Unchallenged order-in-original conditions requiring payment of customs duty, redemption fine and penalty for release of detained gold jewellery cannot be assailed indirectly after the available remedies against that order were not pursued. Earlier writ proceedings directing release in accordance with the order do not determine its validity. Recovery of customs duty as a condition of redemption therefore remains enforceable. Detention charges recovered on release may be challenged only upon establishing that their recovery contravened statutory provisions; no such statutory infirmity was shown.

Classification of imported stainless-steel melting scrap requires consignment-specific, reliable evidence; test reports for later consignments cannot displace a separately finalised assessment. Pre-shipment inspection and Chartered Engineer reports identifying goods as scrap remain material where chemical or laboratory evidence is inadequate, and buyer statements not tested under the prescribed evidentiary procedure cannot establish prime material. Uniform dimensions or orderly stacking do not alone establish prime material, while revaluation requires support for additional consideration. Goods cleared without bond or undertaking and unavailable for confiscation cannot be absolutely confiscated. Director penalties require a specific basis f.....

Refund of duplicated customs-duty payment may not be denied merely because an ICEGATE challan was not generated for the first payment. Where the importer provides the banking and payment records required by the Public Notice, verification through PAO/e-PAO and ICEGATE falls to the proper officer; an unavailable challan resulting from departmental system failure cannot be imposed as a refund condition. Refunds processed under the procedure for customs-duty refunds attract statutory interest where payment is not made within the prescribed period, at the rate notified by the Government.

Secured creditors must clearly and timely elect to realise a security interest outside the liquidation estate; merely recording a security interest in Form D does not communicate that election. An email sent after a compromise scheme fails cannot retrospectively cure non-compliance with Regulation 21A. Participation and voting in the Stakeholders' Consultation Committee are relevant, while consideration of a scheme under the Companies Act neither suspends nor extends the election period. Consequently, without a valid timely election, hypothecated assets remain in the liquidation estate and cannot be realised independently.

Corporate veil lifting for real estate project resolution treated the developer and the land-owning special purpose company as a single economic entity, bringing the leasehold land within the restored resolution plan. Allottee claims arising from the same project were addressed through completion and delivery under that plan, leaving no independently due debt to support a separate insolvency process. A parallel CIRP over the project land would impose a moratorium and vest management in an insolvency professional, obstructing implementation of the restored plan. The Monitoring Committee responsible for plan implementation had standing as an aggrieved person, and binding Supreme Court precedent required consideration. Allottees' remedy lay in enforcing the restored plan.

Suspension of an insolvency professional's registration renders the professional ineligible to continue in any ongoing insolvency process, rather than only the assignment underlying disciplinary action. Regulation 13(7) requires intimation of the suspension to the relevant Committees of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority, operating separately from the Committee's commercial power to replace an otherwise eligible resolution professional. Challenges concerning disclosure, valuation, statutory recourse and disciplinary procedure raised issues for final consideration but did not establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury. Interim stay of the disciplinary suspension was therefore declined, without determining the main appeal's merits.

FEMA adjudication concerning under-invoiced imports remains independent of Customs valuation and duty proceedings, and statements recorded under the Customs Act may be considered. Seized electronic records carry a rebuttable presumption of truth where their integrity is established; unrebutted records and related statements can prove foreign-exchange contraventions on a preponderance-of-probabilities standard. Contraventions may be sustained for documented import entries, but projections or extrapolations from electronic data require corroborative evidence and cannot alone support allegations. A person in charge of a company is personally liable for established corporate contraventions to the same evidence-based extent.

Specific nil-rate exemption entries for namkeen and similar edible preparations apply to Cheese Balls and Bhujia cleared in sealed retail pouches. Cheese Balls fall within the specific entry for similar ready-to-consume edible preparations, while the residual packaged-food entry applies only where no specific description covers the goods; sealed packaging does not displace the specific exemption. Bhujia is expressly covered by a separate specific entry, and its sealed-container restriction cannot be imported from a differently worded residual entry. Classification under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 remains within sub-heading 2106 90, so it does not exclude eligibility where the exemption refers to that sub-heading. Nil-rate treatment consequently applies and related duty, interest and penalties are unsustainable.

Disciplinary proceedings for other misconduct may continue after a complaint has been filed and are not rendered withdrawable by a later request to withdraw it. Pending disciplinary matters are governed by the pre-amendment legal framework where applicable. Constitutional writ review of disciplinary action remains limited, restricting judicial interference with findings or punishment except within the permitted scope of review. Removal from the Register of Members may be imposed as a disciplinary sanction for established misconduct.

