One-time settlement by a personal guarantor with the sole financial creditor does not terminate or alter liquidation absent a recognised statutory route, and does not make the guarantor a financial creditor without debt assignment or substitution. After the financial creditor's claim is satisfied, forfeited earnest money deposit forms part of the liquidation estate and must be restored for statutory distribution. Approved remuneration for an erstwhile liquidator's claim-processing, auction and related work may be paid from the estate. An admitted operational creditor participates in the statutory waterfall, while the guarantor, including as asset purchaser or promoter, has no priority and may receive only any surplus after statutory claims.

Express liquidation-auction terms permitting forfeiture of the entire deposited amount upon a successful bidder's payment default remain effective despite Schedule I's ceiling on earnest money deposit. The deposited sum may include both earnest money and part sale consideration where the bidder voluntarily accepted the stipulated terms. An as-is-where-is sale, coupled with prior disclosure of title-related concerns, prevents reliance on those concerns to justify delayed payment. Repeated assurances without demonstrated financial capacity, proceedings involving another entity that do not prevent payment, and unsupported claims of unequal treatment do not defeat forfeiture. No refund is due where the bidder fails to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period.

Consent terms in oppression and mismanagement proceedings may resolve an appeal challenging findings on amendments to articles of association and a rights issue. Where parties jointly place settlement terms before the appellate forum with supporting affidavits, the terms may be incorporated into the disposal of the appeal without an independent determination of the challenged merits. The settlement can govern the parties' inter se rights, liabilities and future conduct, while the challenged findings may be set aside by consent.

Oral agreements between companies are not barred by the Companies Act, 2013 where no statutory provision requires writing. The repealed corporate-execution provision under the 1956 Act was not preserved, while section 21 governs authorisation to sign written documents rather than mandating written form for every corporate contract. General contract law may therefore govern concluded reciprocal promises. A specific pleading that a company representative was authorised cannot be rejected merely because no authority letter is produced; the validity of that authority requires evidentiary determination and cannot alone justify plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11.

Formulated natural astaxanthin grades standardised with carriers, stabilisers and, in some forms, emulsification, micro-encapsulation or spray-drying features are classified as food preparations under Tariff Item 2106 90 99. Classification follows the relevant heading terms, chapter notes and HSN guidance: Heading 3203 covers colouring matter and preparations mainly used for colouring, whereas the products' specifications identify dietary-supplement, food, beverage and nutraceutical uses. As the grades are neither crude algal extracts nor separately chemically defined compounds and are not shown to have a principal colouring function, they do not qualify as non-synthetic food colours under Tariff Item 3203 00 20.

Section 114 penalties for attempted improper export require a positive act or omission connected with the export or its abetment. Section 114AA further requires knowing or intentional use of a materially false declaration, statement or document. Customs Broker verification failures alone do not establish liability where KYC and IEC documents were obtained, bank-related details were verified, and the broker cooperated with the investigation. In the absence of allegations or evidence of prior knowledge, collusion, assistance in goods substitution, or other active participation, penalties for improper export and false declarations are unsustainable.

Penalty for alleged abetment of gold smuggling could not rest on statements recorded under the Customs Act unless the statutory safeguards for admissibility were met, including examination of the maker, a determination of admissibility, and an effective opportunity for cross-examination, unless an exception applied. Electronic call records and WhatsApp chats also required the prescribed certification. Faulty screening equipment, the absence of assigned screening duties as a proper officer, and lack of independent evidence linking the appellant to possession, handling, or dealing in smuggled gold further undermined the allegation. The penalty for abetment was therefore unsustainable.

Section 110(2) of the Customs Act requires seized goods to be returned if notice under Section 124(a) is not issued within six months, unless a valid extension, capped at a further six months, is granted. Provisional release under Section 110A does not displace that statutory consequence. Machines and spare parts not covered by a provisional-release order cannot remain detained after expiry of the maximum notice period. Continued detention beyond that period was treated as unlawful, with release requiring execution of a bond equivalent to the goods' value.

Duty drawback entitlement arises on completion of export, when goods leave Indian territorial waters and title passes to the buyer. Subsequent non-arrival at the intended destination does not itself defeat drawback, particularly where sale proceeds are realised through the applicable rupee trade remittance mechanism and have not been rejected or reversed under foreign-exchange controls. Recovery provisions for erroneous or excess drawback differ from those addressing unrealised export proceeds. Goods already exported fall outside confiscation provisions confined to goods to be taken out of India; absent confiscability, the basis for related penalties, interest, and personal penalties fails.

