Section 151 sanction for reassessment requires meaningful, independent application of mind; a bare endorsement that notice is fit to issue on the Assessing Officer's recorded reasons is mechanical and invalid. This statutory safeguard applies even if sanction is administrative, because reasons must demonstrate the approving authority's consideration. Conflicting non-jurisdictional High Court views remain independently persuasive where related special leave petitions were summarily dismissed, since neither merger nor binding law under Article 141 follows. The assessee-favourable construction was applied, invalidating the sanction and quashing the reassessment while other grounds remained open.

Functional comparability for captive cost-plus ITeS providers requires alignment of scale, brand, intangibles, technology and service profile; materially dissimilar outsourcing, accounting or publishing businesses are excluded, while functionally similar ITeS providers may remain comparable. Companies outside the TPO search matrix cannot be rejected solely on that basis if they satisfy applicable filters, subject to functional, asset and risk analysis and annual-report verification. Delayed associated-enterprise receivables are international transactions requiring separate benchmarking after the comparable credit period, using LIBOR plus an appropriate spread. Foreign-exchange gains on reinstated trade payables and receivables lack the direct and proximate export nexus required for a section 10AA deduction.

Capital-gains holding period for a residential flat acquired under a builder's allotment letter runs from allotment rather than later registration, because the statutory test is whether the asset was held. A flat held beyond the applicable long-term period consequently qualifies for long-term capital-gains treatment, with indexation and section 54 relief available in accordance with law. For section 56(2)(vii)(b), an allotment letter containing the essential acquisition terms may constitute the relevant agreement. Where part consideration was paid through banking channels before allotment, stamp-duty value must be determined as on the agreement date, requiring valuation and recomputation on that basis.

Profit on payments for subcontracted civil work cannot be separately estimated where the underlying contract receipts and profit have already been recorded, as this would duplicate disclosed profit; the related addition was deleted. A donation deduction remains disallowable where banking entries are unsupported by receipts. For delayed provident fund remittances, compensatory interest is deductible, whereas statutory damages for breach of payment obligations are penal and disallowable. The payment requires bifurcation between interest and damages, with the allowable interest component to be verified and permitted.

Extended reassessment beyond six years from a search requires material showing that escaped income is represented in the form of an asset. Additions for unexplained money and unexplained expenditure cannot support the extended period where they are not founded on an asset discovered during the search; a statement recorded during search does not, by itself, satisfy that statutory condition. On that basis, the reopening was invalid, the additions remained deleted, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The assessee's cross-objection was infructuous.

Enhanced 10% tolerance band under section 43CA is treated as a curative measure against hardship from deemed sale consideration and applies retrospectively; additions for two flat transfers whose valuation differences fell within that band were deleted. Where stamp-duty valuation is disputed for a transfer under section 43CA, the agreement-date value may apply if the earlier-agreement and banking-channel receipt conditions are met, and the section 50C valuation procedure must be considered. The remaining flat's proposed addition requires verification of the allotment material and statutory conditions, with a Valuation Officer reference where warranted, before redetermination.

India-Ireland DTAA protection for aircraft dry-lease rentals cannot be denied under the Multilateral Instrument's Principal Purpose Test unless Articles 6 and 7 have been specifically notified under section 90(1); valid tax residency, substantive commercial activity and cross-border leasing alone do not establish impermissible treaty shopping. Article 8(1) covers profits from operating or renting aircraft in international traffic, allocating the rentals solely to Ireland and prevailing over general business-profits provisions. Aircraft presence and ordinary inspection, maintenance and repossession rights do not create a fixed-place permanent establishment. Where ownership, return obligations and repossession rights remain with the lessor, dry leases are operating leases rather than interest-bearing finance leases.

Unrecorded cash paid as on-money for commercial property, where established on the evidentiary standard applicable to income-tax proceedings, is taxable only to the extent of the profit element embedded in the payment, since income tax applies to income rather than gross receipts. The assessable addition was confined to 10% of the unrecorded payment and made taxable at normal income-tax rates rather than under section 115BBE.

Excess managerial remuneration, previously taxed but later finally determined and actually recovered by the employer, may be adjusted against salary income in the year of recovery. The adjustment operates under section 15 as recognition of remuneration the employee was not entitled to retain, rather than as a deduction of expenditure under section 16. Annuality of assessment does not prevent recognition of the distinct subsequent recovery where its genuineness and repayment are undisputed. The original year's salary assessment and tax deduction remain undisturbed.

PBDIT was treated as the appropriate profit level indicator for manufacturing transactions where materially higher fixed assets and depreciation distorted comparability under the operating-profit-to-operating-cost indicator and no reliable depreciation adjustment to comparables was feasible. The taxpayer's and comparables' margins were therefore to be recomputed on a PBDIT basis. A working-capital adjustment was required in benchmarking the international transactions. Set-off of brought-forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation was mandatory under the Act, subject to verification of the losses available, because the final assessment did not consider or give reasons for denying the claim.

