Penalty for customs abetment requires material proving a Customs Broker's knowledge of the goods' true nature, conscious participation, or collusion with the exporter. Filing shipping bills, arranging containers, and processing exporter-supplied documents in the ordinary course, without more, do not establish the required mens rea; failure to investigate the goods' source alone is insufficient. An alternative statutory appellate remedy does not automatically preclude writ jurisdiction where the penal finding lacks a factual foundation for culpable abetment. Accordingly, penal liability cannot rest solely on procedural brokerage functions or inadequate further inquiry absent proof of knowing involvement.

Extended limitation for recovery of short-paid IGST under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act requires material establishing collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Where an importer disclosed the goods, tariff classification, and claimed notification benefit in the Bill of Entry accepted by the proper officer, a later departmental disagreement on classification or exemption eligibility, or a bare allegation, does not establish those jurisdictional facts. Recovery must therefore proceed, if at all, within the applicable limitation period. Availability of an appeal under Section 128 does not bar writ jurisdiction where the statutory preconditions for invoking the extended period are absent or proceedings are patently illegal.

Section 128 of the Customs Act allows 60 days to file a statutory appeal and permits condonation for only a further 30 days, leaving the Commissioner (Appeals) without power to condone a delay beyond that aggregate period. Where the appeal was delayed by counsel's undisputed medical condition and involved classification of imported goods, Article 226 jurisdiction was invoked exceptionally. The limitation dismissal was set aside, and the appeal was restored for merits adjudication after an opportunity of hearing.

Provisional release of imported goods during investigation or adjudication should avoid unnecessary detention while adequately protecting revenue. Where final differential duty has not been determined, payment of duty on the declared value coupled with a personal bond for any subsequently determined differential duty constitutes proportionate security. Requiring an additional bank guarantee is unjustified in those circumstances; goods may be released on payment of applicable declared duty and execution of the personal bond.

Imported edible goods must be sampled under the prescribed food-safety procedure by an authorised officer, with Customs sampling powers exercised consistently with that regime. A food-test report based on a sample drawn solely by a customs officer is excluded where a subsequent authorised sample and accredited-laboratory test establishes conformity with applicable standards. Provisional release pending assessment should not be withheld merely on suspicion without a seizure memo or recorded grounds that the goods are liable to confiscation. Assessment and classification remain subject to adjudication, and an appropriate personal bond for potential differential duty or penalty may be required.

Airport searches and medically completed hospital recoveries in body-packer matters are treated as a continuous public-place action governed by the NDPS Act's public-place search provision. Defective communication of the right to a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate can affect an initial personal search, but medically supervised recovery under the Customs Act procedure may independently support prima facie possession; a fresh personal-search notice is unnecessary after admission and voluntary medical action. Sampling and inventory departures require trial evidence and do not alone invalidate seizure at the bail stage. Commercial-quantity restrictions remain applicable, but prolonged, unadvanced pre-trial detention can warrant conditional bail under the constitutional right to speedy trial.

Regulation 17(1) requires a customs broker revocation notice within 90 days of the licensing authority receiving an offence report. Where no separate investigation report exists, Customs Act show-cause notices and their relied-upon documents constitute that report if they contain the investigation summary and prima facie allegations. The licensing authority cannot defer the mandatory period by later seeking documents already annexed to the notices. A notice issued after the prescribed period leaves no statutory authority to revoke the licence; revocation must be set aside and the licence restored.

Provisional release of detained imported goods under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 may be granted pending adjudication where adequate safeguards protect recovery of differential duty. Payment of duty on the declared value, a bank guarantee for 30% of the differential duty, and a personal bond for the remaining 70% sufficiently secure revenue interests. Continued detention is unwarranted once these conditions are met, and the goods are to be released provisionally subject to compliance.

Conditional registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G cannot make their applicability or consequential tax benefits contingent on future litigation. The statutory framework permits the Commissioner to grant or reject registration and approval in accordance with law, but does not confer power to impose conditions dependent on a future judicial outcome. Quasi-judicial powers must arise expressly from statute. Once granted, registration and approval operate according to law; any cancellation or withdrawal must follow the prescribed statutory mechanism. Conditions imposing such contingencies were beyond statutory jurisdiction and must be deleted.

Complete books of account, bills, vouchers, ledgers and stock registers that are produced, accepted and free from identified defects cannot be disregarded merely because the net-profit rate has declined. Increased consumption of goods, raw materials and components, together with higher employee costs, can explain a lower net-profit ratio. In the absence of rejection of the books, a marginal net-profit variation alone does not justify an addition; the addition based solely on that variation was deleted.

