Cenvat credit on service tax paid on sales-agent commission is covered by Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, where admissibility of such commission credit is undisputed. Credit cannot be denied or remanded for verification on an assumed basis that it relates to overseas agents when the show cause notice contains neither that allegation nor supporting evidence and expressly records that no such credit was availed. Adjudicating and appellate authorities must remain within the allegations, charges and material stated in the show cause notice. The remand for bifurcation of alleged overseas-agent credit was therefore unsustainable, and the proceedings remained dropped.

Binding jurisdictional High Court precedent governing ocean-freight liability remains applicable unless stayed by a competent court. Accordingly, differential income reported in income-tax returns cannot, on that basis, be treated as service income for a service-tax demand relating to ocean freight. The extended limitation period is unavailable for 2015-16 and 2016-17 where the issue remained subject to prevailing controversy. The disputed service-tax liability therefore does not survive.

Taxable value of construction services provided to existing occupants under a redevelopment scheme cannot be determined from the sale value of flats sold to independent buyers in the same project. Where consideration is not ascertainable, Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Service Tax Valuation Rules permit reference to similar services; however, reconstructed flats supplied to existing occupants and flats purchased for monetary consideration involve distinct categories of recipients and are not comparable solely because they belong to one project. The assumed valuation was therefore unsustainable, and the service-tax demand, consequential interest, and penalty were set aside.

Business Auxiliary Services falling within Category III under the Export of Services Rules, 2005 are assessed primarily by the location of the service recipient. Services provided in relation to business or commerce to a recipient outside India qualify as exports where the foreign business receives the benefit, even if underlying activities occur in India. Denial of accumulated Cenvat credit refund under Rule 5 on the basis that such services are non-exported requires a consistent position that includes service-tax recovery proceedings under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Refund denial based solely on contrary treatment of the same services as domestic taxable services is unsustainable.

A subcontractor providing taxable services remains independently liable for service tax unless an exemption applies, even where the main contractor has discharged tax on the underlying activity. Tax paid by the subcontractor may be taken as CENVAT credit by the main contractor, so separate levy does not constitute double taxation. The claimed tax payment by the main contractor required corroboration through challans, ST-3 returns, or equivalent evidence; unsupported assertions could not displace the subcontractor's liability. Service-tax demand, interest and penalties were therefore sustained.

Service-tax valuation of Commercial Training and Coaching Service requires proof that each receipt has a nexus with taxable coaching. Separately invoiced books and study materials treated as sales of goods, and independent hostel, mess and non-coaching collections, are excluded from taxable value; only any residual "other fee" linked to coaching requires re-quantification. Tuition receivable entries, voluntary income-tax disclosures and rental income did not establish taxable coaching consideration, while actual tuition fees remained taxable. Notification No. 12/2003-ST benefit applies where no inadmissible input credit was taken. Extended limitation and penalties do not apply without deliberate suppression or intent to evade, and cum-tax benefit is available where not previously granted.

Freight recovered, including a commercial mark-up, for arranging international import and export transportation constituted consideration under a principal-to-principal transportation arrangement rather than taxable support service of business or commerce. Before 1 July 2012, inbound international transport by vessel or aircraft was outside the positive-list taxable entries; from that date, it fell within the negative-list exclusion. Section 67 and Rule 5 of the valuation rules apply only after a service is taxable. Failure to qualify as a pure agent cannot create taxability or recharacterise non-taxable freight as business support service. Separately taxed documentation and handling charges did not alter the treatment of freight.

Operational debt can arise from an advance paid under a consortium arrangement where the agreement and surrounding material establish an obligation to supply goods or services; the claimant need not itself be the supplier. Admitted payment, issued cheques and invoices supporting a supply transaction may substantiate that debt, while an unsupported security-deposit explanation does not. A pre-existing dispute must exist before the demand notice and genuinely contest the debt; post-notice reconciliation references or unsubstantiated objections concerning deposits, cheques or invoices do not bar a Section 9 insolvency application. Where the statutory threshold is exceeded, the Section 9 process may proceed.

Oppression and mismanagement jurisdiction under Sections 241-242 may extend to an NBFC's cumulative regulatory and governance failures, including leverage-ratio breaches, delayed conversion of OCDs into CCPS, related-party advances, and transactions lacking arm's-length safeguards. RBI monetary enforcement does not displace company-law relief protecting the company, members and public interest. Mass resignations of compliance personnel and removal of independent directors may be relevant circumstantial evidence of governance deterioration. Protective measures, including independent management and temporary Board suspension, may be appropriate where the material indicates lack of probity, while the substantive company petition remains subject to adjudication on its merits.

Classification of imported lead-bearing powder required reliable scientific evidence of its composition. Conflicting laboratory reports did not establish that the goods were lead waste and scrap under tariff item 78020090: the results primarily identified lead oxide and lead sulphate, with only minuscule metallic lead. Under the tariff and HSN explanatory notes, lead oxides and sulphates fall in Chapter 28, while heading 7802 covers lead waste and scrap. Documentary descriptions, processing capacity and technical literature could not replace conclusive scientific evidence. Revenue therefore failed to establish classification under heading 7802, leaving the declared classification under heading 2607 undisturbed.

