Approval of a resolution plan under the insolvency process extinguishes central excise tax demands covered by that plan, including related interest and penalties. Where the plan addresses financial and operational debts and is affirmed in appellate insolvency proceedings, the covered tax liabilities cannot survive in parallel excise proceedings. The extinguishment applies to the impugned demands forming the subject matter of those proceedings.

Service-tax demands cannot be dropped on unverified assertions about the nature or place of services, designated-area status, or reverse-charge payment. Liability requires examination of service agreements, the services performed in India and offshore, relevant consideration, and proof of tax discharge. A show-cause notice based on apparent short payment reconciled from ST-3 returns remains valid where the registered person fails to provide documents sought to establish the underlying transactions, despite the absence of transaction-specific allegations. Service-tax liability therefore requires fresh determination on a complete factual record after allowing relevant evidence and a hearing.

Freezing of a bank account under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires recorded written reasons to believe under the foundational search-and-seizure requirement, followed by the prescribed statutory steps. Failure to disclose those recorded reasons constitutes a foundational procedural defect. Subsequent forwarding of materials or an application to continue the freezing before the Adjudicating Authority cannot cure that defect. Writ jurisdiction remains available despite an alternative statutory remedy where the challenge concerns statutory compliance and enforcement of fundamental rights; the writ petition is therefore maintainable.

Section 50 PMLA summons need not disclose full grounds where the enforcement authority can substantiate their nexus with a lawful money-laundering inquiry without compromising that inquiry. A money-laundering inquiry must rest on a scheduled offence, but a predicate FIR registered before the ECIR and not quashed continues to support the inquiry despite a stay of proceedings against a person; references to later FIRs do not alter that position. Natural justice ordinarily requires the summons to identify its purpose, the nexus of material sought, and consequences of default. Persons summoned must attend, provide available material, and may seek reasonable time for further production.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act imposes twin conditions for bail, but those restrictions must operate consistently with Article 21 protections of personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial. Where the predicate-offence investigation remains incomplete, money-laundering charges have not been framed, and no foreseeable trial exists, indefinite pre-trial custody risks becoming punitive. Concerns regarding witness influence or evidence tampering may be addressed through stringent bail conditions that protect the investigation and prosecution witnesses.

Order VII Rule 11 scrutiny is confined to the plaint averments. A claim founded on an alleged Will, rather than on acquisition of property benami in the testator's name, discloses a cause of action and cannot be rejected at the threshold under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The Will's validity and proof, and the true nature of the underlying transactions, require evidence at trial. Pending criminal prosecution concerning the testator does not prevent pursuit of an independent civil remedy.

Regular assessment issues concerning interest expenditure, tax-deduction compliance and disallowance relating to exempt income may be remitted for limited verification without impermissibly setting aside a transfer-pricing determination where no arm's length price issue is involved. Interest deductibility requires examination of the nexus between borrowings, advances and taxable interest income; absent a direct nexus, a proportionate approach applies under Section 36(1)(iii). Interest disallowed for tax-deduction reasons requires factual verification under the first proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income earned, and the Finance Act 2022 amendment does not apply retrospectively.

Realised foreign exchange loss on settlement of foreign-currency liabilities incurred to acquire capital assets forms part of each asset's adjusted actual cost when consistently capitalised and supported by asset-wise and foreign-exchange ledgers. Where no separate revenue deduction is claimed for that loss, depreciation is allowable on the adjusted cost under Section 43A. Disallowance of depreciation on the capitalised realised exchange loss is therefore unsustainable and must be deleted.

Section 68 requires an assessee to satisfactorily establish the nature and source of a credited amount. Repayment of an earlier loan through an assignee may be substantiated by banking records, capital records, ledger accounts, interest payments subject to tax deduction, and loan-assignment documents. Where this material establishes that the original advance came from recorded capital and no independent evidence shows circulation of the assessee's unaccounted funds, an allegation that the payer is a shell entity does not displace the initial evidentiary burden. The repayment was accordingly treated as genuine rather than unexplained cash credit, and the addition was deleted.

Section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 prohibits the institution, imposition, or levy of Income-tax Act penalties for a tax arrear covered by a settlement. Form No. 5 evidences full and final settlement of the underlying quantum dispute. Accordingly, penalty proceedings for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot continue after such settlement, and a penalty imposed despite the statutory immunity is unsustainable.

