Contract manufacture of alcoholic liquor for a brand owner for consideration constituted a taxable service under the negative-list regime. From 1 June 2015, alcoholic liquor for human consumption was excluded from the exemption for processes amounting to manufacture or production of goods. The relevant distinction was between manufacture undertaken independently for oneself and contract manufacturing or job work performed for another person. Consequently, service tax applied to contract manufacture of alcoholic liquor for brand owners during the disputed periods.

Available CENVAT credit balance, where sufficient to meet confirmed service-tax liabilities, may be adjusted against the tax demand and consequential interest. Credit availability does not cure failures to file ST-3 returns or disclose taxable services. Return-filing and disclosure defaults may therefore attract a statutory penalty notwithstanding extinction of tax and interest through credit adjustment; the penalty may be confined to 25% of the service tax payable.

Regular bail in a money-laundering matter remained refused after the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's rejection of bail and dismissed the special leave petition. The issues identified included the independence of the money-laundering offence from the scheduled offence, the twin bail conditions under Section 45, the sick-or-infirm proviso, proceeds of crime, modus operandi, and reason to believe.

Bankruptcy commencement vests property standing to the bankrupt's credit, including bank-account balances, in the Bankruptcy Trustee by operation of law, regardless of the bankrupt's knowledge. Statutory exclusions for personal ornaments are exhaustive: only qualifying unencumbered ornaments within the prescribed limit are protected, not sale proceeds deposited into a bank account; withdrawals of such proceeds therefore concern estate property and must be returned. Recall of an ex parte return order requires substantiated inability to respond and demonstrated prejudice; unsupported connectivity issues and adequate opportunity to answer do not justify recall.

Liquidation by sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern commences on the liquidation commencement date where the liquidation order adopts the creditors' recommendation and directs that mode of sale. Issuance of an auction notice or finalisation of an asset sale process document is not a statutory trigger for commencement. A subsequent regulatory omission of going-concern-sale provisions operates prospectively and does not displace rights and obligations crystallised under the earlier framework. Consultation, valuation, reserve pricing, marketing and auction preparation form a continuing sale process; the prescribed period for endeavouring the sale is directory and may be extended.

Limitation for a Section 9 insolvency application is computed by excluding the Supreme Court-directed COVID-19 period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. Where the unexpired three-year limitation balance on 15 March 2020 is 626 days, that longer balance, rather than merely the minimum 90 days, is available from 1 March 2022. For a default on 2 December 2018, the resulting limitation period expires on 17 November 2023; an application filed on 17 November 2022 is therefore within limitation.

Section 9(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 requires a creditor's insolvency petition to satisfy all mandatory conditions, including proof of an actual statutory act of insolvency within the prescribed period. Misdescription of the provision invoked does not invalidate a petition if its substance falls under Section 9(1). Mere non-payment of debt, or an attempt or intention to transfer property, does not constitute an act of insolvency; an actual qualifying transfer is required. Without that statutory foundation, the petition is incompetent, and any resulting insolvency adjudication and consequential liquidation measures cannot continue against any debtor, including non-appellant debtors.

Customs assessment may treat temporally proximate consignments from a common supplier as one complete motorcycle where matching markings, inspection evidence and a foreign registration plate establish a deliberately split composite import. Declared spare-parts values may then be rejected and residual valuation used where they do not represent the goods actually imported and other valuation methods lack reliable data. Duty remains chargeable to the real importer rather than jointly and severally to distinct persons who did not jointly import. Objective evidence can sustain confiscation and false-declaration penalties independently of customs statements where statutory safeguards for their substantive use are unmet. Proper-officer jurisdiction and common adjudication of linked port clearances are also addressed.

Customs broker licence suspension requires evidence of a specific breach of prescribed due-diligence obligations, rather than general or unsubstantiated allegations. Obtaining statutory identification and KYC documents, stopping clearance on departmental instructions, and absence of evidence of collusion, knowledge of misdeclaration, or regulatory contravention do not justify suspension. A customs broker need not physically verify an importer's premises or independently determine import transaction value. Statutory timelines for licensing proceedings are mandatory; prolonged suspension without timely show-cause action or completion of prescribed procedure is unsustainable and has no continuing legal effect.

Appellate Tribunal jurisdiction under Section 129A extends to confiscation orders concerning a domestically registered conveyance, Indian currency, redemption fine and penalty where the goods are neither imported nor exported and the vehicle was not seized while carrying smuggled goods. Such orders do not fall within the statutory exceptions for baggage, specified un-unloaded import goods or drawback. Consequently, the appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal applies, and revision under Section 129DD is not maintainable.

