Unaccounted quarry sales establish suppressed business transactions, but only the profit reasonably embedded in those sales is taxable; extraction, production and operating costs cannot be treated as income absent evidence of unexplained funding. Profit estimation must have a rational link to the taxpayer's own historical results and accounted-business profitability; an unverified external gross-profit margin cannot be substituted for net profit. The voluntarily offered profit rates were accepted, displacing the higher rate. Cash sales captured in seized data cannot be added separately where aggregate records, annual accounts and GST disclosures show they were already included in disclosed turnover; a further profit addition would duplicate the same sales.

Reassessment limitation must exclude the time, including any extension, allowed for a response to a notice under section 148A(b). Following that exclusion, reassessment steps issued within three years remain within the applicable limitation framework, and the Commissioner is the competent specified authority under section 151(i); approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner is unnecessary. An Indian associated enterprise providing support services does not constitute a dependent agent permanent establishment where its business model and material facts correspond to an earlier year in which no such PE existed. Consequently, no question of profit attribution arises.

Dependent-agent permanent establishment under Article 5(5)(i) of the India-Switzerland DTAA requires evidence that the Indian associated enterprise had, and habitually exercised, authority to negotiate or conclude contracts on behalf of the foreign enterprise. Group affiliation, dependency and arm's-length remuneration do not independently establish that status. Contemporaneous emails, approval matrices and supplier contracts indicated that Indian personnel communicated pre-approved terms, performed liaison, account-management and administrative functions, and escalated non-approved proposals overseas. Essential commercial approvals remained outside India. The Indian enterprise therefore did not constitute a dependent agent permanent establishment, making proposed profit attribution academic; the appeal was partly allowed.

Transfer-pricing comparability for software development services requires selection of companies that meet applicable functional filters and have sufficiently comparable operations. Prior acceptance of a comparable before the Transfer Pricing Officer does not prevent an assessee from contesting it before the DRP. Diversified software-service and product companies lacking segmental information, or earning product-related income through outsourced product development, may be excluded as functionally dissimilar. Brand value and scale may materially affect comparability, supporting exclusion of a large branded company; an onsite filter may also be applied where appropriate. For accurate arm's-length price determination, the DRP may entertain objections, apply a new lawful filter, and direct inclusion or exclusion of comparables.

Goodwill arising from the slump-sale acquisition of a going software business division qualifies as a depreciable intangible asset where the Business Transfer Agreement transfers the division's products, employees, licences, permits and assets. Consideration exceeding the net value of transferred assets and liabilities may represent goodwill and other intangible assets rather than unexplained expenditure, where it is recorded under the transfer agreement and not claimed as revenue expenditure. Tax deduction at source on transfer of immovable property does not apply where the transferred business assets comprise computer systems and intangible assets, with no land, building or part of a building transferred. Depreciation and deletion of the related disallowance and addition were sustained.

Article 12(4) of the India-China DTAA treats managerial, technical or consultancy services as fees for technical services only where a resident of one Contracting State renders them in the other Contracting State. Management and consultancy services supplied from China to an Indian associated enterprise through email, conference calls and video conferencing therefore fail the territorial condition where they are not physically rendered in India. The related fees are not taxable as fees for technical services under Article 12(4), and the additions for the relevant assessment years were set aside.

Payment to an agreement holder to extinguish enforceable specific-performance rights arising from an agreement for sale qualifies as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with a property transfer. Where the payment clears the holder's claim, improves the transferor's title and enables the sale, it is deductible when computing capital gains under section 48. The Tribunal treated the payment as analogous to expenditure incurred to remove existing rights that obstruct a transfer, deleted the related capital-gains addition, and allowed the appeal.

Jewellery carried in excess of the quantity permissible under the Indian Customs Baggage Rules, 2026, was detained despite the petitioners' claim that it was brought for a marriage and not for smuggling or sale. The petitioners may seek return of the seized jewellery from the customs authority, which must adjudicate the applications. An admitted breach of the baggage rules may be resolved through imposition of a minor penalty with the petitioners' consent.

RBI remittances under the special rupee export arrangement could not be treated as unrelated to exports without evidence that RBI had rejected or reversed them; Customs was required to have any doubts examined by RBI. Recovery of duty drawback on that premise was therefore unsustainable. Duty drawback depends on the nature of exported goods, while recovery for non-realisation is governed by the Drawback Rules. Export is complete when goods leave India's territorial waters and title passes to the buyer, so alleged diversion or landing at intermediary ports does not defeat drawback entitlement. Goods already exported were outside confiscation provisions, rendering consequential penalties unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief.

Section 110(2) requires return of seized goods where no notice is issued within the prescribed period, unless the period is timely extended under its first proviso. Provisional release does not suspend this consequence, particularly where the provisional-release order excludes the goods concerned. Continued detention of imported machines and spare parts after one year without notice was therefore illegal, and release was directed subject to execution of a bond equal to their value.

