Mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation was required for demands above the prescribed threshold; without consultation or evidence of fraud or collusion, the notice and ensuing proceedings were void. Original works relating to railways and qualifying non-commercial Government, clinical and educational buildings under pre-1 March 2015 works contracts were exempt, including covered subcontracted services. Gross consideration where tax was not separately collected required cum-tax valuation. An ITR and Form 26AS differential unsupported by verified service-receipt figures could not sustain demand. Nil preceding-year taxable turnover supported threshold exemption, while bona fide disclosure and no intent to evade precluded extended limitation and penalties. Consequently, service tax, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 may arise where frozen bank accounts are maintained and the registered office is situated, because the freezing order's impact occurs there. Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, a Director or Deputy Director may authorise a subordinate officer to freeze property, including bank accounts, where seizure is impracticable. Recorded reasons to believe must be forwarded with relevant material to the Adjudicating Authority and need not appear in the freezing order. The Adjudicating Authority determines whether frozen property is involved in money laundering and whether any continuing restraint should be confined to identifiable proceeds of crime; statutory appeals remain available.

Article 21's right to a speedy trial can justify constitutional relief despite the twin bail conditions under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act where unexplained failure to file chargesheets in scheduled offences prevents those trials from commencing or concluding within a reasonable time. Because establishment of the scheduled offence is necessary for final determination of money-laundering proceedings, prolonged delay in the predicate offences can also make timely completion of the money-laundering trial unrealistic. Statutory bail conditions cannot be applied to sustain unreasonably prolonged detention where delay is not attributable to the accused.

The first-proviso relaxation under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act is assessed by the amount allegedly laundered jointly where the accusation concerns a concerted operation, rather than by assets or credits individually received. The twin bail conditions require reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. This assessment proceeds on probabilities and requires prima facie foundational facts linking the scheduled offence, derived property, and the accused's knowing involvement with proceeds of crime. Bail may be available where that nexus is not prima facie established and further offending is unlikely.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, seized documents and digital devices, and property subject to freezing, may be retained or kept frozen for 180 days only. Continued retention or freezing requires the Adjudicating Authority's permission under Sections 17 and 20. Where that period expires without such permission, the Enforcement Directorate has no statutory authority to continue the restraint; the seized articles must be returned and the frozen locker released.

Pending insolvency proceedings before the NCLT required the petitioner to pursue the remedy available before that forum in accordance with law. Because the petitioner's NCLT application remained under consideration, the writ petition was disposed of while preserving the petitioner's liberty to seek relief before the NCLT.

Section 477(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 authorises summons of persons who may possess company property or hold information about its affairs following appointment of a provisional liquidator or a winding-up order. An earlier request considered only under Section 454(2) does not trigger res judicata under Section 11 CPC where Section 477(1) was not examined. Former directors must therefore provide personal affidavits disclosing movable and immovable assets. Where e-bidding platform delays exclude genuine participants, fresh bidding rather than direct acceptance of an individual bid protects fair participation, the liquidation estate, creditors, and debenture holders.

Boiler Support Steel Structures imported in completely knocked-down condition qualify as machinery parts when their design, dimensions, connection points, attachments and position-specific tags establish sole or principal use with a designated boiler system. Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation and Section XVI principles support classification as other boiler parts, because heading 7308 excludes structures clearly identifiable as machinery parts. Associated platforms, galleries, walkways and maintenance structures remain within the engineered boiler-support arrangement. Classification as prefabricated buildings is excluded because the goods lack the essential character of such buildings.

Written acceptance of an enhanced customs value waives only the requirement for a speaking order; it does not surrender the importer's statutory right to challenge rejection of transaction value or reassessment. Declared transaction value may be rejected only after grounds for reasonable doubt are formed and communicated and prescribed sequential valuation rules are followed. Undisclosed NIDB or contemporaneous-import data, without particulars, independent corroboration, and cogent justification, cannot alone support enhancement. Consequently, reassessment lacking these safeguards is legally unsustainable.

Procedural fairness requires respondents to customs appeals admitted before a scheduled admission hearing to participate and raise all legally permissible contentions, including objections to maintainability. Prior admission, particularly where no interim relief has been granted, does not prevent expeditious consideration of whether the appeals are maintainable. Affected parties may therefore contest maintainability during the appellate process notwithstanding the appeals' earlier admission.

