Cognizance for offences under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 requires a prescribed written complaint before the competent court and cannot be taken on a police report, although police investigation material may support an authorised complaint. Proceedings based on the police report were therefore quashed for those offences. Criminal breach of trust and cheating require allegations of entrustment or dominion, dishonest misappropriation, wrongful gain or loss, and dishonest inducement leading to delivery of property. As these foundational elements were absent, the relevant IPC allegations were also quashed, while investigation into remaining offences could continue.

Former directors cannot maintain individual appeals against orders in company winding-up proceedings concerning creditors' and buyers' claims where their locus standi has already been conclusively determined between the same parties on identical facts. The prior final determination precludes reconsideration of entitlement to pursue the appeal. Repeated obstructive conduct affecting the crystallised rights of bona fide buyers may also justify costs. The former director therefore lacked standing to challenge the winding-up orders in an individual capacity.

Rule 7 of the Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 2017 permits extension beyond the initial three-month period for filing drawback Brand Rate or Special Brand Rate applications, subject to the prescribed maximum period. Where an exporter seeks extension within that extendable period, pays the required fee, and explains delay caused by receipt, verification, and certification of export documents, delay should be condoned liberally. The drawback scheme's beneficial export-incentive and trade-facilitation purpose supports a non-technical exercise of the extension power. The applications must then be considered on merits, with fixation of the applicable rate and consequential relief according to law.

Penalty for alleged involvement in smuggling of mis-declared cigarettes cannot rest solely on an investigating witness's earlier statement when cross-examination denies the respondent's role. The IEC holder stated during cross-examination that the respondent had no role in the imports, could not establish the respondent's ownership of the goods, and had a friendly relationship with the respondent. As the cross-examination testimony was admissible and no corroborative material established participation in smuggling, the earlier statement did not support penalties. The penalties were therefore dropped.

Personal penalties for alleged misdeclaration of the MRP/RSP of imported goods cannot survive where the underlying duty demand and penalties against the main noticee and other co-noticees have been set aside or dropped. Once the foundational adjudication no longer subsists, there is no basis to sustain consequential personal penalties. The penalties imposed on the appellants were therefore dropped.

Transaction value for imported Main PCB Boards may be rejected where the declared importer is merely a conduit, the declared price is not the sole consideration, and reliable contemporaneous imports establish a comparable value. Deliberate under-declaration, fabricated billing and diversion of goods to the actual domestic beneficiary support recovery of differential duty and interest under the extended period. Voluntary statements recorded under statutory summons powers, together with Bills of Entry and corroborative documents, may be relied upon without cross-examination where no investigative-officer statement is used. Knowing participation by the importer, representative, overseas supplier-controller and domestic beneficiary may justify confiscation consequences and penalties for undervaluation and abetment.

Penalties for abetment of gold smuggling and confiscation of a vehicle require evidence that the driver or hotel operators knew of or participated in the passengers' smuggling activity. Recovery of gold solely from passengers does not establish the driver's involvement merely because he transported them. Similarly, hotel operators cannot be connected to smuggling without evidence of their knowledge or involvement in the activity of persons from whom gold was recovered. In the absence of corroborative evidence linking the appellants to the smuggling, the penalties and vehicle confiscation were unsustainable.

Exclusion from customs exemption for imported flavour compounds under CTH 3302.10 applies only when the goods are established as compound alcoholic preparations of the prescribed alcoholic strength and of a kind used in beverage manufacture. Supply to a tobacco-products manufacturer, without conclusive evidence of beverage use or suitability, does not establish the exclusion. Reliance on an earlier test report is insufficient where no test report was shown for the imported consignment. The flavour compounds were therefore not proved to fall within the excluded category under Sl. No. 119 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus and qualified for exemption.

Tribunal jurisdiction under the baggage exclusion depends on whether the impugned order actually concerns goods imported or exported as baggage. A gold ornament recovered from an arriving passenger's wrist was not automatically baggage merely because the passenger arrived from abroad or was intercepted at an international airport. As its status as a personal ornament, declarability and alleged concealment remained disputed, the jurisdictional fact for excluding Tribunal review was not conclusively established. Authorities concerning goods admittedly recovered from baggage or luggage were distinguishable. The preliminary jurisdictional objection was rejected, and the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal.

Customs transaction value may be rejected under Rule 12 where reliable, corroborated evidence, including contemporaneous invoices and overseas verification, creates reasonable doubt about the declared value. Refundable overseas VAT is excluded from assessable value because it is not part of the price paid or payable for export. Temporary foreign registration, without proof of actual use, does not make a vehicle used or defeat the available new-vehicle exemption. Deliberate value misdeclaration supports confiscability, but redemption fine is impermissible once cleared goods are unavailable for confiscation. Duty, interest and the duty-linked penalty require recalculation after granting the exemption and excluding refundable VAT; a separate intermediary penalty remains sustainable.

