Parallel corporate insolvency resolution proceedings against a landholding special-purpose company are impermissible where a binding restored resolution plan, following corporate-veil lifting, treats the holding company and landholder as one economic entity and covers the project land and allottee claims. In that position, the leasehold land must be administered under the restored plan, and allottee claims do not constitute an independently due and payable debt capable of establishing a distinct default against the landholder. The threshold requirement for filing an insolvency application does not foreclose examination of subsisting debt and default at admission. A monitoring committee implementing the plan is a person aggrieved where a separate process affects the project, and binding precedent must be applied. Enforcement remedies lie within the existing insolvency process rather than a parallel process.

Secured creditors must clearly elect to realise security outside the liquidation estate within the prescribed period. A claim form showing no security details, coupled with a negative response on relinquishment, does not amount to a clear statutory election. Participation and voting in the stakeholders' consultation committee may support the conclusion that security was not validly retained, as non-relinquishing secured creditors cannot participate in that committee. Consideration of a compromise or arrangement does not suspend or extend the election period. Delayed written requests to exclude or deliver secured assets cannot revive the option, and the assets remain part of the liquidation estate.

Duplicate or multiple customs duty payments accepted in the system are treated as deposits refundable under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 through the prescribed procedure. Public Notice No. 62/2012 requires the importer to provide banking and transaction records, while departmental officers must verify payment through PAO/e-PAO and ICEGATE challan inquiry. Where a system failure prevents generation of the first challan, refund cannot be made conditional on producing that unavailable record if both payments against the same bill of entry are otherwise verified and the first payment was not reversed. Eligible delayed refunds attract statutory interest under Section 27A.

Stainless-steel consignments supported by unrebutted pre-shipment inspection certificates may be classified as melting scrap rather than prime material where laboratory reports lack parameter-based chemical testing and other contrary statements are inadmissible. Physical appearance, uniform dimensions and stacking alone do not displace scrap classification, and enhancement of transaction value requires evidence that the declared value is inaccurate or that additional consideration was paid. Failure to prove misclassification, prohibited import or undervaluation removes the basis for confiscation and penalties, including director penalties absent evidence of personal involvement. Goods detained by the proper officer qualify for waiver of rent, demurrage and detention-related charges under the applicable cargo-handling regulations.

Concessional customs treatment restricted to Crude Palm Oil requires the importer to establish that the goods met that description when imported; contemporaneous loading, electronic and laboratory records may corroborate their identity. Customs classification must similarly reflect the goods' condition at importation rather than post-import mixing or dilution. A material cargo misdescription may support an extended-period duty demand, confiscation and a penalty linked to short-paid duty. Duty must be calculated under the tariff and notifications in force on the import date. A separate penalty for knowingly false documents requires distinct intentional false conduct beyond the declaration underpinning the duty demand.

Customs detention regulations prohibit recovery of rent or demurrage for goods detained or seized by Customs. Where Customs formalities conclude through reassessment and duty payment, and detention-waiver certificates cover the relevant period, importers are entitled to release and physical delivery without detention charges, container detention charges, ground rent or demurrage for that certified period. Delays attributable to Customs authorities, or disputes between shipping lines and custodians, cannot be shifted to the importer or used to withhold delivery. Liability between the concerned authorities remains subject to determination under applicable law.

The first proviso to Section 124 of the Customs Act permits oral notice where the person concerned requests it. Compliance depends on whether the noticee received a genuine and effective opportunity to know and answer the allegations, rather than on a formal written show-cause notice. Where the noticee knowingly waives written notice, participates fully in adjudication, and raises no objection before the adjudicating authority, that procedural safeguard cannot ordinarily be revived after an adverse decision. The absence of formal written notice does not by itself create a jurisdictional defect warranting writ intervention in place of the statutory appellate remedy.

Customs-duty recovery imposed as a condition for release of detained gold jewellery remains enforceable where the underlying adjudication order was not challenged. A later writ petition cannot collaterally challenge the duty condition after its implementation; earlier directions for release in accordance with that order do not determine its validity. Warehouse detention charges also remain recoverable absent material showing that they were levied contrary to the governing statutory provisions. Release conditions requiring redemption fine, applicable customs duty and penalty therefore continue to bind the assessee.

Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations permit examination questions on Allied Acts and other laws relevant to EXIM trade and customs clearance, without imposing a numerical allocation between major and Allied Acts. Earlier examination patterns do not bind the expert examining authority. Judicial review of competitive examinations is limited to patent illegality, mala fides, arbitrariness, or manifest error. An expert-verified answer key is presumed correct unless a glaring error is apparent without inferential reasoning; drafting concerns, disputed interpretation, or difficulty do not establish such a defect. Licences or additional attempts do not follow absent a demonstrated patent defect.