Clubbing of clearances, lifting of the corporate veil, pervasive financial and management control, SSI-exemption aggregation, suppression of material facts, and the extended limitation period were the legal issues identified. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals for want of any ground to interfere with the Tribunal's impugned order, leaving that order undisturbed on all listed issues.

Condonation of a 451-day delay in filing an appeal requires a substantiated sufficient cause. Inability to obtain legal advice lacked credibility where a legal notice had been issued shortly after the impugned order. Compliance with a public-notice direction and belief that the matter was concluded indicated acceptance of that order. Unsupported illness claims and a belated request to produce evidence did not establish grounds for condonation.

Corporate guarantees provided to associated enterprises may constitute international transactions, with an arm's-length commission of 0.5% of the guarantee value. Where own funds exceed exempt-income investments, no interest disallowance arises under Rule 8D; administrative disallowance is confined to investments that yielded exempt income, net of voluntary disallowance. Full weighted R&D deduction is available for book-recorded expenditure at an approved in-house facility before Rule 6(7A) introduced expenditure quantification. Forward-contract losses require verification of whether underlying foreign-currency borrowing is on revenue or capital account. Unavailed additional depreciation remains available in the succeeding year. Depreciation and unexplained-money additions based on alleged inflated contract payments depend on coordinated determination of prior-year cash-repayment issues.

Estimated project-profit additions require rejection of regularly maintained accounts or cogent evidence that declared results are unreliable. An ad hoc estimate based on land, construction and overhead costs, comparison with a materially different project, and unsupported site enquiries could not displace audited accounts where no discrepancy was established under Section 145. Differences in project location, duration and treatment of partners' interest also made the profitability comparison unreliable. The reconciled cash-book discrepancy and unrecorded site enquiries provided no evidentiary basis for estimation; deletion of the addition was therefore upheld.

Rejection of books permits reasonable estimation of business income from turnover; where comparable preceding-year facts support it, a 5% net-profit rate applies rather than 3% or 20%. Unrecorded flat sales and admitted cash or on-money receipts form part of turnover and are taxable only at that rate, not in full. Separate additions for bank deposits representing turnover, and expenditure disallowance based on entries in rejected books, duplicate estimated income and are precluded. A stamp-duty valuation addition remains sustainable where limited below-value sales, comparable transactions and no valuation request do not justify a reference to the Valuation Officer.

Section 153D requires prior, independent approval for each assessment year as a mandatory safeguard in search-related assessments. Composite approval covering multiple years may fail that requirement where it is granted after draft orders are submitted, contains errors concerning returns or returned income, and directs verification of core assessment and tax-computation matters after approval. Such features indicate that the approving authority did not complete an independent review before granting approval, rendering the approval vulnerable as mechanical.

Pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 determines whether an Income Tax Officer or Assistant Commissioner may issue a Section 143(2) scrutiny notice, based on returned income. Where returned income places an assessee within Income Tax Officer jurisdiction, a notice issued by an Assistant Commissioner lacks lawful pecuniary authority. Section 124(3), being confined to territorial-jurisdiction objections, does not cure that defect. A valid scrutiny notice from the competent authority is indispensable to assessment validity; a notice issued without such authority renders the assessment void ab initio.

Foreign tax credit under Sections 90 and 90A cannot be denied solely because Form 67 was filed after the prescribed due date where the form was subsequently furnished. Filing Form 67 was treated as a directory, rather than mandatory, procedural requirement for claiming credit, with judicial consistency applied to the same assessee's succeeding assessment year. The foreign tax credit claim remains allowable subject to verification of relevant facts for consequential computation.

Delayed furnishing of Form 10B does not by itself defeat exemption under section 11 where the audit report was available to the CPC before return processing under section 143(1). The prescribed filing timeline is procedural and directory, and availability of the report before processing constitutes substantial compliance. Rejection of a delay-condonation request under section 119(2)(b) does not extinguish the appellate remedy for the exemption claim.

Section 68 could not treat consideration received on the sale of unlisted shares as unexplained cash credit where the original investments had been accepted in prior scrutiny assessments. Purchase and sale records, books of account, bank statements, confirmations, tax returns, audited financial statements, and purchaser particulars supported the transactions. The purchasers also responded to enquiries with supporting material. In the absence of defects in that evidence or independent material disproving purchaser identity, creditworthiness, or transaction genuineness, the documented share-sale proceeds remained outside unexplained cash-credit treatment.

Furnishing the audit report in Form No. 10B within the Section 139(1) deadline is treated as a procedural and directory requirement for claiming charitable exemption under Section 11. Delayed filing does not automatically invalidate an otherwise valid exemption claim. The availability of condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) does not preclude appellate consideration of the exemption claim where Form No. 10B was filed late.