Recovery of fees collected through unregistered investment advisory services was addressed in connection with the finality of an unchallenged adjudication order. The Supreme Court found no good ground to interfere with the Securities Appellate Tribunal's impugned order and dismissed the appeal, leaving that order undisturbed. The material concerns fee recovery arising from unregistered advisory activity and appellate non-interference.

Reassessment under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act cannot sustain enhancement of an imported goods' declared value without a reasoned order under Section 17(5). Failure to issue that statutory order breaches the prescribed procedure for rejecting the declared transaction value and reassessing imported goods. The enhanced assessments were therefore unsustainable, and the declared value had to be accepted.

Section 129A(1), through its first proviso, excludes appellate jurisdiction over orders concerning goods imported or exported as baggage. Gold chains brought into India by an arriving international passenger retain their character as baggage regardless of recovery from the passenger, alleged non-declaration, concealment, intended use, invoice, or duty-evasion allegations. Challenges to orders concerning such baggage imports must proceed through revision before the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, rather than through an appeal to the Tribunal.

Trade-policy amendments effective after goods are handed to the first carrier in a recognised multimodal shipment apply prospectively and do not govern that consignment; a later shipment-document date does not change the relevant date. Section 110A of the Customs Act provides the framework for considering provisional release of imported goods, subject to conditions permitted by law. Consideration of provisional release remains separate from the merits of customs adjudication.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on its peculiar facts, declined to interfere with the Tribunal's orders, and left all questions of law open. The dispute addressed tariff classification, reliance on expert evidence, the Revenue's burden for reclassification, MEIS entitlement and cancellation, duty recovery contingent on DGFT action, shipping-bill finality, confiscation and redemption fine, extended limitation, and customs penalties.

Additions for unexplained money derived from a running seized ledger require debit and credit entries to be considered together. Where entries record continuing receipts and repayments, aggregating both sides may tax the same funds twice; taxation is therefore confined to the unreconciled peak-credit or net-balance difference. A debit recorded in a succeeding year that corresponds to a credit already considered in the preceding year must be telescoped against the earlier addition, preventing a separate addition for the same amount. Consequential commission additions are limited accordingly.

Termination compensation arising from an agency-like distribution arrangement is business income where ending the arrangement does not impair the profit-making apparatus, but taxable income cannot exceed the amount actually received or accrued. A non-compete covenant acquired with a trademark may constitute a depreciable business or commercial right. For eligible-unit profit deductions, only expenditure directly connected with the unit is allocable; corporate overheads lacking that nexus are excluded, while finance, research, travel, and sales-promotion allocations require factual verification. Receipts not directly derived from exports, including miscellaneous income, deferred sales-tax discounts, and termination compensation, are reduced from export-profit computation. The interaction of eligible-unit and export deductions, and remission taxation of discounted deferred sales-tax liabilities, require statutory determination on verified facts.

Under the India-Germany DTAA, royalties and fees for technical services are taxable on receipt rather than accrual where that treatment has consistently applied. Standard software supplied under restricted, non-exclusive, non-transferable licences without copyright exploitation rights does not generate royalty income. A consortium is not an association of persons where members perform separately identifiable work, invoice independently, retain separate profits and losses, and lack common management or a common income-earning design; joint customer liability alone is insufficient. Offshore goods-supply income is not chargeable in India under the treaty protocol. Transfer-pricing adjustments require prescribed methods and transaction analysis; an unexplained flat mark-up is unsustainable.

Renewal eligibility for charitable-donation tax approval depends on the approval status subsisting when the application is filed. Clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) applies where regular approval remains in force and is due to expire, while clause (iii) applies where only provisional approval exists. Where regular approval and its particulars were disclosed, an application under clause (ii) is valid and maintainable.

Section 148 notice issued in the name of a person who had died before its issuance is void from the outset, as reassessment must be initiated against a living assessee or, where permitted, a legal representative. Legal-representative provisions permit continuation of proceedings validly begun during the assessee's lifetime but do not validate fresh proceedings commenced against a deceased person. Participation by a legal heir cannot cure this jurisdictional defect. Consequently, reassessment initiated and completed in the deceased assessee's name is invalid and liable to be quashed.