Specialised expert evidence in classification and exemption disputes requires meaningful technical evaluation. Where Battery Management Systems and Cell Supervisory Circuits are alleged to be excluded as Printed Circuit Board Assemblies, a physical-verification and component-level expert opinion that they lack PCBA character cannot be rejected on an adjudicator's unsupported technical perception. Disagreement requires a reasoned scientific rebuttal, commensurate technical material, or, where necessary, counter-expert evidence. Writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite an available statutory appeal where adjudication inadequately evaluates specialised expert material. A prior duty determination does not control a separate exemption claim, which requires fresh merits consideration after proper technical assessment.

Returns filed in response to a reopening notice after the stipulated period may be treated as invalid, limiting challenges based on subsequent procedural requirements. Reassessment is not invalidated for alleged non-issuance or non-service of a notice under Section 143(2) where the taxpayer acknowledged issuance of statutory notices, participated in the proceedings, and Section 292BB applies. A typographical error concerning the assessment year does not alter that position. The requirement to dispose of reopening objections through a separate speaking order does not apply where the return responding to the reopening notice was filed after the permitted time. The merits addition remains unaffected where it is not contested.

Unexplained cash deposits may be assessed as unexplained money under section 69A where the taxpayer fails to produce books of account or other satisfactory evidence proving their lawful source; bank statements and unsubstantiated claims of past savings or interest do not establish source. Exemption under section 10(26) applies only to income arising from a bona fide, valid source in the specified areas or States. Scheduled Tribe status and residence in Arunachal Pradesh do not exempt unexplained funds, because proof of the income source is a condition precedent to the exemption.

Listed-share transfer claims require reliable evidence of ownership movement and consideration, including a demat trail, transfer documents, contract notes, broker confirmation, exchange-trade data and banking records. An offline sale coupled with adjustment against a loan liability does not establish a transfer where those records are absent. The tax treatment of the alleged share sale and loan adjustment requires fresh verification, including whether the transfer was subsequently completed. A notional accounting adjustment that neither effects a real transfer nor reduces liability does not itself create taxable real income. Write-off of an already disallowed debit balance does not constitute unrecorded expenditure, so the related deletion remains undisturbed.

Revision under Section 263 applies where an assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Treating a cash payment as undisclosed investment without identifying and applying the governing charging provision and special tax rate indicates non-application of mind and can cause loss of tax lawfully payable. Applying an inapplicable penalty provision instead of the provision governing deemed undisclosed income similarly supports revision, as it may undermine consequential penalty proceedings. The revisionary authority may direct fresh inquiry and reassessment under the correct taxation and penalty provisions.

Issuance of Form 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme renders the related appellate dispute incapable of adjudication after the taxpayer has filed the prescribed settlement forms. Separately, exemption for long-term capital gains on share sales is unavailable where investigation and SEBI adjudication materials establish manipulation and rigging of the scrip's price, and the taxpayer produces no supporting evidence despite opportunities in appellate proceedings. The settlement position and the failure to substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions independently sustain the tax treatment of the disputed gains.

For Assessment Year 2013-14, Section 54EC permitted exemption for investments made within six months of transferring a long-term capital asset. The financial-year ceiling applied to investments made during each financial year; therefore, investments of Rs. 50 lakh in each of two separate financial years within the six-month period qualified for exemption of the full Rs. 1 crore. The later aggregate cap covering the financial year of transfer and the following financial year applied only from Assessment Year 2015-16 and did not affect the earlier year.

Capital-gains computation for an unquoted-share transfer must use the full value of consideration received or accrued from that particular transfer. Actual contractual consideration cannot be replaced by a later transaction's higher consideration or perceived market value unless an express deeming provision applies. Fair-value substitution for unquoted shares applies only where declared consideration is below the value determined under the prescribed valuation rules. Contemporaneous depository and accounting records may establish the completed transfer date and accrual of consideration; subsequent settlement does not alter the transfer's character. Uncorroborated reports of negotiations cannot displace primary contractual and transactional evidence or establish pre-determined consideration.

Unutilised capital gains intended for investment in a new residential house become taxable only when the prescribed investment period expires or non-investment becomes ascertainable. Where the taxpayer remained within that period when filing the return, a later shortfall in the investment could not be assessed in Assessment Year 2014-15, even though it emerged after acquisition of another property and after the revised-return period had expired. As the shortfall was not taxable for that year, it did not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable.

Payments by a closely held company to a substantial shareholder do not constitute deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) unless they have the character of a loan or advance. Where audited accounts and a running ledger show that the company owed funds to the shareholder throughout the year, the shareholder's account never became debit, and the payment merely reduced the company's existing credit liability, no shareholder indebtedness arises. The absence of a formal loan agreement, interest provision or board approval does not change the transaction's established character. Repayment of funds already due to the shareholder is therefore outside deemed-dividend taxation.