Final approval of a corporate resolution plan governed a fiscal demand for which the relevant authority had not filed any claim during insolvency proceedings. Departmental appeals concerning that unasserted demand remained subject to the plan's finality, and the substantial questions of law raised in those appeals were left unanswered. The approved plan therefore operated as the controlling framework for treatment of the fiscal demand despite the pending departmental appeals.

Transfer-pricing rules do not support imputed interest on OFCD investments or associated-enterprise balances where income has not accrued in real terms, recovery is commercially improbable, and amounts are irrecoverable; OFCDs with conversion rights may be quasi-equity, while corporate-guarantee payments are not necessarily loans. Inventory must be valued at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower, and a consistently applied net realisable value method cannot be replaced by average purchase cost without evidence that it is incorrect. For AY 2015-16, absent an enabling provision, fair market value could not replace actual share-transfer consideration in computing capital loss. Parent corporate guarantees are not comparable to bank guarantees; a 0.5% commission benchmark was treated as appropriate on the stated facts.

Cash deposits made during demonetisation, when claimed as cash sales recorded in the books and included in disclosed turnover, cannot be assessed again as unexplained cash credits without verifying the supporting material. Tax-audit records, bank statements, books of account, cash-sales details and the linkage between deposits and disclosed turnover require examination. Treating recorded sales receipts as unexplained credits despite their inclusion in taxable turnover would result in double taxation. Fresh adjudication is required after verification of the evidence, with adequate opportunity to the assessee.

APMC cess paid on consignment goods by a del credere commission agent does not make consignors' sales the agent's turnover where records reconcile cess with consignors' transactions; the estimated profit addition and book rejection were therefore not sustained. Agency character alone does not discharge the burden to substantiate sundry debtor and creditor balances with details and confirmations, requiring fresh verification. A Rule 46A(3) objection fails where no specific additional evidence is identified. Unsupported loans, advances and deposits require examination of source, nature and genuineness; deletion without missing details was not sustainable and the addition was restored.

Reversal of a general provision for standard assets, recorded as a negative expense in the profit and loss account and reduced in taxable-income computation, requires factual verification to prevent a second tax adjustment where there is no net tax effect. Book profit under Section 115JB should not include a further adjustment for a provision for forfeiture of security deposit that the taxpayer has already added back suo motu. Taxable income and book profit require recomputation after verifying the underlying accounting and tax treatment, without duplicate additions.

Capital-gain taxability requires reconsideration where a newly produced sale deed and power of attorney indicate that the land may have belonged to another person and the taxpayer may have acted solely as that owner's constituted attorney. Because these documents had not been examined by the lower authorities and required factual verification, ownership and the resulting taxability of long-term capital gain remained unresolved. The first appellate order was set aside for fresh consideration of the documents and the parties' submissions.

Rule 17A(2) permits an applicant created otherwise than under an instrument to establish its creation or establishment through supporting records, rather than a formal trust deed or memorandum of association. Registration certificates and records maintained by the Charity Commissioner may evidence a public charitable educational institution's creation, public character, objects and continuing existence, particularly when supported by tax registration, educational recognition and sustained charitable activity. Requirements applicable to private trusts under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 do not impose an additional condition on public charitable endowments seeking registration renewal. Absence of a formal founding instrument alone therefore does not justify refusal of renewal under section 12AB.

Reassessment notices issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year require prior approval from the competent authority under Section 151. When an assessee disputes the existence of that approval, the Revenue must produce the relevant approval record to establish this jurisdictional fact. A statement in the reassessment order that approval was obtained, or reliance on approval-related proceedings for another assessment year, does not prove valid sanction for the relevant year. Failure to establish prior approval invalidates the Section 148 notice and renders the consequential reassessment unsustainable.

Registration under Section 12AB is confined to verifying the genuineness of charitable activities and compliance with material requirements of applicable law; it cannot become an income assessment based only on the mode, amount, or verifiability of donations. Recorded donations and expenditure towards stated charitable objects demonstrate that activities have commenced, absent any finding that those activities are non-genuine. Registration must therefore be granted where the relevant charitable activities and legal compliance are established. A delayed appeal may be admitted on sufficient cause where the explanation shows no mala fides or deliberate delay, with substantial justice prevailing over technicality.

Section 250 gives the first appellate authority powers coterminous with those of the assessing authority, allowing examination of fresh material supporting the assessee's position. Material cannot be rejected solely because it was not furnished during assessment where additions and disallowances arise from factual discrepancies requiring verification. The appellate authority should examine the material and, where necessary, obtain factual verification or a remand report. Additions and disallowances should be determined only after reasonable and adequate opportunity is provided and the discrepancies are factually verified.