Reasonable cause under section 273B excused failures to deduct tax from rent paid to a Government-owned company and to collect tax on construction scrap. ITAT accepted the payer's bona fide belief that the Government-owned payee was a Government instrumentality not subject to tax deduction at source, treating that belief as reasonable cause; the rent-related penalty was deleted. ITAT also accepted the bona fide understanding that scrap arising from construction activities, including cutting and moulding materials, was not scrap covered by the tax-collection provisions because construction was not treated as manufacturing. The related tax-collection penalty was likewise deleted.

Uncorroborated third-party search material cannot support additions for alleged cash coal purchases where recorded sales, coal consumption, production and books remain accepted, and no abnormal input-output pattern or independent evidence is established. Estimated profit from hypothetical unrecorded coal sales was therefore deleted. Likewise, a retracted statement alleging under-invoicing of mill scale sales, coupled with CCTV-based presumptions, is insufficient where the cash is explained as recorded and no independent evidence confirms suppressed sales. The estimated-profit additions for alleged mill scale suppression were deleted for both assessment years, and the appeals succeeded.

Contemporaneous invoices, GST returns, bank statements and ledger accounts can substantiate labour and manpower expenditure where payments pass through banking channels, tax is deducted at source, and transactions appear in GST records and audited accounts. A vendor's failure to respond to a notice, particularly after being struck off, does not by itself establish that expenditure is unexplained when the supporting evidence remains unrebutted and no further enquiry is undertaken. Purchases included in closing stock and returned in the following year do not affect income where no supplier payment or expenditure claim is made and related GST input is reversed. On these facts, both additions for unexplained expenditure were deleted.

Section 144C requires a draft assessment order before a final assessment order is made against an eligible foreign company where a prejudicial variation is proposed. The draft-order procedure enables the taxpayer to accept the variation or seek directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel before finalisation. Non-compliance is a jurisdictional defect rather than a curable procedural irregularity, and vitiates the final assessment order. Applying this principle, the assessment order was set aside for failure to issue a draft order; the taxpayer's cross-objection succeeded and the Revenue's merits appeal became infructuous.

A prior Advance Pricing Agreement remains persuasive for transfer pricing benchmarking outside its covered years where the transaction and functions, assets and risks profile continue; departure requires material differences in those factors or economic circumstances. In software-distribution comparability, functional similarity takes priority over turnover, and turnover-based exclusion requires a demonstrated material effect on operating margins. Comparable companies with related-party transactions exceeding the applicable threshold cannot reliably serve as uncontrolled benchmarks without demonstrable adjustments. Under TNMM, no transfer pricing adjustment is warranted where the tested party's operating margin falls within the applicable arm's length range after the comparable set is finalised.

The first proviso to section 153C shifts the commencement of the six- and ten-year assessment block for a non-searched person from the search date to the date on which that person's jurisdictional Assessing Officer receives the seized material. Applying this legal fiction, satisfaction notes and notice issued in FY 2021-22 made AY 2022-23 the relevant year, limiting the ten-year block to AYs 2013-14 through 2022-23. AY 2012-13 therefore fell outside the permissible period, rendering its assessment invalid and resulting in dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The parties remain bound by the outcome of the pending SLP concerning the governing precedent.

Customs exemptions for gold dore bar imports require strict fulfilment of every condition in each applicable notification and import licence. Requirements relating to bar weight and purity, together with packing lists and assay certificates issued by the mining company, cannot be met by supplier-issued substitutes. Concurrent claims for a licence-linked exemption and a nil-duty exemption for least developed country imports likewise require independent compliance, including an authentic certificate of origin rather than one based only on export declarations and control records. Non-compliance rendered the goods prohibited, led to confiscation, and sustained the customs duty demand and penalties against the importer, its directors and the Customs Broker.

An uncancelled duty-free import licence obtained through fraud or misrepresentation remains voidable rather than void from inception. Where the licence was genuinely issued, endorsed transferable and not cancelled by the competent authority, a bona fide transferee for value without notice of third-party fraud in export-obligation certification is distinct from the fraudster and cannot be subjected to duty, interest or redemption fine for imports under that licence. The principle that fraud vitiates everything does not displace those rights in this setting. A statutory appeal confined to substantial questions framed at admission cannot be decided on an unframed limitation ground unless an additional question is formally permitted. The duty demand, interest and redemption fine were quashed.

Departmental exoneration does not by itself require discharge, acquittal, or termination of a criminal prosecution because departmental and criminal proceedings are independent, proceed on different evidence, and apply different standards of proof. The High Court therefore upheld refusal to discharge Customs officials accused of facilitating gold smuggling. At the discharge stage, the court must determine whether the prosecution material discloses the alleged offences or creates a strong suspicion warranting trial; mere suspicion is insufficient. As the material prima facie met that threshold, evidentiary evaluation, including alleged illegal gratification, was left for trial. The revision petitions were dismissed and trial was to proceed expeditiously.

Subsequent policy circulars permit exporters supplying SEZ units under Advance Authorisation to furnish specified corroborative evidence when a Bill of Export cannot be produced for discharge of export obligation. Where those circulars apply, the competent authority must first assess whether the alternative documents meet their stipulated conditions; the Bill of Export is not necessarily the sole acceptable proof. The claim requires fresh consideration under the applicable circulars, with the adequacy of the evidence and all other merits remaining open.

