Proceeds of crime: PMLA targets handling of tainted assets even where the person is not named in the predicate offence, scope narrowed for conspiracies.
Existence of proceeds of crime is a prerequisite for an offence under the PMLA and must be derived from a scheduled offence; the PMLA reaches persons who handle, conceal or possess tainted proceeds even if not named in the predicate offence. Conspiracy under Section 120B becomes a scheduled offence only when the conspiracy aims to commit an offence already listed in the PMLA Schedule, narrowing scheduled-offence scope. Property acquired prior to the scheduled offence cannot be treated as proceeds, whereas disputed acquisitions require trial determination of their linkage to tainted funds.

Resolution applicant eligibility under Section 29A clarified; MSME exemption under Section 240A applies at plan submission stage.
Whether a resolution applicant is disqualified under Section 29A depends on the ineligibility criteria and the timing of assessment; the operative date for eligibility is the submission of the resolution plan, and Section 240A provides an MSME-targeted exemption from certain disqualifications to protect continuity and livelihoods.

Tax exemption registration: tribunal ordered reconsideration where delay arose from bona fide reliance on provisional registration and circulars.
The Tribunal held that rejection of the final registration application under Section 80G for being time barred was improper where the Commissioner did not consider administrative circulars extending filing timelines and the trust's bona fide reliance on provisional registration; the ITAT set aside the order and directed reconsideration with an opportunity to be heard.

Arm's Length Principle enforcement: comparables, functional profiling, and admissibility of additional evidence determine transfer pricing outcomes.
Dispute concerns determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions, focusing on comparable selection, adjustments for functional differences, and functional profiling's effect on ALP reliability. The Tribunal also deals with the admissibility of additional evidence on appeal and scrutiny of changes in benchmarking approaches across assessment years, stressing contemporaneous, consistent documentation and justification for methodological changes while balancing procedural finality and factual completeness.

Pre-deposit requirement undermined by tribunal restoration without compliance, raising jurisdictional and laches concerns in excise appeals procedure scrutiny.
The Tribunal's restoration and allowance of excise appeals without a prior pre-deposit requirement raises whether a lower tribunal may waive mandatory pre-deposit obligations and whether such action aligns with supervisory limits imposed by higher court directives and doctrines like functus officio and res judicata.

Shareholder access to confidential corporate documents affirmed where confidentiality is overstretched, strengthening minority investor protections.
Minority shareholders are entitled to access corporate documents where confidentiality claims are overstated; confidentiality and privilege cannot be used to withhold information necessary for assessing compliance with securities law. SEBI's settlement framework cannot shield material information from shareholder scrutiny; regulatory processes must balance investigatory integrity with transparency and natural justice. Non compliance with Minimum Public Shareholding norms undermines market integrity and minority rights, and settlements of serious violations require sufficient transparency to protect investor interests.

Retrospective jurisdiction of regulator challenged; effect on auditor liability, standards compliance and sanctions under companies law.
Allegations of professional misconduct assert auditors failed to comply with statutory audit obligations, disclose material facts, exercise due diligence, obtain necessary information, and identify departures from accepted audit procedures. Appellants challenge the regulator's retrospective jurisdiction, invoke constitutional protection against retrospective penalization, and allege procedural breaches of natural justice; the regulator maintains jurisdiction, contends it afforded hearing opportunities, and asserts substantive non compliance with Standards on Auditing.

Territorial jurisdiction disputes in securities cases shape venue decisions and challenge regulatory settlement revocations and discretion.
Disputes over venue in securities enforcement pivot on territorial jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens, using cause of action and convenience factors to determine appropriate forum. SEBI's settlement regime under the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulation 2018 and the regulator's power to revoke settlements raise questions about regulatory discretion, enforceability of negotiated resolutions, and implications for corporate governance and market integrity, while High Courts' supervisory role under Article 226 intersects with statutory enforcement mechanisms.

Revisionary powers under Section 263 limited where assessment thoroughly examined transactions and no specific error is shown.
Scope of revisionary powers under Section 263 is limited where the original assessment shows a detailed examination and allowance of losses; direction for re-examination without specific findings of error prejudicial to revenue is insufficient. Transactions integral to business and carried out as hedging do not fall within the definition of speculative transactions under Section 43(5).

Promissory estoppel prevents withdrawal of promised tax incentives for industrial units that invested in reliance on them.
The dispute concerns whether the State could withdraw tax incentives by reclassifying areas and thereby affect units that invested relying on those incentives. Applying promissory estoppel, the court determined that promises inducing substantive investment could not be retracted to the detriment of the beneficiaries during the promised exemption period, balancing that protection against the State's public interest prerogative and subsequent structural tax reform.