Section 108 statements may be relied on in customs penalty adjudication only after the maker is examined, admissibility is determined in the interests of justice, and the affected person receives an opportunity for cross-examination under Section 138B. Non-compliance renders such statements inadmissible and cannot sustain a penalty founded solely on them. Uncertified call-detail records and WhatsApp chats, particularly where no relevant communications are shown, do not reliably establish collusion. Abetment of gold smuggling requires a nexus to the seized goods or prohibited dealings; a customs employee's omission or negligence alone is insufficient. The penalty was set aside.

Penal liability of a Customs Broker for abetment of attempted Red Sanders export requires evidence of a positive act, prior knowledge, active collusion, or assistance; failure alone to verify an IEC holder does not establish abetment. Where the Broker obtained and verified KYC and IEC documents, co-operated with the investigation, and no evidence linked it to the attempted smuggling, the Tribunal found no basis for an abetment penalty. The penalty was set aside, and the Revenue's attempt to impose an additional penalty was rejected.

Tariff classification of formulated natural astaxanthin preparations depends under GRI 1 on the heading terms and relevant Chapter Notes. Heading 3203 applies to vegetable- or animal-origin products used mainly as colouring substances, including preparations for colouring. Astaxanthin complexes formulated for dietary supplements, foods and beverages, with standardisation, stabilisation, emulsification, micro-encapsulation and dispersibility, have nutritional and functional character where colour is incidental. These preparations fall under residual Tariff Item 2106 90 99 as food preparations rather than under Tariff Item 3203 00 20 as vegetable-origin colouring matter; applicable customs duty follows that classification.

Consent terms filed jointly in oppression and mismanagement proceedings were incorporated into the appellate disposition, making the settlement binding on the parties' inter se rights, liabilities and conduct. The appeal challenging findings that amendments to the articles of association and a rights issue were oppressive was allowed by consent, and those portions of the impugned order were quashed. No independent adjudication of the challenged merits occurred.

One-time settlement by a personal guarantor with the sole financial creditor does not remove a corporate debtor from liquidation or alter the process except through statutory routes. An asset transfer approved after failed auctions may remain undisturbed where the consideration exceeds the reserve price and highest bid, despite procedural non-compliance, because it advances value maximisation. A forfeited earnest money deposit remains part of the liquidation estate and must be restored once the creditor's claim is fully settled. Settlement does not confer financial creditor status on a personal guarantor without assignment or substitution of debt; the admitted operational creditor receives distribution under the statutory waterfall before any residual promoter entitlement. Liquidator remuneration and expenses remain payable from the estate.

Prior Committee of Creditors approval of eligibility criteria is required before publication of Form G; Regulation 36A's publication timeline does not displace that requirement. On expiry of the CIRP without receipt of a resolution plan, section 33(1)(a) mandates liquidation, and a pending application alleging fraudulent or malicious initiation does not automatically halt that consequence. Going-concern status requires ongoing business operations, personnel and revenue generation, rather than residual assets alone. A suspended board has no unconditional right to impleadment in liquidation proceedings governed by objective statutory conditions. Further resolution efforts remain within the CoC's commercial judgment, which appellate review cannot replace.

Under FEMA, a charitable trust is an artificial juridical person within the inclusive definition of "person"; funds received from non-resident trustees and recorded as borrowings remain subject to FEMA regardless of charitable purpose. Omission of section 6(3) did not invalidate proceedings commenced before the omission took effect. Non-repatriable rupee loans from non-resident Indians had to be repaid within three years, including through credit to NRO or NRSR accounts. Contravention is a civil breach attracting penalty without proof of mens rea under section 13(1). The Tribunal upheld the breach but reduced the penalty on appeal.

Documents relied upon in a respondent's complaint and relevant to whether property attachment should continue during the complaint's pendency must be taken on record in the related appeals. The refusal to admit those documents was set aside, and documents already filed were treated as part of the record. Costs imposed for delayed applications to file documents remained payable because the appellants had the documents in their knowledge and possession but sought to place them on record only when the appeals were listed for final hearing.

Retention of seized jewellery under PMLA was sustained because interlinked accounts, fund movements and jewellery payments supplied a prima facie nexus with proceeds of crime. The inquiry may cover property held by a person not accused of the scheduled offence where the property is connected with, or requires examination regarding, such proceeds. Recovery from a joint family residence and lack of transaction-wise tracing for individual items did not negate the nexus. Defective initial service of notice did not invalidate adjudication because participation and opportunity to defend caused no identified prejudice.

Excise liability for modifications to fully built motor vehicles depends on whether refining or remaking amounts to manufacture and, where a Chapter Note is invoked, whether a body was built on the chassis as received. These foundational questions require fresh determination before excisability and chassis-based exemption can be resolved. Extended limitation requires a positive, deliberate suppression or misstatement intended to evade duty; registration, returns, departmental scrutiny and a bona fide exemption belief do not establish that standard merely because the departmental view later changes. Any duty determined is confined to the normal limitation period. Penalties for the manufacturer and its Executive Director require the same fraud or intentional-evasion conditions and therefore do not arise absent such conduct.