For unquoted equity shares, Section 56(2)(viib) taxes issue consideration exceeding fair market value, while Rule 11UA(2) permits valuation under the Net Asset Value or Discounted Cash Flow method. The Assessing Officer may scrutinise the valuation report, underlying data, assumptions and methodology, but cannot replace the selected prescribed method merely because projections, management estimates or standard disclaimers appear unsatisfactory. Rejection requires identified defects in the data, assumptions or methodology. Where both prescribed valuations supported the issue price and no specific defect was established, the Section 56(2)(viib) addition was deleted.

Post-2021 search-related reassessment requires information in the nature of incriminating material found during the search. Where reassessment was initiated on issues arising from seized material and returned income was accepted after verification, transport expenses unsupported by incriminating material could not be examined or disallowed through revisionary jurisdiction. The reassessment was therefore neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, rendering the revision invalid.

Reassessment requires recorded reasons demonstrating independent application of mind and a rational, live nexus between identified material and income alleged to have escaped assessment; generic accommodation-entry information cannot replace that jurisdictional foundation. An enquiry initiated for alleged bogus purchases cannot support treatment of the same transactions as unexplained loans, because those characterisations require materially different factual and evidentiary enquiries. For loan credits, confirmations, bank statements, tax returns, ledgers and affidavits may discharge the initial burden on identity, source and banking trail. An immediate credit in a lender's account alone does not establish an accommodation entry without transaction-specific contrary material.

Alleged bogus purchases linked to accepted sales do not warrant disallowance of the full purchase value where books of account, stock records and quantitative particulars remain unrejected, payments are made through banking channels, and no material disproves the sales. Where accommodation bills may have been used but goods could have been procured from alternative sources, only the embedded profit element is taxable under unexplained expenditure provisions. Consistent profit estimation in earlier assessment years supports applying a 3% rate, confining the addition to 3% of the alleged purchases.

Under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA, market-data charge reimbursements do not constitute royalty where the facts are indistinguishable from earlier coordinate-bench treatment. Cost-to-cost recoveries of seconded employees' salaries and related expenses likewise fall outside fees for included or technical services where no material factual distinction is shown. Consistency requires adherence to an earlier appellate determination in the absence of a factual or legal distinction; the pendency of a further Revenue appeal does not justify a contrary treaty characterisation. Both receipt categories are therefore excluded from taxation on the recorded facts.

Recorded cash-sale deposits supported by accepted books, stock records, sale bills and cash books cannot be separately treated as unexplained cash credits where no defects or contrary evidence disprove their source; separate taxation would amount to double taxation. Differences between reported rental income and Form 26AS require verification, with tax-deducted-at-source credit allowed against corresponding income where applicable. Tax deduction obligations do not depend on payment quantum, the recipient's tax bracket or claimed absence of revenue loss. A running account cannot be treated as an unrecorded receipt by aggregating receipts while ignoring repayments. Reversed interest not previously claimed as a deduction does not constitute taxable remission or cessation of liability.

Section 68 requires an assessee receiving share capital and share premium to establish subscriber identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness. PANs, addresses, audited financial statements, bank statements, MCA records and subscriber confirmations, supported by responses to notices under section 133(6), constitute documentary evidence capable of discharging that burden where no defect is found. Directors' non-appearance in response to summons under section 131, without contrary material disproving the investments, does not justify disregarding the evidence. Verified investments by traceable taxpayers are distinguishable from those involving non-existent or phantom entities; suspicion and human-probability reasoning cannot override an audited documentary trail. The unexplained-cash-credit addition was therefore unsustainable.

Compensation for compulsory acquisition of rural agricultural land for a national highway is exempt from income tax where the land lies outside specified urban limits. Such land is not a capital asset under the Income-tax Act, and compensation covered by an award or agreement exempt under the land-acquisition law is not taxable. Consequently, treating the receipt as short-term capital gains is impermissible, and the corresponding addition is to be deleted.

Section 68 requires an assessee to establish subscriber identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness for share capital and premium. Once documentary evidence and subscriber responses are furnished, the Assessing Officer must independently examine that material, verify subscribers and documents, and trace the money trail before rejecting the explanation. Non-compliance by the assessee's directors with summons does not by itself displace supporting evidence where no adverse material or adverse money trail is established and the prescribed enquiry remains unperformed. The unexplained cash-credit addition was therefore unsustainable and deleted.

Cost-to-cost reimbursements supported by evidence and unconnected with any embedded mark-up, inflated pricing, or non-business expenditure do not justify a transfer-pricing adjustment without an identified comparable or uncontrolled price under the Other Method; the adjustment is deleted. Foreign tax credit is confined to the assessment year in which the corresponding income is taxed in India and cannot be carried forward or recast as a later-year business deduction where Indian tax liability is insufficient; the deduction claim is disallowed. Payments to non-residents for overseas recruitment, legal, and tariff-publication services require withholding only if chargeable to tax in India. As the services were not taxable technical, managerial, or consultancy services and did not make available technical knowledge, the disallowance is deleted.