Potential accused affected by a judicial direction to register an FIR, investigate, and file a final report have locus to seek leave to appeal even if they were not impleaded in the original writ proceedings. The Supreme Court treated the finding that the material disclosed cognizable offences as capable of prejudicing a later independent challenge to the FIR. It also recognised that directions extending to investigation and filing of a final report may require consideration of statutory requirements under the applicable special law. Refusal of leave was set aside, the appeals were restored before the Division Bench, and interim relief could be sought in accordance with law. The BNSS discussion did not address merits.

Corporate guarantees furnished to wholly owned foreign subsidiaries are international transactions under the Explanation to Section 92B and require arm's-length benchmarking; a 0.50% guarantee commission applies rather than 1%. Sales commission paid to a United States associated enterprise for marketing and support services did not constitute fees for included services under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US tax treaty and was not taxable in India; therefore, no withholding obligation or consequential disallowance arose. The SEZ-unit deduction claim requires reconsideration using Form 56F, a bifurcated profit and loss statement, and the computation of eligible profits, without a merits determination of eligibility or quantum.

Reassessment procedure requires the Assessing Officer to decide an assessee's objections to reopening through a speaking order before commencing scrutiny assessment. A scrutiny notice initiates scrutiny and cannot be issued before those objections are disposed of. Premature initiation of scrutiny is a jurisdictional defect, rather than a procedural irregularity, rendering the reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment order invalid. The reassessment and consequential assessment order were quashed, making challenges to the assessment's merits academic.

Reasonable limitation applies to TCS-default orders where section 206C contained no express limitation period. An additional limitation ground may be considered as a pure question of law when it concerns jurisdiction, all material dates are on record, no further factual inquiry is needed, and the ground was raised before but left undecided by the first appellate authority. Applying an analogous limitation principle for tax-deduction defaults, four years from the end of the relevant financial year was treated as reasonable. A later statutory time limit did not govern earlier proceedings. Proceedings initiated after that period, including consequential interest, were treated as time-barred.

Business-loss set-off against capital gains and other income required fresh verification where return processing adopted deemed income not reflected in the taxpayer's computation. The computation was not intelligible despite undisputed income and loss figures, and rejection of the set-off claim had not considered cited judicial precedents. Recalculation must examine applicable deemed-income provisions and subsequent-year records to prevent double deduction. The appellate order was set aside and remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh determination of total income and tax liability after hearing the taxpayer.

Cash-payment disallowance under section 40A(3) does not extend to overwhelmingly genuine business payments solely because they were made in cash. In the unorganised liquor trade, the cash component of sales receipts and the nature of supplier payments may explain cash expenditure. Although the claim that individual payments remained within the applicable daily statutory limit was rejected based on the assessment record, the supplier payments were treated as duly explained and genuine. The cash-expenditure disallowance was consequently deleted.

Finality of an unchallenged remand order prevented the exporter from reopening findings that its declared FOB value was doubtful, Revenue had met its burden, and the value required re-determination. The Tribunal treated those findings as conclusive because neither side had challenged the earlier order, and held the later challenge to re-determination not maintainable. Examination was therefore limited to compliance with the remand directions. As the Commissioner considered values for the different exported watches and re-determined FOB value under the Valuation Rules, 1988, the Tribunal upheld the re-determination and dismissed the appeal.

Integrated RSA backplane and chassis assemblies, imported without interface cards and other functional modules, are classifiable as other parts of heading 8517 under tariff item 8517 79 90 when designed solely for photonic service switches. Although they incorporate backplane PCBAs, they cannot independently receive, convert, switch or transmit signals, lack the essential character of a complete switch, and provide the structural and interconnection framework for separately imported modules. As they are not parts of general use, their sole suitability for the relevant machines governs classification. The concession for that tariff item applies, excluding parts of cellular phones and wearable devices, only to Basic Customs Duty, not integrated tax or other levies.

Persons named as suspects were refused leave to challenge an FIR-registration direction because they retained constitutional remedies to seek quashing before cognizance and statutory remedies after cognizance; no prima facie impairment of a legal right was shown. In corruption cases, an accused has no right to be heard before FIR registration. Where information received under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act contains sufficient material disclosing cognizable offences, no preliminary inquiry is required, and an accused cannot insist on one before FIR registration. The related intra-court appeals were consequently dismissed.