Territorial jurisdiction over customs seizure and provisional release depends on where the material cause of action arises. When the seizure of imported goods and release proceedings occur at ICD Dadri under the Customs Commissionerate at Noida, neither the Delhi location of CBIC or DRI headquarters nor disputes over classification or a Chartered Engineer's certificate creates jurisdiction in Delhi. Absence of any part of the cause of action is a jurisdictional defect, rather than a basis for applying forum conveniens, requiring recourse to the appropriate forum.

Customs Act penalties for facilitating undervalued imports require evidence that the person procured or used an IEC, participated in unlawful import activity, or knew of it. Introducing an importer to a freight forwarder or providing contact details for a person able to arrange an IEC, without such evidence, does not establish a Customs Act violation or conspiracy. On that basis, penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were set aside, with consequential relief.

Rejection of a declared customs transaction value requires recorded and communicated reasonable doubt and cannot rest solely on acceptance letters or uncorroborated contemporaneous-import data. Comparable-import valuation must establish relevant comparability factors, including quality, quantity, GSM and timing. Written acceptance of reassessment can dispense with a speaking order but does not waive the importer's statutory right to challenge the formation of opinion or the reassessment on merits. Enhanced valuation based only on acceptance letters and unsupported import data therefore lacks a lawful basis, and the importer may contest it despite written acceptance.

Section 123 presumption for seized primary gold and gold cut-pieces shifts the burden to the ownership claimant only after Customs establishes that the goods are of foreign origin. Foreign markings alone do not prove smuggling and require supporting evidence of illegal importation. Where the seized gold lacks clear foreign markings and Customs produces no further evidence of foreign origin or smuggled character, the burden remains with Customs. The statutory presumption does not apply in those circumstances, and confiscation of the gold and consequential penalty were set aside.

Compulsory share buy-out orders in oppression and mismanagement proceedings require a prior finding that the alleged conduct falls within the statutory framework and satisfaction of the requisite conditions before remedial powers may be exercised. The share-purchase power is consequential rather than independent. A compulsory buy-out must also rest on the shares' current value at the determination date, or on a valuation closely proximate to that date. Failure to object to a valuation does not remove the Tribunal's duty to assess its genuineness and suitability. A valuation based on an earlier financial position was insufficient; the buy-out direction was quashed and fresh valuation and merits determination were required.

Operational debt and default arising from mustard-seed supplies were established through TDS deductions, GST input tax credit and ledger entries showing that goods were supplied and received. An incorrect PIN Code in invoices and e-way bills did not disprove delivery where those records otherwise matched the corporate debtor's registered-office address and no contemporaneous non-supply objection was raised; the non-supply defence was rejected. The corporate debtor's own ledger showed an outstanding balance above the insolvency threshold, so further reconciliation was unnecessary and admission of the insolvency application was upheld.

Withdrawal directions permitting an appellant to seek a court-deposited amount "subject to entitlement" must be read by reference to the party designations in the relevant civil appeal. The appellant in the Supreme Court appeal was therefore eligible to apply for release of the deposit, while the corporate debtor, as respondent and depositor, was not. The corporate debtor's withdrawal request was rejected, and the fixed-deposit amount was directed to be remitted to the appellant.

Resolution-plan modification after a challenge mechanism may address statutory compliance through clarifications authorised by the RFRP, where material queries are circulated to all applicants; unilateral revised bids may be declined under the CoC's commercial discretion. The applicable framework permits the Resolution Professional to place non-compliant plans before the CoC, provided compliance is achieved before approval. CoC-accepted statutory valuations are not reopened without material disparity or glaring illegality. A suspended director who is also a personal guarantor and unsuccessful applicant may challenge plan approval. Where the RFRP states that a special purpose company "may" be incorporated, it is optional; the successful consortium must retain over 50% shareholding until plan implementation. The approved plan remained undisturbed.

FERA contraventions require the Department to prove both the recovery of currency and its nexus with unauthorised foreign-exchange dealings. Unexamined panch witnesses and a doubtful panchnama left the alleged recovery unproved, while mere possession of currency did not displace a reasonable explanation based on bank and cash-book records. The statutory presumption for seized documents applies only to otherwise admissible material; loose sheets are not books of account and could not be relied upon. A retracted statement requires proof of voluntariness and independent corroboration. The burden to prove permission arises only after proof of an act requiring permission. Penalties and confiscation were set aside, and the appeal was dismissed.

Joint development arrangements may involve non-monetary consideration where land or development rights are exchanged for flats, but taxability depends on contractual rights and obligations. Valuation follows only after identifying a taxable service, and comparable-flat values require genuine comparability and verification against duplicate taxation. Builder-developer construction before 1 July 2010 may qualify as self-service if applicable factual conditions are met; composite works contracts must be distinguished from pure construction services by contractual transfer of property in goods. An incorrect statutory citation does not alone invalidate an otherwise sustainable notice. Reverse-charge liability requires proof of qualifying GTA, security, manpower-supply or legal services. Extended limitation requires deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax.