Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to a mistake apparent from the record that existed when the Tribunal pronounced its original order. The provision does not permit review or recall of a concluded decision. Therefore, a legislative amendment enacted after the original order, even where given retrospective effect, does not by itself render that order erroneous or create a rectifiable mistake apparent from the record.

Retrospective statutory amendments enacted after a Tribunal's original order do not, by themselves, constitute a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 254(2). An order quashing reassessment for lack of jurisdiction is assessed under the law prevailing when it was made; a later insertion of Section 147A cannot retrospectively render that concluded order erroneous on its face. Recall is unavailable where rectification would effectively review the decision based on a subsequent legislative development. Conditional restoration liberty remains dependent on final settlement of the relevant issue by the Supreme Court.

Special-audit proceedings for AY 2020-21 were stayed on a prima facie limitation objection. The sixth proviso to Section 153B(1) appeared inapplicable to that assessment year, and, without the six-month extension, subsequent procedural steps appeared to exceed the limitation period ending on 31 March 2023. The limitation issue remained undecided finally.

Limitation for the relevant assessment year remains unresolved, with competing calculations concerning exclusions for exchange-of-information proceedings and special audit requiring consideration. Assessment proceedings may continue pending the next hearing; however, any adverse assessment order cannot be given effect until then. No final determination has been made on whether the proceedings are time-barred or on the availability of the claimed exclusions.

GST portal availability is a statutory method of serving notices and orders, but its use must afford a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard in demand proceedings. Section 169 recognises portal upload and e-mail as service modes, while Sections 73 and 75 require a show-cause response, consideration of representations and a hearing before an adverse decision. Rule 142 requires electronic DRC-01 and DRC-07 summaries alongside the underlying statutory process; summaries do not replace the full notice or reasoned order. Portal-only service may be vulnerable where notices are inaccessible, technically unreliable, or produce an ex parte order without effective communication. Actual participation may cure prejudice, whereas ineffective service may justify remand while preserving adjudication on merits.

TNMM requires operating profit and operating cost to be computed consistently for the tested party and comparable companies. A provision for doubtful debts linked to sales and trade receivables, and routine business levies such as rates and taxes, may be operating expenses because of their business nexus; income-tax on profits remains excluded. Rule 10B requires FAR-based functional comparability, reliable segmental data and reasonably accurate adjustments for material differences, including scale. A search matrix is evidentiary discipline rather than a statutory bar: an out-of-matrix comparable requires substantiated functional fit and filter compliance, while rejection solely for matrix absence is inappropriate. Contemporaneous documentation must support searches, exclusions, classifications and margin adjustments.

Section 110 of the Customs Act requires the proper officer to form and contemporaneously record objectively supportable reasons to believe that goods are liable to confiscation before seizure. For gold, Section 123 shifts the burden of proving non-smuggled origin only after a valid Customs seizure made in the reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled. A general panchnama recital, suspicion, foreign markings or high purity alone cannot substitute for pre-seizure reasons or corroborative evidence. Retracted statements require independent support and cannot retrospectively cure a deficient seizure. Where the statutory foundation is absent, the reverse burden does not arise; smuggling must instead be established through independent evidence. Seizure records should separately disclose the factual basis for the officer's belief.

Section 80GGC permits deductions for eligible non-cash contributions to registered political parties or electoral trusts, but banking-channel payments, receipts and recipient registration do not conclusively establish genuineness. A claim may be disallowed where credible investigation material and taxpayer-specific circumstances support the conclusion that the payment was an accommodation entry rather than a genuine contribution. General allegations concerning a recipient do not, without a sufficient nexus to the taxpayer's transaction, necessarily negate the claim. Initiation of penalty under section 270A is not a final liability determination; under-reporting, misreporting, bona fide explanation, full disclosure and hearing requirements must be independently examined before penalty is imposed.

Section 93 of the CGST Act permits post-death determination of GST liability against a legal representative, including fresh proceedings where no notice or assessment began during the deceased person's lifetime. Where the business was discontinued, tax, interest and penalty are recoverable only from the inherited estate and only to the extent it can meet the charge; the heir's independent assets remain outside that liability. Where the business continued, liability depends on material establishing continuation by the representative or another person. Notices must be issued to the legal representative in that capacity, not to the deceased, and adjudication must comply with applicable limitation, hearing, reasoned-order and service requirements.

Non-confirmation of seizure under FEMA requires due effect where the competent authority, after hearing both sides, finds that recorded material does not establish the statutory "reason to believe" required for suspected contravention. The protective seizure mechanism and substantive adjudication serve distinct functions, but an adjudicating authority cannot effectively overturn a non-confirmation order while the statutory appeal against it remains pending. Section 37A(4) applies only to confirmed seizures and does not preserve a seizure that has been set aside. FEMA adjudication must provide disclosure of relied-upon material, an effective opportunity to respond, and conclusions confined to the notified allegations. Writ review may be available for demonstrable jurisdictional defects, procedural unfairness, or prejudgment.

Pending appeal against dismissal of an oppression and mismanagement petition does not, without a stay, restore former directors' corporate authority or suspend the operative effect of the Tribunal's order. Relief for oppression or mismanagement requires qualifying membership, conduct prejudicial to members, public interest or the company, and the statutory foundation for remedial or interim orders. Challenges to director removal must distinguish procedural validity from the broader threshold for oppression. Banks ordinarily should follow formally authorised company instructions rather than adjudicate unresolved internal-management disputes, absent a competent restraint. Collateral participants must independently establish locus and comply with proper recall, impleadment and appellate procedures.

Post-facto shareholder approval cannot retrospectively validate diversion of preferential-issue proceeds contrary to issue-specific objects disclosed to shareholders and the market. A special resolution authorises the issue but does not permit unrestricted use of proceeds. Periodic deviation reporting, audit-committee review and utilisation disclosures promote transparency; they do not enable diversion followed by later regularisation. Immediate diversion, inadequate commercial justification and missing documentation may indicate that disclosed objects were not genuinely intended to be performed. Later amendment of corporate objects or shareholder ratification cannot cure a completed securities-market disclosure breach.

Will-based claims for property remain benami claims where pleadings allege that the claimant funded acquisition in another's name and the property was held for the claimant's present or future benefit. Such beneficial-owner claims are barred from civil enforcement, and a later Will or proposed re-transfer cannot independently validate restoration of the property. The fiduciary-capacity exception requires a legally recognised property-related fiduciary duty; employment, personal confidence, loyalty, or commercial arrangements alone are insufficient. Courts may reject a plaint at the threshold where its own averments disclose the statutory elements of benami and no legally sustainable exception, while genuine fact-dependent fiduciary disputes.....

Reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 requires a bona fide reason to believe, founded on tangible material having a live link to possible income escapement; final proof is not required at the notice stage. Reopening is impermissible where the Assessing Officer seeks to revisit an issue consciously examined in the original scrutiny, but prior production of documents alone does not establish full and true disclosure or formation of an opinion. Survey-derived information may support reopening where it reveals previously unexamined material facts about a transaction's true character. Recorded reasons are the exclusive jurisdictional foundation: later material cannot supplement them. Taxpayers must receive the reasons, have an opportunity to object, and obtain a speaking order before reassessment proceeds.

Section 195 requires withholding only from a remittance to a non-resident that includes income chargeable in India. For software, royalty depends on transfer of copyright rights, not merely the right to install, access, use, or distribute a copyrighted article under restrictive terms. Where a DTAA is more beneficial, its royalty and FTS definitions control; treaty FTS may require technology to be made available. Amounts that are neither royalty nor FTS require consideration as business profits, ordinarily taxable only where profits are attributable to a permanent establishment. Composite payments require component-wise allocation and analysis.

Reassessment under sections 147 and 148 was sustained because the registered sale deed was the material available when belief of escaped income was formed; an earlier transfer asserted through an agreement to sell and power of attorney required investigation and did not negate reopening. Capital-gains relief under section 54B was available where new agricultural land was purchased from earnest money or advance sale consideration before registration of the transferred land. The qualifying reinvestment had to be allowed in computing capital gains, while the reassessment remained valid.

TRQs for apples, kiwifruit, albumins and New Zealand MPI-certified Manuka honey operate through export certificates issued by New Zealand and electronic TRQ Authorisations issued to designated Indian importers. Applications must reference the relevant certificate or allocation, identify MSME status, and are transmitted to the Indian Customs EDI System. Imports are allowed only through electronic customs debiting. Authorisations are subject to annual quota limits, applicable CIF conditions and quota windows, remain valid only for the relevant quota year, and lapse to the extent unutilised.

An Indian supplier that outsources part of an overseas services contract to a foreign supplier makes an export supply for the full contract value, subject to export and place-of-supply conditions, and imports the outsourced portion. Integrated tax is payable under reverse charge on that import, with input tax credit available. Direct payment by the overseas recipient to the foreign supplier may count as export consideration if the corresponding tax is paid and retention outside India is authorised.

All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback in Chapter 71 are amended for tariff items 711301, 711302 and 711401. The figure in column (4) for tariff item 711301 is substituted from 1851.99 to 1794.11. For tariff items 711302 and 711401, the figure in column (4) is substituted from 29501.09 to 26859.02. These substitutions amend the existing duty drawback Schedule under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017.

Special additional excise duty on exports of petrol and diesel is revised by substituting the rates in the applicable table. The rate against serial number 1 becomes Rs. 2.5 per litre, and the rate against serial number 2 becomes Rs. 8.5 per litre. The revised duty rates take effect on 16 October 2026.