Extended limitation for customs-duty recovery applies where an importer deliberately misclassifies optical network equipment and claims ineligible exemption benefits. Inconsistent tariff classifications for technically similar goods across imports and ports, continued reliance on the disputed classification after provisional reassessment, and product-approval records describing the goods as GPON ONT rather than subscriber-end equipment demonstrate lack of due diligence and intent to evade duty. Failure to seek provisional assessment despite classification ambiguity further supports invocation of the extended period. The customs-duty demand and related findings are sustained.

Disciplinary proceedings against a customs broker require show cause notices that clearly identify the alleged advisory or due-diligence breach and the manner of contravention. Notices that merely reproduce material from import misclassification and undervaluation proceedings, without connecting it to the broker's obligations, deny a meaningful opportunity to respond. Adjudication cannot supply missing particulars or travel beyond the allegations in the notice. Where such materially identical notices had already been invalidated and that invalidation affirmed by the High Court, the notices remain unsustainable. Consequently, licence revocation, security-deposit forfeiture and penalty actions based on the vague notices were set aside.

Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) applies to interest earned by a co-operative society from investments with a co-operative bank where that bank is registered as a co-operative society under the applicable co-operative societies law. Consistent treatment was warranted because the same issue had been decided favourably for a later assessment year following jurisdictional High Court rulings, and no distinguishing facts or fresh material existed for the assessment years concerned. The interest income therefore qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).

Recorded reasons for reopening must be furnished when specifically requested, enabling the assessee to object to reassessment and requiring disposal of those objections by a speaking order. Non-supply of the reasons denies that opportunity, breaches natural justice, and cannot be cured by assuming compliance merely because reasons were recorded. The resulting reassessment notice and consequential reassessment order lack valid jurisdiction, are void from inception, and must be quashed.

Section 68 requires an assessee to establish the creditor's identity and creditworthiness and the genuineness of the credit transaction. Corporate status, PAN and address may establish identity, but do not by themselves prove capacity to advance funds. Repayment within the same year also does not establish genuineness where the business purpose for the advance is not demonstrated and funds are placed in short-term deposits before repayment with a mark-up. Explanations concerning unavailable records or a director's circumstances do not replace evidence of the creditor's capacity, transaction purpose and genuineness. On these facts, the related-party advance remained unexplained and the addition was restored.

Consequential assessments made solely under revisional directions cannot survive once the underlying revisional order is quashed, because they have no independent jurisdictional basis. Interest on fixed deposits and loans is assessable as business income where the funds arise from real-estate development operations and are temporarily deployed pending project use. On that basis, brought-forward business losses may be set off against such interest income. The appellate relief treating the interest receipts as business income and invalidating the consequential assessment was sustained.

Notional usage charges for premises occupied by a sister concern are not taxable as income from other sources without evidence of actual receipt or enforceable accrual. Where an arrangement is implemented through reimbursement of common costs rather than stipulated usage charges, related expense treatment must reflect the actual income position. Expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred to earn income from other sources is deductible, while building-related expenses may be restricted to the area producing actual rental income assessable under house property. Trade incentives and brand-promotion costs incurred in the ordinary course of business remain revenue expenditure despite incidental brand benefit. Depreciation on moulds and dies is available where their use in manufacturing packaging containers establishes that the assets were put to use.

Section 56(2)(x) addition based on the difference between recorded purchase consideration and stamp-duty valuation cannot be sustained where the purchaser specifically disputes the stamp-duty value and seeks referral to the Departmental Valuation Officer. Distinct valuation characteristics of a basement and ground floor required consideration. Mechanical adoption of the stamp-duty value, without a reasoned determination of the objections or a valuation reference, rendered the addition unsustainable; it was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Failure to obtain a tax audit does not attract penalty where reasonable cause is established under the Income-tax Act. Bank deposits representing milk-pouch sale proceeds did not constitute the taxpayer's income where only commission or trade discount was returned as income. Acceptance of the returned commission income in reassessment, coupled with the explanation and supporting material for non-audit, supported deletion of the penalty for failure to obtain tax audit.

Credit for tax deducted at source reflected under an assessee's PAN may extend to the full deduction where jointly earned rental income is divided among co-owners, the other co-owners have offered their shares to tax without claiming credit, and they support the claim. Although Rule 37BA(2)(i) prescribes declaration and reporting conditions for allocating credit to a person other than the deductee, denying the unclaimed balance would leave tax retained without any claimant. Procedural requirements should advance substantive justice; accordingly, full TDS credit is available to the PAN holder.