Section 129DD permits a revisional authority to annul or modify an appellate order and, absent an express restriction, to remit the matter for fresh adjudication. Revisional review may address overlooked material, unsupported findings, and legal unsustainability without undertaking a wholesale appellate reassessment. In seized-gold matters, Section 123 places the burden of proving lawful, non-smuggled character on the possessor or claimant. A remand does not itself determine confiscation or redemption. Separate notice is unnecessary unless enhanced penalty or redemption fine, or confiscation of higher-value goods, is proposed. Limitation depends on proof of communication of the appellate order and timely objection.

Interest on integrated goods and services tax levied on imports under the Customs Tariff Act requires an express charging provision. For imports made from October 2017 to March 2018, neither the Customs Tariff Act nor the Customs Act authorised interest on that levy. Collection of such interest without statutory authority was therefore impermissible, supporting the assessee's position.

Customs authorities' competence to invoke section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 to recover additional customs duty on switchgear parts imported between April 2003 and March 2008, after domestic clearance under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was challenged. The Supreme Court found no ground to entertain the civil appeals and dismissed them.

Benami character of an agricultural-land purchase was assessed through the source of consideration, possession, custody of title documents, relationships, motive and subsequent conduct. The recorded purchaser's statement disclosed limited financial means and execution of the sale deed at another person's direction for payment. A later claim of personal funding was unsupported, inconsistent with the registered consideration, delayed and implausible. Evidence concerning compensation, its cash withdrawal by a person linked to the alleged beneficial owner, and the parties' connections corroborated the original statement. The purchase was treated as benami, with the recorded purchaser as benamidar and the other person as beneficial owner.

Section 153C requires the requisite satisfaction and consequential action to be taken immediately after, or contemporaneously with, completion of the searched person's Section 153A assessment. Recording the satisfaction note 24 months after those assessments was an inordinate delay that did not meet this jurisdictional timing requirement. The resulting Section 153C proceedings were barred by limitation, rendering the consequential assessments invalid and liable to be quashed.

The proviso governing charitable registration applications empowers the Commissioner to condone delayed applications where reasonable cause is shown and to deem them timely filed. Filing a prior application under an incorrect statutory clause, followed promptly by a corrected Form 10AB application, together with an affidavit and chronology showing no deliberate default, supports reasonable cause. This statutory condonation power operates independently of the general relaxation provided by the CBDT circular. Once delay is condoned, the registration application must be considered afresh on its objects, genuineness of activities, and other applicable registration conditions, without revisiting limitation.

Binding interim judicial directions restraining tax deduction at source on LFC reimbursements prevent a deductor from being treated as an assessee in default for complying with those directions, even where the reimbursements are later held substantively taxable. The employees' substantive tax liability remains unaffected. Such compelled, bona fide compliance constitutes reasonable cause, precluding penalties for failure to deduct tax. Institutional approval processes, personnel changes and e-filing access difficulties may constitute sufficient cause for condoning delayed penalty appeals where there is no deliberate delay, mala fides, prejudice to Revenue, or surviving underlying withholding demand.

Section 12AA registration granted in 2007 remained effective for Assessment Year 2020-21 unless lawfully cancelled or withdrawn. Rejection of a subsequent transitional Form 10A application was distinct from cancellation of the existing registration and did not create a registration gap. The revised Section 12AB framework applied from 1 April 2021 after retrospective omission of the earlier Finance Act, 2020 version, while Section 12A(2) preserved exemption continuity during migration. Exemption under Sections 11 and 12 could not be denied where registration subsisted, earlier-year exemption had been allowed on identical facts, and no breach of charitable conditions was found, subject to verification of other statutory requirements.

Section 12AB registration requires examination of a trust's objects, genuineness of activities and compliance with material laws, but does not permit refusal merely because objects contemplate assistance to a religious community. A specified violation requires material showing actual application of income for that community; an anticipated future disqualification affects exemption assessment, not registration alone. A resolution proposing amendments does not alter a registered trust deed unless duly approved or registered. The statutory enquiry must assess the complete deed, activities, legal compliance and the operative status of any amendments.

Compensation for compulsorily acquired agricultural land in the Hazira Notified Area was not liable to capital gains tax because the land lay outside a municipal area, was used for agricultural operations, and did not constitute a capital asset under the Income-tax Act. The stated requirements for exemption on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land were also satisfied. For separately compensated structures and improvements, the computation required allowance of a reasonable cost of acquisition, with 60% of the compensation identified as the appropriate deduction. The land-compensation addition was deleted and the built-up asset computation required revision.

Rectification under section 154 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record that are obvious, patent and self-evident; it cannot be used to review an assessment or undertake fresh adjudication. A disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D requires examination of accounts and satisfaction under section 14A(2) as to the correctness of the taxpayer's claim. Exempt-income and investment figures already on record do not, by themselves, establish an apparent mistake. Accordingly, a fresh section 14A disallowance not made in the original scrutiny assessment lay outside rectification jurisdiction, resulting in quashing of the rectification and deletion of the addition.