trial requiring evaluation of evidence. Allegations that company directors were appointed without authority and forged documents were uploaded with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to secure control of the company disclosed serious offences requiring trial. Parallel civil disputes did not eliminate the criminal character of those allegations. Criminal proceedings therefore remained liable to proceed rather than be quashed.

Section 74's five-year limitation applies only where fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax provides the statutory basis for the demand. Section 61 return scrutiny and Section 65 audit are separate processes; prior audit findings or Section 73 action do not automatically bar a later Section 74 notice where scrutiny identifies a materially distinct unreconciled input tax credit discrepancy. Departmental knowledge is relevant only if the later notice rests on identical disclosed facts and grounds. At the notice stage, the taxpayer must contest duplication, computation and the alleged intent to evade in reply. If an appellate authority, tribunal or court finds Section 74 ingredients unestablished, Section 75(2) permits treatment of the notice under Section 73, subject to limitation and sustainable underlying liability.

Input tax credit for construction of immovable property used in a rental business remains subject to statutory blocked-credit restrictions. Although renting is a taxable supply of services, the general business-use entitlement does not override the bar on works contract services for construction or goods and services used to construct immovable property on the taxpayer's own account. Taxable rental income alone neither meets the exception for further supply of works contract services nor establishes that a building is qualifying plant. Eligibility may depend on a fact-specific functionality analysis or proof that expenditure relates to a foundation or structural support integral to identified plant and machinery. Claims must also satisfy ti.....