Amounts written off as unclaimed vendor balances or other outstanding credits do not constitute consideration for tolerating an act under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 unless an independent express or implied contractual obligation requires one person to tolerate, refrain from, or perform an act for another and consideration flows for that obligation. Mere accounting write-back of lapsed balances as income does not establish a taxable service. The extended limitation period also requires evidence of a positive act to evade tax; absent such evidence or suppression of taxable activity, it cannot be invoked. Consequently, the service-tax demand, interest and penalty founded on such write-backs cannot be sustained.

Provisional attachment of properties acquired through layered diverted loan funds remained valid despite claims of prior sale or mortgage. Receipt of funds from the accused entity, without invoices, GST returns, income-tax returns, or evidence of genuine business activity or an independent acquisition source, supported treatment of the entities as shell companies used to layer proceeds of crime and acquire assets. A seller retaining no interest after an asserted sale could not challenge attachment; purchasers may pursue independent claims. Mortgages did not displace attachment, while mortgagees' claims remained open. Confirmation of the attachment, including for mortgaged and partly sold properties, was sustained.

Forfeiture of a successful auction bidder's part sale consideration before expiry of an extended payment period was inconsistent with liquidation-sale terms permitting delayed payment with interest. Regulation 33 and Schedule I contemplated payment beyond the original due date where an extension had been granted; cancellation and forfeiture during that period were therefore premature. Retaining the deposit after a subsequent higher-value sale would result in unjust enrichment. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act did not support forfeiture before the modified payment period ended. The deposited sale consideration was refundable without interest.

Homebuyers' associations cannot independently intervene in an ongoing corporate liquidation as creditors to challenge a liquidator's proposed asset sale. Amended Section 21(11), applicable where no dissolution application has been filed, permits the committee of creditors to supervise the liquidator's conduct. Individual association members who qualify as stakeholders may independently seek intervention before the adjudicating authority under that framework. Consequently, intervention by the association is not maintainable, but member-stakeholders may file a fresh application before the NCLT.

Disclosure of previously instituted public interest proceedings is mandatory under the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. A PIL concerning NSE shareholding and beneficial-ownership disclosures substantially overlapped with an earlier undisclosed writ petition, despite an averment that no similar proceeding existed. Suppression of that material fact and the contrary sworn assertion constitute lack of candour, unclean hands, forum shopping and abuse of PIL jurisdiction. These defects disentitle the litigant to equitable writ relief irrespective of the merits of the underlying allegations, and warrant exemplary costs.

Section 551 of the Companies Act, 1956 requires an Official Liquidator to file annual or final accounts. Audited half-yearly accounts covering each half of a financial year do not substitute for an annual account because consolidation is necessary to present the correct financial position of companies in liquidation. Accordingly, exemption from filing annual or final accounts for financial year 2024-25 was refused despite the filing of audited half-yearly accounts.

Unsubstantiated claims that auctioned land is assigned land cannot justify summary resumption or interference with a court-supervised sale. Registered transactions, revenue mutations, long uninterrupted possession and industrial use may support the need for formal adjudication where title is disputed. The State cannot determine its own title and dispossess persons in long possession through administrative resumption proceedings; whether land was assigned and transfers warranted resumption must be resolved in appropriate proceedings. On the stated facts, interference with the confirmed auction sale was unsustainable, the Company Court's confirmation was revived, the purchaser's possession was protected, and the connected writ matter required fresh consideration on merits.

Bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients qualify as drugs under the description-based entry for all drugs and medicines, including when imported for manufacture, testing, clinical trials, bioavailability studies or bioequivalence studies. Their classification follows the statutory treatment of drug components and APIs as pharmaceutical substances used directly or as formulation ingredients. The phrase "or any Chapter" extends the entry beyond Chapter 30 to APIs classifiable under Chapters 28 and 29. The specific drugs entry prevails over general chemical entries, resulting in IGST at 5%, unless the goods fall within the applicable nil-rated entry.

Bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) classifiable under Chapters 28 or 29 qualify as "drugs" where intended for use as components of pharmaceutical formulations, including testing, clinical research, bioavailability or bioequivalence studies. Sl. No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) is a description-based entry covering drugs and medicines under Chapter 30 or any other chapter; its reference to formulations made from bulk drugs does not restrict relief to finished dosage forms. This specific entry prevails over general chemical entries. IGST at 5% applies to eligible APIs on import, subject to verification that the particular API is not covered by the nil-rate exclusion under Sl. No. 113 of Notification No. 10/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate).

Bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients used to manufacture pharmaceutical formulations, or for testing, clinical research, bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, fall within "all drugs and medicines" where they are pharmaceutical substances, components of drugs and satisfy applicable regulatory requirements. The description-based concessional entry applies regardless of classification in general chemical chapters; its separate reference to formulations manufactured from bulk drugs does not restrict the entry to finished dosage forms. The specific drugs-and-medicines entry takes precedence over general chemical entries, and ambiguity in a taxing rate notification is resolved in favour of the taxpayer. Qualifying APIs attract 5% IGST, subject to individual verification that no nil-rate exclusion applies.

Customs transaction value may be rejected only where objective reasons create reasonable doubt about its truth or accuracy; non-disclosure of an exporter's suggested list price, without evidence of abnormal or relationship-influenced pricing, is insufficient. Valuation must then follow the prescribed sequential methods, and the residual method cannot rely on the exporter's domestic-market price. Royalty and licence-related payments are includible only if they relate to imported goods and are a condition of sale. Payments for post-import manufacturing technology or know-how, where parts may be sourced independently, are excluded. Unpaid management fees cannot be added notionally without support.

Customs penalties may arise from admitted import undervaluation where declared values are materially below values redetermined from investigation material and the differential duty is accepted. Penalty for improper importation applies when an act or omission makes goods liable to confiscation. Knowingly or intentionally filing Bills of Entry supported by undervalued invoices may also attract penalty for false or incorrect declarations; that provision extends to import transactions and is not limited to exports. Both penalties may operate concurrently, although the penalty for false declarations may be mitigated after considering the existing improper-importation penalty and relevant transactional circumstances.

Condonation of delay in an appeal requires demonstrated sufficient cause, bona fides and due diligence. Pursuing remedies against a consequential assessment, while accepting revisionary adjustments and not challenging them within limitation, does not establish sufficient cause for a substantial delay. Maintainability also requires a genuine grievance against the order appealed from. Where appeal grounds challenge only the consequential assessment and expressly raise no objection to the revision order, an appeal against the revision order is not maintainable. The revisionary order consequently remains unassailed and cannot be used to contest the consequential assessment.

Engineering design review services fall outside fees for included services under Article 12(4) of the India-Canada tax treaty where project-specific drawings, inputs and reviews do not enable the Indian recipient to independently apply technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes in future projects. They also do not amount to a transferred technical plan or design capable of independent use. The consideration is not royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12(3) where no right to use intellectual property or designs is granted and the materials remain confined to the particular project.

Share capital and share premium additions as unexplained cash credits cannot rest solely on subscribers' non-response to verification notices where the taxpayer has furnished names, addresses, PANs, bank details, tax returns and audited financial statements establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness. Effective contrary inquiry is required before disregarding that material; the addition was therefore deleted. For assessment years preceding 2021-22, the amended reassessment regime preserves the earlier limitation period. The extended limitation cannot revive reassessment proceedings already time-barred under the former six-year period, rendering the reassessment notice and consequential proceedings invalid.

Functional comparability in transfer-pricing benchmarking requires exclusion of software entities performing enterprise transformation, product sales, onsite services, product development, or research and development activities where their functions materially differ from routine software development support services. Two other entities providing substantially similar software services require fresh comparability review. Eligibility of another proposed comparable requires verification of related-party transactions against the applicable 25% filter. Working capital adjustment claims for software development support and sales and marketing support services require fresh examination. Benchmarking must be recomputed after the exclusions and fresh determinations.

Reassessment jurisdiction requires service of notice under section 143(2) where the Assessing Officer has taken cognisance of the return and proposes additions beyond returned income. Service of notice under section 148 and notices under section 142(1) does not substitute for the mandatory scrutiny notice. Completion of assessment under section 144 cannot cure the absence of this jurisdictional requirement. Consequently, reassessment completed without a valid notice under section 143(2) is void from inception and cannot be sustained.

Section 115BBE's enhanced tax rate applied only to transactions occurring on or after 1 April 2017 and could not govern the impugned addition for assessment year 2017-18. Tax effect therefore required computation at the normal rate, rather than the enhanced rate. Because that computation fell below the monetary threshold prescribed for departmental appeals under the applicable CBDT circular, the Revenue appeal was not maintainable.

Under the post-1 April 2021 reassessment regime, the approving authority under Section 151 depends on the time elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Where a Section 148 notice is issued after three years, Section 151(ii) requires prior approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. Approval by the specified authority is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Approval by a Principal Commissioner after this period does not meet Section 151(ii); consequently, the reassessment notice and resulting reassessment order were invalid and quashed.

Section 14A read with Rule 8D did not permit expenditure disallowance for Assessment Year 2017-18 where no dividend or other exempt income was earned. The amendment extending disallowance to situations without exempt income applies prospectively from Assessment Year 2022-23 and does not govern earlier assessment years. Accordingly, no Section 14A disallowance could be made in the absence of exempt income, and the disallowance was deleted.