Search and seizure procedural compliance: satisfaction note requirement under section 153C governs validity of assessments.
Assessments against persons other than the searched individual require a recorded satisfaction by the assessing officer that seized assets or documents belong to that other person; absence of a satisfaction note in the searched person's file invalidates consequential assessments under the search-derived assessment provisions. Determination of the applicable assessment years hinges on whether the assessment period is tied to the date of search, the date satisfaction is recorded, or the date seized material is received, requiring harmonious construction to align enforcement with taxpayer protections.

Limitation in insolvency: admissibility requires established debt and default and bars further merits inquiry at admission.
Where a claim establishes debt and default and the petition is within limitation, the Tribunal's role at the admission stage is limited to admitting the corporate insolvency resolution process without undertaking an extensive merits inquiry into the underlying debt or default.

Characterisation of cross-border payments as royalty or service fees determines withholding obligations under tax treaty and domestic law.
Characterisation of cross-border payments under the Income Tax Act and the India-USA DTAA focused on whether payments to a US non-resident constituted royalty or fees for included services under section 9(1)(vii) and Article 12, whether TDS obligations arose, and whether sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could be invoked; the Karnataka High Court and ITAT concluded the payments were not royalty/fees for included services, services were rendered outside India, the payee lacked an Indian permanent establishment, and therefore withholding obligations did not arise.

Procedural fairness in customs law limits administrative conditions on provisional release, ensuring statutory discretion and fair hearing.
The court evaluated whether the impugned Circular and order unlawfully limited the adjudicating authority's statutory discretion by imposing conditions on provisional release, and whether those measures violated principles of natural justice; it emphasised that executive instructions may supplement but cannot supplant statutory provisions and that administrative actions must preserve statutory discretion and fair hearing requirements.

Non-delegability of discretionary powers: extension of tax audit report time must be granted by assessing officer, not delegate.
The power to order a special audit and to extend the timeframe for submission of the audit report is vested in the Assessing Officer and must be exercised by that officer alone; administrative convenience cannot justify delegation to the Commissioner. An extension granted by the Commissioner, even if prompted by the AO's recommendation, is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and can render subsequent assessment orders vulnerable to being barred by limitation.

Royalty characterization of domain registration fees requires a transfer of proprietary or use rights; mere registrar facilitation does not qualify.
Whether fees for domain name registration qualify as royalty depends on whether the registrar transfers a proprietary or right-to-use interest; a registrar acting as intermediary under its accreditation agreement that disclaims ownership and does not convey exclusive or transferable rights does not convert registration fees into royalty.

Natural justice in GST registration: deficient show cause notices require reconsideration and a fresh opportunity to respond.
Cancellation of GST registration on grounds such as fraud or suppression must comply with natural justice; a show cause notice lacking specific allegations and a decision that does not consider the taxpayer's response constitutes procedural deficiency, necessitating administrative reconsideration with a reasoned notice that permits an adequate reply.

Arbitration agreement enforceability tested against stamp duty compliance, affecting admissibility and tribunal jurisdiction.
The central issue is whether an arbitration agreement in an unstamped instrument is enforceable, engaging the Arbitration Act, Stamp Act and Contract Act and asking if courts must examine only the existence of an arbitration clause or also its validity when stamp duty non compliance is alleged. The text contrasts lines of authority treating non stamping as either a jurisdictional bar that voids enforceability or a curable defect affecting admissibility, and highlights statutory mechanisms for stamping, impoundment, and remediation while mapping the practical consequences for arbitration access and enforcement.

Penalty proportionality: penalties require deceptive conduct and mens rea before applying to disputed tax assessments.
The decision analyzes penalties under the DVAT framework in relation to sales of repossessed vehicles, stressing that taxability remained unsettled and that penalties require conduct that is false, misleading, or deceptive. It highlights that mens rea is central to quasi criminal tax penalties and that proportionality and reasoned discretion are prerequisites to lawful penal levies; absent those elements, penalty imposition lacks statutory support.

Input Tax Credit time limits require strict compliance with statutory filing conditions, not relaxation for business constraints.
The court construes Input Tax Credit as a concession contingent on strict compliance with statutory prerequisites, holding that time-bound procedural conditions operate as substantive preconditions to claiming ITC. The non-obstante clause is given a limited operative scope and does not nullify mandatory temporal conditions; established principles of tax-statute interpretation require literal application of the scheme and adherence to filing timelines despite commercial hardships.