Liquidators may continue eviction proceedings initiated by resolution professionals where recovery and protection of corporate-debtor assets is required for liquidation. Property owned by the corporate debtor forms part of the liquidation estate and must be brought under the liquidator's custody and control for preservation and realisation. Unregistered long-term leases cannot establish their terms in evidence, while non-payment of rent and connections with suspended management may support a finding of unauthorised occupation. Recovery of estate assets falls within the Adjudicating Authority's insolvency jurisdiction. Inconsistent rent-control procedures yield to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code where occupation lacks a valid enforceable tenancy.

Adjournment of resolution-plan approval proceedings was unwarranted once the application seeking replacement of the resolution professional had been withdrawn. The resolution-plan approval application, unanimously approved by the Committee of Creditors, was unrelated to the replacement request. Prolonged insolvency proceedings, repeated interlocutory applications, an unsuccessful settlement proposal, and an undertaking to cooperate in expeditious hearings further supported refusal of a further adjournment. The refusal and associated costs remained effective, while adverse remarks against counsel were not to operate to counsel's prejudice.

ESI contributions falling within section 40(4) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, including employee amounts retained for statutory benefits, constitute trust assets and third-party property. Section 36(4)(a)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code excludes those assets from a corporate debtor's liquidation estate. Their filing through Form B does not change their substantive character or prevent reliance on that exclusion. The absence of an express ESI reference in section 36(4)(a)(iii) does not limit the separate trust-asset exclusion. Qualifying contributions must be identified from statutory records and the relevant contribution period, rather than distributed under the section 53 waterfall.

Fraud-classification action based on an inconclusive forensic audit cannot be sustained merely because the borrower responds to the show-cause notice. Where the audit relies on limited lender-supplied material, is expressly qualified pending production of complete records, and has already proved unreliable for equivalent action, it lacks a sufficient evidentiary foundation. This applies particularly where records are unavailable following insolvency and liquidation and the bank has not sought them from the liquidator or investigating authority. The notice and consequential fraud-reporting measures were set aside, without preventing fresh action supported by conclusive evidence.

Merger schemes under sections 230 and 232 follow a two-stage process in which shareholder and creditor consideration precedes fuller scrutiny of delay, valuation and related concerns. A first-motion application should not be rejected merely because the appointed date predates filing by more than one year, filing is allegedly delayed, or preliminary document concerns arise. Listed companies must obtain stock-exchange observations based on SEBI observations before approaching the Tribunal, and time taken for that mandatory process is not attributable to applicants acting promptly thereafter. General Circular No. 09/2019 requires justification and public-interest consistency for significantly ante-dated appointed dates, rather than mechanical rejection. Stakeholder meetings should proceed, with detailed assessment at the second stage.

Private complaints concerning offences under section 447 raise questions about the bar on Special Court cognizance, the scope of Special Court jurisdiction over Companies Act and related offences, and allegations of abuse of process. The second proviso to section 212(6) permits the Union of India to authorise, through a written general or special order, a Central Government officer to institute a complaint in addition to the Director of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office.

Thermic fluids initially charged into a Continuous Polycondensation plant qualify as capital goods for customs-duty exemption where they are functionally integrated with and indispensable to manufacturing operations. The Foreign Trade Policy capital-goods definition covers plant, machinery, equipment, accessories and specified articles required for initial charge, including items required directly or indirectly for manufacture. Continuous closed-loop circulation of the fluids supplies precise high-temperature heat while maintaining low pressure, supporting their capital-goods character. Classification as chemical inputs under Standard Input Output Norms does not displace that character.

Interest on customs duty deposited during an investigation applies where final determination establishes that no duty was payable. Because retention of money not lawfully collectible deprives the depositor of its use, compensation is calculated from the date of payment or deposit rather than only from the date a refund application is made. The refunded amount therefore carries interest until actual realisation.

Section 27A of the Customs Act requires interest on a delayed customs-duty refund to accrue from the day after three months following receipt of a valid refund application. An appellate or court order granting refund is deemed to be an order under Section 27(2), but that deeming provision does not defer interest until appellate proceedings end or the refund is sanctioned. Where the valid application was received on 29 October 2018 and payment occurred on 16 September 2025, interest at 6% per annum applies from 28 January 2019 until payment. The rule concerning absence of a valid application or an uncrystallised refund does not apply.

Assessed imported garments should not be detained or denied SAFTA preferential duty treatment on unsubstantiated allegations of intellectual-property-right infringement, defective Certificates of Origin, or misdeclaration. Origin certificates accepted at assessment, confirmation by the issuing authority, absence of brand-related evidence, and comparable imports cleared at declared values support release on the assessed Bills of Entry. Provisional-release valuation cannot rely solely on an unparticularised market enquiry without comparable transactions or reliable supporting material. Customs cargo service providers cannot charge rent or demurrage for goods seized or detained by the proper officer; unlawful detention requires waiver of consequential demurrage, detention, and related charges.