Rectification under section 154 is confined to a mistake apparent from the record of the order proposed for correction and to grounds identified in the rectification notice. It cannot be used to levy interest under sections 234B or 234C through an appeal-effect order where the notice did not identify the relevant omission, section 234B had undergone appellate adjudication and merger, or the alleged section 234C omission related to the original assessment rather than the appeal-effect order. Chargeability of section 234C interest requiring examination of proviso (c) to section 234C(1)(b) is debatable and therefore lies outside rectification jurisdiction.

Transfer-pricing analysis applies a 0.5% commission benchmark to corporate guarantees and a 9% arm's-length interest rate to the Thai associated-enterprise loan. Legal fees for services rendered and used abroad in earning foreign-source income, and export commissions to foreign agents performing no operations in India, are not chargeable to tax in India; no withholding obligation follows. Annual fees for existing GDR listings are allowable, whereas payments for professional or technical services to an overseas branch of an Indian bank remain subject to tax deduction. Consistency precludes ad hoc foreign-travel disallowance. Captive-power market value uses the State Electricity Board consumer-supply rate. Carbon-credit proceeds are capital receipts, while capitalised mining-development expenditure is depreciable but not revenue deductible.

Consideration from Indian customers for standard software is characterised as business income rather than royalty. Under Article 7 of the India-US tax treaty, that income is not taxable in India where no permanent establishment exists. In the absence of material changes in facts, agreements, or applicable law from the preceding assessment year, the principle of consistency supports continuing the earlier characterisation and non-taxability.

Penalty under section 270A is invalid where the notice merely alleges under-reporting of income without identifying the applicable statutory circumstance. The specific charge must be communicated at initiation, and later identification in the penalty order does not cure the defect. Penalty under section 271AAB is unsustainable unless the amount satisfies the statutory definition of undisclosed income. An admission alone is insufficient where expenditure recorded in kaccha books during an unclosed financial year was subsequently entered in regular books and accounted for in the accepted return. Failure to specify the relevant penalty clause also leaves the charge unspecified.

Section 68 does not permit cash deposits during demonetisation to be treated as unexplained where audited books, cash and stock records, sales and purchase records, and VAT returns establish recorded bullion and jewellery sales and corresponding stock movement. An increase in cash sales before demonetisation, without evidence disproving sales, stock availability, or the records, does not negate the explained source. Where sale proceeds have already been credited to the trading account and included in returned income, a further cash-credit addition duplicates taxation. Suspicion or human-probability considerations cannot replace material evidence.

Section 273B precludes penalty under Section 271B where the assessee establishes reasonable cause for failure to furnish an audit report within the prescribed time. Viral fever was accepted as reasonable cause for the three-month delay because the Revenue produced no material to refute the explanation. Consequently, penalty for delayed furnishing of the audit report was not imposable.

Section 144B makes a show-cause notice mandatory before a faceless assessment introduces a variation prejudicial to the assessee. Disallowance of acquisition or construction cost without that notice breaches the prescribed assessment procedure and principles of natural justice. Where the Revenue concedes that no notice was issued, the resulting assessment order is non-est in law.

Voluntary ex gratia payments made under an employer's early-retirement scheme following unit closure were treated as outside profits in lieu of salary where they were not founded on an employer obligation under the service terms. The payment therefore did not constitute compensation for section 17(3) purposes and was not taxable; the related addition was deleted.

Delay of 735 days in challenging a revision order was not supported by sufficient cause. Reliance on professional assistance, failure to monitor communications, and a change of auditor did not explain the prolonged inaction. Professional representation in consequential assessment proceedings indicated that the revision order had not been timely challenged, while the appeal filed after consequential assessment was treated as an afterthought. Condonation of delay was therefore refused.

Revision of an assessment for alleged inadequate inquiry into accommodation-entry transactions is unsustainable where no material links the assessee to the intermediary or subsequent entity. Information alleging a payment to the intermediary, denied by the assessee, did not establish movement of funds from the assessee. As the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiry and the assessment was not shown to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests, revision under Section 263 could not be sustained; no substantial question of law arose.