Section 189(1) permits assessment of a dissolved partnership only where its business has been discontinued, treating the firm as continuing for that limited purpose. Where a successor company takes over and continues the business as a going concern, Section 170 governs the succession. A reassessment notice issued under Section 148 in the name of the dissolved, non-existent firm is a substantive jurisdictional defect; the resulting reassessment is void ab initio.

Deletion of additions through an appeal-effect order removes the basis for a concealment penalty because no concealed income remains when the penalty is imposed. Penalty for non-compliance with statutory notices may warrant relief where affidavits establish that the taxpayer lacked familiarity with tax law and relied on a professional who may have failed to make the required compliances.

Section 56(2)(x) requires a legally available valuation basis before stamp-duty value can replace stated purchase consideration for a property acquisition. Where a valuation reference is made but the valuation report is not received within the statutory period, stamp-duty value cannot independently support the addition. Alleged acquisitions of other properties also require disclosure and confrontation of system data or other corroborative material, particularly where the taxpayer denies the transactions. Additions cannot rest on undisclosed evidence or unverified property-acquisition records.

Foreign tax credit under Section 90 is substantive double-taxation relief and cannot be curtailed solely because the return or Form No. 67 was filed late. Rule 128 prescribes procedural and documentation requirements for claiming the credit, including filing Form No. 67, but its filing requirement is directory where the taxpayer's entitlement, credit quantum, and supporting compliance are undisputed. As subordinate legislation, Rule 128 cannot defeat the statutory entitlement to foreign tax credit merely due to delayed filing under Section 139(4) or delayed submission of Form No. 67.

Foreign tax credit under tax treaties is not forfeited merely because Form 67 is filed late. Rule 128(9) fixes the filing timeline but does not prescribe forfeiture for delay; the requirement is procedural and directory rather than a mandatory condition of eligibility. Form 67 should therefore be accepted, and the foreign tax credit claim determined after verification in accordance with applicable law.

CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 assigned assessment jurisdiction over non-corporate assessees reporting income at or above the prescribed metropolitan-city threshold to a Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner. Where an Income-tax Officer issued a reassessment notice despite lacking that allocated jurisdiction, the notice was jurisdictionally defective. The defect was not curable, rendering the reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment invalid and liable to be quashed.

Reassessment following a completed scrutiny assessment requires fresh tangible material and cannot rest on a review of the same loan confirmation, bank statements and balance sheet previously examined. Deletion of an addition in search-related assessment proceedings for lack of incriminating material does not prevent available remedial action, but it does not supply fresh material to justify reopening. A reassessment notice served on or after 1 April 2021 under the earlier regime must undergo the Section 148A process: show-cause notice, disclosure of material, consideration of response and a reasoned order before a Section 148 notice. Non-compliance renders reopening procedurally defective.

Refunds arising from fresh returns filed after condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) are treated as belated refund claims for the purposes of CBDT Circular No. 11/2024. Clause (ii) of paragraph 6 excludes interest under section 244A on belated refund claims generally, rather than only on supplementary claims. Consequently, statutory refund interest is unavailable where the original return was filed after the statutory deadline without a valid condonation order and the refund follows a subsequently condoned return.

Ex parte reassessments under Sections 147, 144 and 144B, coupled with dismissal of first appeals in limine for delayed filing, warrant a further opportunity to substantiate disputed transactions where additions have not been examined on merits. The assessee may present its case and supporting evidence before the Assessing Officer. If it fails to comply, the assessment may be completed on the material available in accordance with law.

Orders under section 201 issued in the name of an amalgamating company after it has ceased to exist under an approved amalgamation scheme are jurisdictionally invalid where the Revenue received timely notice of the amalgamation. Issuing a show-cause notice to the amalgamated company does not cure a final order addressed to, carrying the tax-deduction account number of, and served on the non-existent entity. The defect is not merely procedural: an order against the ceased entity is void ab initio. Principles concerning curable notice defects or delayed intimation do not apply where prior intimation was given.