Refund of excess customs duty is available for crude soybean oil imported under the tariff rate quota scheme where bills of lading were dated on or before 31 March 2023 and the goods landed before 30 June 2023. The concessional tariff benefit applies to qualifying imports meeting those conditions, requiring refund of duty paid in excess in accordance with law.

Duty-free import benefits available to a 100% Export Oriented Unit permitted imported or domestically procured raw materials to be used for finished goods and for capital goods manufactured for use within the unit, subject to accounting and bonding requirements. Customs duty became payable only on clearance outside the unit, debonding, or exit from the scheme. The clarificatory circular applied retrospectively to the company without challenge; consequently, the seizure memoranda and show-cause notice were set aside, the bank guarantee was cancelled, and deposited amounts were refundable.

Unsecured loans supported by lender confirmations, income-tax records, audited financial statements and bank statements satisfy the initial burden of establishing the lenders' identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions for Section 68 purposes. Repayment through banking channels with interest further supports transaction genuineness. Third-party material cannot justify an unexplained cash-credit addition unless it is specifically connected to the impugned loans and documentary evidence contains an identified defect or deficiency. On these facts, the loans were not treated as unexplained cash credits and deletion of the addition was sustained.

Statutory sanction under Section 151 must be communicated to and received by the Assessing Officer before issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148. An undated approval endorsement, coupled with evidence that approval reached the Assessing Officer only after the notice was issued, establishes that the notice preceded effective sanction. This constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect, invalidating the reopening proceedings and consequential reassessment under Sections 143(3) and 147. A jurisdictional objection on this point may be raised where the relevant facts are already available on record.

Unsecured-loan additions are unsustainable where creditor confirmations, tax returns, bank statements and funding-source details establish the lenders' identity, transaction genuineness and creditworthiness. The evidentiary burden then shifts to the Assessing Officer; without independent inquiry or contrary material, an addition cannot rest on failure to establish the source of source, a requirement applicable only from Assessment Year 2023-24. Alleged on-money investment additions are likewise unsustainable where an earlier co-ordinate determination concerning the same developer-side transactions found no on-money and no contrary material justifies departure. Both additions were deleted.

Section 254(2) confines rectification to patent, manifest and self-evident errors apparent from the record, including an unadjudicated ground; it does not permit review, reappraisal, or merits-based reconsideration. Accordingly, the request to alter remand directions on AMP expenses and share-purchase transfer-pricing adjustments was declined because it sought reconsideration of issues already addressed. Section 254(1) permits remand for fresh adjudication. The omission to decide the claim for tax deducted at source credit was rectified, requiring verification and grant of eligible credit in accordance with law.

The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) retains the pre-amendment limitation regime for assessment years beginning on or before 1 April 2021. For Assessment Year 2015-16, the six-year period expired on 31 March 2022. The amended extended limitation period cannot operate retrospectively to revive a reassessment notice already barred under the earlier regime. Exclusions of time connected with Section 148A proceedings do not override the proviso's limitation restriction. Consequently, the notice issued on 7 April 2022 was time-barred, and the consequential reassessment order was quashed.

Additional evidence omitted because of a former tax consultant's failure and an ex parte first-appellate order may be considered in the interest of justice. Cash-payment disallowance requires verification of whether each voucher records payment to one person exceeding the prescribed daily threshold or aggregates payments to multiple labourers that individually remain within the permissible limit. The Assessing Officer must examine the underlying payment particulars rather than treat the voucher total as conclusive. Fresh adjudication may follow after admitting the evidence, with all contentions remaining open.

Related-party advertising expenditure under section 40A(2)(b) requires objective evidence that payment exceeds fair market value; reliable comparable rates shift the evidentiary burden to the Revenue, and the advertising disallowance cannot be sustained without contrary material. Programme production for broadcasting or telecasting falls within contractual work under section 194C rather than professional or technical services under section 194J where the underlying transactions are substantiated. Advertising revenue accrues when an enforceable right to receive arises, not merely on invoice issuance, requiring verification where services span later periods and preventing double taxation. Commission provisions require proof of accrued liability and services rendered, without duplicate disallowance of sums already disallowed for tax-deduction default.

Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to a patent, manifest and self-evident mistake apparent from the record. Previously considered seized material, related-party orders, alleged on-money receipts and precedents on income extrapolation cannot be re-examined merely because an assessee disputes their interpretation or asserts factual parity. The provision does not permit reappreciation of evidence, replacement of a possible view, reconsideration of factual findings or review of appeal merits. No mistake apparent from the record arose, so rectification was declined.