Enforcement Directorate information under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that itself discloses cognizable corruption offences, supported by statements and documents, requires FIR registration; police cannot conduct a further preliminary enquiry unless the information lacks material revealing an offence. A citizen whistle-blower whose complaints are effectively rejected may challenge failure to perform that statutory duty. A State Police Chief cannot constitute a Special Investigation Team without a Government decision where statutory power to create special units lies with Government. Earlier rejection of private complaints on insufficient material does not preclude an FIR where later statutory-investigation information rests on distinct, additional evidentiary material. The enquiry order and team were set aside, with FIR registration and lawful investigation directed.

Service by affixation of an adjudication order at registered premises, recorded through an official communication and panchnama, is treated as admissible and presumptively valid for commencing limitation in service tax appeals. Where the appellant continues to hold the premises, a plea of non-receipt lacks basis. Commissioner (Appeals) may condone delay only for the statutorily specified additional 30 days and cannot entertain an appeal filed beyond that outer limit. An appeal filed after the condonable period is therefore time-barred.

Anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act remains available because its bail restrictions do not impose an absolute bar. The Code of Criminal Procedure applies where consistent with the Act, and pre-arrest bail requires assessment of reasonable material and the likelihood of conviction without detailed evaluation of evidence. Where investigation has substantially progressed, relevant documents have been collected, the person has cooperated, and no real risk exists of absconding, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or reoffending, custodial interrogation lacks sufficient justification. On these factors, the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.

Bank account freezing based on suspicious-transaction monitoring requires a transaction profile that objectively supports the suspicion. Banks, as custodians of customer accounts rather than enforcement agencies, must not question legitimate business transactions or impose arbitrary restrictions. RBI Know Your Customer Directions require monitoring of suspicious transactions but do not permit account freezes without proper basis. Prior notice, a show-cause opportunity and a personal hearing are necessary safeguards where freezing materially affects civil and commercial activity. Restrictions imposed without these safeguards may breach natural justice, fail proportionality review, and infringe constitutional business and personal-liberty rights.

Account freezes based on transactions exceeding a prescribed threshold and alleged KYC deficiencies require reassessment upon submission of supporting and KYC documentation. The account may be unfrozen if the documents are found satisfactory on verification. No final determination was made on the legality of the freeze; the matter was disposed of through directions for document submission, threshold reassessment, and consequential review of the freeze.

Review jurisdiction could not be invoked because CESTAT's liberty to re-approach was expressly conditional on action within the prescribed time. Following unconditional withdrawal of Supreme Court appeals, the petitioners neither used that remedy nor challenged the underlying adjudication, instead contesting consequential demand notices. Their later recall application was inconsistent with reliance on the CESTAT order. Without an error apparent on the record, review failed; the unchallenged adjudication attained finality and repeated proceedings constituted abuse of process.

Transfer-pricing analysis distinguishes trading from manufacturing, requiring fresh arm's-length determination of finished-goods purchases under the Resale Price Method where the functional profile remains unchanged. Nil valuation of intra-group engineering and professional services under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method is unsustainable without an internal or external comparable, particularly where evidence establishes plant-related services and prior-year treatment supports consistency. Book adjustment of customer security deposits against receivables does not establish repayment outside banking channels, so the related disallowance cannot stand. The DRP may consider an additional interest-expenditure claim relevant to a proposed variation. However, a separate processing adjustment outside the draft assessment variation falls beyond DRP proceedings.

After expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, Section 151(ii) requires approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner for issuing a reassessment notice. Approval granted by the Principal Commissioner instead constitutes a jurisdictional defect. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was void ab initio, and the reassessment proceedings initiated on that basis could not survive.

Sale proceeds from share transactions documented through recognised exchanges, brokers, contract notes, broker ledgers and banking channels could not be treated as unexplained cash credit merely on general investigation material. Regular trading records established purchases, sales and losses, while no capital-gains exemption or set-off against taxable income was claimed. In the absence of a specific enquiry or evidence linking the transactions or brokers to manipulation, and where the alleged money trail was unrelated, the additions were unsustainable and deleted.

Section 68 permits an unexplained cash-credit addition only where the taxpayer fails to explain the credit. Sale invoices, ledgers, bank statements, import-purchase records, VAT returns and C Forms supported receipts as sale proceeds, while separate funds were documented as a repaid advance after a proposed sale failed. In the absence of independent verification rebutting that evidence, a third-party allegation alone did not sustain the addition. Denial of the requested cross-examination of the third party breached natural justice; the credits were accordingly treated as satisfactorily explained.

Section 249(4) distinguishes between taxpayers who have filed a return and those who have not. Where a return is filed in response to a reassessment notice, accepted for assessment purposes, and tax on the returned income is paid, the appellate condition requiring payment of tax on returned income applies. The advance-tax condition for non-filers does not govern such an appeal. The appeal must therefore be considered on merits under the applicable condition for return filers.