Return of detained personal jewellery for re-export to Saudi Arabia remained subject to adjudication of the petitioners' representation or application. The jewellery was asserted to be personal property intended for return overseas rather than sale in India. The process contemplated consideration of a minor customs penalty for the infraction, with the petitioners' consent. No final determination on the release or re-export of the jewellery had been made.

Deduction under section 80JJAA cannot be denied solely because Form 10DA was electronically furnished after the return-filing due date, where the prescribed audit report had been obtained before that date and was uploaded and e-verified before return processing. Rule 19AB's furnishing requirement is directory in these circumstances. Delayed electronic filing constitutes a procedural lapse that does not prejudice the Revenue when the report is available during processing. The claimed deduction must therefore be granted in accordance with law.

Capital-gains computation permits deduction of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer. Payment to an agreement holder for relinquishing enforceable property rights, including rights capable of specific performance, clears and improves the transferor's title before conveyance. Where the transferor receives the full sale consideration and pays part of it to secure extinguishment of those rights, the payment is allowable transfer expenditure in computing capital gains under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Section 80P(2) permits a co-operative society to claim a deduction for interest income. The deduction extends to interest earned from investing surplus funds with co-operative banks, other co-operative societies, and nationalised banks. Coordinate-bench decisions support this treatment, and interest received from those investments qualifies for deduction where the society's claim falls within that established position.

Article 12(4) of the India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement covers consideration for managerial, technical or consultancy services provided by a resident of one Contracting State in the other Contracting State. Management and technical services rendered from China to an Indian affiliate, where the Chinese resident has no permanent establishment in India, fall outside that definition. Delivery through email, conference calls and video conferencing does not constitute physical rendition of services in India without a specific treaty or legal provision. Consequently, the fees do not constitute fees for technical services under Article 12(4).

Excess consideration paid to acquire a software division as a going concern under a slump sale was treated as goodwill attributable to transferred software, licences, business rights and other intangible value, making it eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). Acquisition of computer systems and intangible business assets without land or buildings did not constitute a transfer of immovable property; consequently, no withholding obligation arose under section 194-IA and no related disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) applied. The excess was recorded as goodwill rather than charged to profit and loss, and its contractual source and commercial basis excluded treatment as unexplained expenditure under section 69C.

Penalty under section 271AAC(1) could not be sustained where the assessment order repeatedly recorded satisfaction for misreporting of income and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A. The two penalty regimes are not interchangeable because section 271AAC(2) excludes section 270A penalty for income covered by section 271AAC(1). A subsequent notice under section 274 cannot retrospectively replace the statutory basis or satisfaction recorded in the assessment order. Failure to provide a meaningful hearing, where electronic registration and postal service were unsuccessful, also breached section 274. The penalty was therefore invalid and liable to deletion.

Functional comparability under the Transactional Net Margin Method requires exclusion of software companies with mixed product and service revenue lacking reliable segmental data, materially different functions, or brand value and scale affecting profitability. An onsite filter may be used to identify suitable comparables for software development services where no basis establishes that it is inappropriate. The DRP may apply a new filter consistent with accepted comparability principles and direct the inclusion or exclusion of comparables to determine the correct arm's length price. The challenged exclusions and approved filters remain effective for arm's length pricing.

Timely rectification of defects in a return under Section 139(9) validates the original return rather than constituting a fresh return. The rectified return relates back to its original filing date, so defect removal does not restart the limitation period for issuing a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2). Where the assessment proceeds on the original return, treating that return as valid, a later scrutiny notice issued beyond the applicable period is time-barred and the consequential assessment cannot stand.

Dependent-agent permanent establishment status under Article 5(5)(i) of the India-Switzerland tax treaty requires proof that an Indian agent has, and habitually exercises, authority to negotiate and enter contracts for the foreign enterprise. Group affiliation alone is insufficient. Overseas leadership approved commercial terms and non-standard proposals; Indian personnel conveyed pre-approved terms and performed liaison, account-management, and administrative functions. Portal-based contracts were concluded without local personnel determining their terms, and limited supplier enquiries and correspondence did not establish habitual contractual authority. The Indian associated enterprise therefore did not constitute a dependent-agent permanent establishment. Arm's-length remuneration did not itself prevent such status, but remained relevant to profit attribution.

Reassessment limitation excludes the period allowed for replying to a notice seeking explanation, including any extension. After that exclusion and the statutory extended period are applied, an order and notice issued within three years require approval from the Commissioner as the specified authority. Separately, an Indian associated enterprise does not create a dependent-agent permanent establishment where the identical business model and facts previously established no such presence. Business profits therefore cannot be attributed to India on a dependent-agent permanent-establishment basis.