Customs valuation safeguards require the proper officer to communicate written reasons for doubting a declared transaction value and disclose relevant contemporaneous import particulars, including quantity, quality and temporal comparability. Acceptance letters given while seeking clearance on payment of duty under protest do not by themselves establish voluntary acceptance of enhanced value or waive these requirements. Written acceptance of reassessment may dispense with a speaking order, but it does not extinguish the statutory right to challenge reassessment on merits. Consent or acquiescence cannot defeat a statutory appeal; enhancement founded solely on undisclosed comparable data and acceptance letters cannot be sustained, and rejection of such appeals must be set aside with consequential relief.

Departmental custody of seized laboratory registers, test reports and backup records precludes an adverse inference against an importer for not producing that material to classify fish meal as finished goods. Earlier examination of laboratory reports and BIS specifications had dropped proceedings concerning the same product. Customs valuation must follow the sequential framework: available contemporaneous comparable imports require identification, comparison and reasoned rejection before residual valuation may be used. Small quantities alone did not justify bypassing comparable-goods methods, and no evidence established consideration beyond invoice value. The classification and re-determined valuation were unsustainable, so the duty demand, interest, fine and penalties were set aside with consequential relief.

Requested cross-examination under Regulation 17(4) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 is mandatory where witness statements are relied upon in penalty proceedings against a Customs Broker. If cross-examination cannot be provided despite a specific request, those statements cannot support the penalty. Contradictory statements from the proprietor and F-card holder, coupled with failure to examine the person who entrusted clearance work to the broker, undermined the evidentiary basis. The penalty order was set aside and remanded for consideration of cross-examination and fresh adjudication according to law.

Tariff classification of oven-roasted nuts distinguishes roasting from drying: oven-heating that creates roasted characteristics is treated as roasting, placing almonds and pistachios within the residual entry for other roasted nuts and seeds. Cashew nuts fall within the specific tariff entry for roasted, salted, or roasted and salted cashews, rather than a general entry, under the specific-over-general classification principle. No fresh advance ruling is available on roasted areca nuts where materially indistinguishable classification issues have already been considered. Preferential customs-duty treatment requires independent verification at importation of originating status and prescribed documentary conditions; classification alone is insufficient.

Battery-integrated tablet PC rear covers fall under the specific tariff heading for lithium-ion accumulators where the battery actively stores and supplies electrical energy and the accompanying thermal pads, conductive cloth, foam sheets, bracket, waterproofing components, middle frame and back cover protect or enable its functioning. Chapter 85 Note 3 covers accumulators presented with such ancillary protective or functional components, including part of the host product's protective housing. Section XVI Note 2(a) requires classification under heading 8507 before the general parts heading 8473, which also excludes covers and similar articles. The complete assembly is therefore classifiable as a lithium-ion accumulator under tariff item 8507 60 00, rather than as a tablet-PC part.

Bail in a customs-duty evasion investigation involving allegedly false certificates of origin was granted because the remaining inquiry was primarily documentary and required cross-border verification of origin certificates and import records. Prior custodial interrogation had already occurred, and further investigation could proceed through the accused's attendance and cooperation. The risk of independent evidence tampering was not substantiated. Bail remained subject to conditions requiring cooperation, attendance on written notice, non-interference with evidence or witnesses, and travel safeguards to preserve the investigation.

Furnace Oil and Light Diesel Oil require separate commodity classification where technical specifications show material differences in physical characteristics, composition, distillation range, viscosity and end-use. Furnace Oil is a heavier residual fuel oil, while Light Diesel Oil is a middle distillate and cannot be substituted in engines designed for lighter fuel. A specific tariff entry for Light Diesel Oil cannot be extended to Furnace Oil merely because both are used as fuel, absent a common entry. Classification of Furnace Oil as Light Diesel Oil for VAT levy was set aside, requiring fresh assessment on the basis that the products are distinct commodities.

Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) of 0.4 per cent applies to large-value UPI person-to-merchant payments exceeding Rs 2,000 from October 15. MDR is a merchant payment ecosystem charge, not a fee payable by customers. Person-to-person UPI payments remain free for users, while person-to-merchant UPI payments below Rs 2,000 remain free for merchants. MDR distribution is intended to support payment technology, infrastructure, acceptance networks and sustained UPI growth.

Approval for a special economic zone-linked silicon carbide semiconductor manufacturing unit permits establishment of a facility under the jurisdiction of Falta Special Economic Zone. The unit is proposed to manufacture silicon carbide diodes and silicon carbide MOSFETs. Project financing combines government capital subsidies and promoter contribution, while the facility is projected to support export-oriented advanced semiconductor manufacturing, domestic capabilities, and technology-driven capital investment.

Merchandise exports increased by 26.12 per cent year-on-year to USD 43.81 billion in August, led by electronics, engineering goods and petroleum products. Merchandise imports rose 14.1 per cent to USD 70.76 billion, driven by crude oil, project goods, electronic items, silver, coal and coke. Gold imports declined substantially, contributing to a five-month low merchandise trade deficit. During April-August 2026-27, higher imports reflected domestic economic expansion, energy requirements and manufacturing-sector input needs.