HSN-based customs tariff classification governed the self-assessment of imported enterprise-class/non-carrier Ethernet switches for payment of concessional basic customs duty under the relevant customs notification. The dispute concerned entitlement to the concessional rate and the importer's self-assessment of duty. The Civil Appeal was dismissed because it was filed after an inordinate delay of 526 days.

Classification of personal computers cleared from an SEZ through the DTA involved competing claims under Heading 9804 and headings for computer equipment and displays. The issues included whether Heading 9804 covers dutiable goods imported for personal use, the distinction between customs duty and IGST, and the effect of the SEZ Act deeming fiction. Penalty and interest were also in issue. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.

Pre-Rule 8D years require a reasonable section 14A disallowance of 1% of exempt income. Reversed interest previously taxed may be reduced from taxable income where prior taxation, unrealisation, actual reversal under prudential norms, and subsequent recovery are verified. Debt recoveries are taxable under section 41(4) only where the prior deduction was allowed for the debt under section 36(1)(vii), not solely for a provision under section 36(1)(viia). Income attributable to foreign branches that are permanent establishments abroad is taxable in the branch jurisdiction rather than India; Notification No. 91/2008 applies prospectively from assessment year 2009-10. Earlier refunds must be appropriated first against section 244A interest, then principal tax.

Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) requires the extended ten-year search-assessment period to be counted backwards from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year of search, without excluding the search year. Where the search took place in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2018-19, the period extended from Assessment Year 2018-19 to Assessment Year 2009-10. Assessment Year 2008-09 therefore lay outside the statutory block, leaving the Section 153A notice and consequential reassessment without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Withholding obligations on reinsurance premiums paid to a non-resident, and consequential disallowance for non-withholding, depend on whether the payments are taxable in India. Where remittances were reportedly made before the non-resident established an Indian branch, based on a no-permanent-establishment declaration, the timing of payment and its attribution require factual verification. The disallowance issue requires fresh determination after verification of whether the payments preceded the branch establishment and were consequently subject to Indian tax withholding requirements.

Advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure could not be treated as a sustainable separate transfer-pricing adjustment where earlier years had deleted the adjustment and no material change in agreements, conduct or transfer-pricing findings was shown. Overdue associated-enterprise receivables constitute independently benchmarkable capital financing, but interest must be recomputed invoice-wise for the actual delay, using an appropriate LIBOR-based rate for foreign-currency receivables. Seminar, convention, training, sponsorship and honorarium expenses involving doctors were fully disallowed as business expenditure opposed to public policy; earlier-year remand relief did not govern the relevant year.

Bank credit received from a son could not be treated as unexplained money where the taxpayer established its nature and source through the creditor's confirmation, bank statement, PAN and tax credentials, and the transfer occurred through banking channels from an RTGS credit rather than cash deposits. The source-of-source requirement introduced by the first proviso to Section 68 did not apply to AY 2017-18. Further, a bank-account credit, without more, is not money, bullion, jewellery or another valuable article for Section 69A. The resulting Section 69A addition was unsustainable.

Cash deposits in disclosed bank accounts are satisfactorily explained where prior withdrawals are recorded in regular cash books, available to cover later deposits, and no evidence shows their intervening expenditure, investment, or use. Section 69A applies only where money is unrecorded and its nature and source remain absent or unsatisfactorily explained. Because cash is fungible, a one-to-one link between each withdrawal and deposit is unnecessary; commercial doubts about retaining cash cannot override recorded fund availability without contrary evidence. On these conditions, treatment as unexplained money, and consequential section 115BBE treatment, does not arise.

Under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021, automated allocation of electronically filed appeals determines the appellate authority, without any assessee choice of forum. An appeal allocated to the designated Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may therefore be decided by that authority. Jurisdictional entries prescribing transfer-pricing orders, arm's-length-price grounds and related penalties require purposive and harmonious interpretation rather than a rigid cumulative reading where that reading would leave some appeals without a designated forum. The jurisdictional objection to the allocated appellate authority consequently fails.

Rule 17A(2) distinguishes applicants created under an instrument from those created otherwise, so a trust deed or memorandum cannot be an invariable condition for section 12AB renewal. For institutions without a formal founding instrument, public-trust registration particulars, certificates and other available material may establish creation, establishment and continuing existence. Such evidence does not itself prove entitlement: the institution must still satisfy requirements concerning its objects and the genuineness of its activities. Where no adverse finding exists on those requirements, absence alone of a trust deed or memorandum does not justify refusing renewal.