For capital gains exemption under section 54F, a shop-cum-office verified as commercial cannot be treated as an additional residential house when applying the ownership condition. The denial based on its classification as a residential house was therefore removed, subject to satisfaction of the remaining statutory conditions. For section 54B, agricultural land does not lose its agricultural character merely because it is situated in an urban area. Reinvestment relief was available to the extent supported by purchase deeds and other documentary evidence establishing eligible investment.

MEIS benefit processing requires a shipping bill's Reward declaration, inadvertently entered as 'N', to be corrected to 'Y' in the EDI system after Customs has made the corresponding manual correction. The amended shipping bills must then be electronically transmitted to DGFT under the prescribed public-notice procedure so that the MEIS claim can be implemented. Administrative technology must facilitate, rather than obstruct, a rectifiable procedural correction; the specified Customs and DGFT actions are to be completed within four weeks of communication.

Revenue must establish tariff reclassification through evidence of each imported article's objective characteristics, applicable tariff entries, Section Notes and Explanatory Notes; representative sampling, undisclosed website material and unreasoned end-use assertions were insufficient. The proposed reclassification and consequential denial of concessional duty failed. Extended limitation required pleaded and proven collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression; a corrigendum could not add new articles or bills of entry, and charges first introduced through it ran from its date. The extended-period demand was unavailable. Duty determination had to reconcile annexures and appropriate verified payments, so the unreconciled demand failed. Inc.....

Section 28 permits recovery of unpaid or short-paid anti-dumping duty through a demand notice without first challenging the importer's self-assessment. This recovery mechanism is distinct from refund proceedings, where an unmodified self-assessment may restrict relief. Anti-dumping duty imposed under the Customs Tariff Act is treated as customs duty for calculating IGST on imported goods; IGST therefore applies to the aggregate value including such duty. The maximum penalty for non-payment is governed by the statutory ceiling applicable on the date of import, and a subsequently enhanced ceiling cannot apply retrospectively.

Minimum Import Price restrictions regulate imports entering the domestic market for home consumption and do not apply to goods warehoused under Customs control exclusively for re-export. A declared value below the Minimum Import Price, or higher National Import Database data alone, does not establish undervaluation without corroborative evidence of under-invoicing, additional consideration, or deliberate misdeclaration. Where the Minimum Import Price premise does not apply, rejection and redetermination of declared value cannot survive. The declared assessable value was restored, consequential confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were set aside, and re-export was permitted subject to procedural requirements.

Pine Bark Extract and Grape Seed Extract are classified as vegetable extracts under Heading 1302 rather than as food preparations under Heading 2106. Multi-stage extraction, concentration, drying, or adsorption does not exclude goods from Heading 1302 unless processing selectively enriches or depletes particular compounds or compound classes beyond ordinary solvent extraction. As single-ingredient botanical extracts imported in bulk as raw materials, the products were not finished food or dietary supplements for direct consumption. Because neither product was specifically enumerated within Heading 1302, both fall under the residual tariff item for other vegetable extracts, Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 39.

Pendency of arbitration over underlying loan transactions does not prevent initiation of wilful-defaulter proceedings where borrowers are alleged to have disposed of assets securing credit facilities without lender approval. Such alleged conduct falls within the RBI Directions, 2024, and a show-cause notice founded on identified assets and supplied documentary material represents only a prima facie view. Borrowers must respond before the competent committees decide the matter and may use the available review process thereafter. The challenge was treated as premature; the notice remained in force and the response period was extended by two weeks.

Greenhouses cleared from the factory in ready-to-assemble condition fall under the specific tariff entry for greenhouses in ready-to-assemble sets rather than the general entry for plant growth chambers, applying Rule 3(a)'s preference for the most specific description. An amendment extending the normal excise-demand limitation period from one year to two years operates prospectively absent express retrospective effect and cannot revive a demand already time-barred. On that limitation basis, the duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside.

Portfolio-management reforms replace the 2020 framework and expand investments into IPOs, primary-market debt, listed overseas equity and debt, and direct plans of Indian mutual fund schemes. Investment-grade unlisted non-convertible debt may comprise up to 10 per cent of client assets under management with client consent. Independent Fund Managers may operate with registered portfolio managers, which retain responsibility and liability. Accredited-investor eligibility is broadened, while specified compliance requirements are relaxed where adequate audit trails and internal controls exist.

GST treatment of MDR charged on UPI merchant payments above Rs 2,000 is to be considered by the GST Council. The MDR framework imposes a merchant-borne charge for payment processing and settlement. As these activities are services, MDR may attract GST at 18 per cent, subject to the Council's view. Merchants paying GST on MDR may claim input tax credit, potentially reducing their net tax burden.

Finance-department advice treats fiscal indicators as grounds for restraint in approving additional expenditure rather than as evidence that funds are unavailable. Funding new projects may be difficult until additional resources are mobilised or allocations already approved are reallocated. Project proposals lacking budgetary provision or earmarked funding may create cash-flow pressures and fiscal-management challenges, requiring deferment until resources are finalised.

Amounts deposited during customs investigation under protest retain their character as investigation deposits when the related duty demand is annulled, despite later appropriation. They are distinct from statutory appellate deposits under Section 129E; consequently, Section 129EE's notified 6% interest rate does not govern them. Where no statutory rate applies, entitlement to restitutionary interest depends on applicable binding judicial precedent. Jurisdictional precedent supported 12% interest on the refundable investigation deposit, while confining the 6% rate to amounts actually deposited under Section 129E. Section 27's protest exception and Section 27A's delayed-refund framework require separate assessment according to the payment's legal character.

Section 31 finality under the IBC requires approved resolution plans to determine the treatment of operational-creditor claims and bind all stakeholders. Although Section 3(6) permits disputed and unadjudicated payment rights to enter CIRP, such inclusion does not by itself preserve related civil or arbitral proceedings after plan approval. Claims recorded at a notional value must be read with the final creditor list, distribution provisions, release clauses, cut-off dates and any express preservation mechanism. Unquantified pre-plan liabilities and proceedings are extinguished where the plan provides for discharge and abatement; a payment pool does not reserve funds for them without express terms. Section 238 gives this framework primacy over inconsistent remedies.

GST registration may be cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns under Section 29, but cancellation does not extinguish pre-cancellation tax liabilities. Rule 22 requires notice and an opportunity to respond; where pending returns are filed and tax, interest and late fee are fully paid before cancellation, the officer must drop proceedings. Post-cancellation revocation under Rule 23 requires compliance with prescribed filing, payment and limitation conditions, while appellate authorities cannot exceed statutory condonation limits. Defective notices, absence of reasons, denial of meaningful hearing, or unexplained retrospective cancellation may invalidate the process. Conditional restoration may be available in appropriate non-fraud cases upon full regularisation of returns, tax, interest, late fee and penalty.

Article 8 of the India-UK DTAA confines treaty protection to profits from international aircraft operations, qualifying pool participation, and activities directly connected with the enterprise's own transportation. Engineering and ground-handling services supplied to other airlines constitute taxable third-party commercial service income where they lack that direct nexus and do not arise from a qualifying pool. An IATP arrangement requires evidence of its substantive pooling character, including applicable arrangements and reciprocal operations; its label or aviation-related nature is insufficient. Treaty-specific wording controls: provisions in other DTAAs concerning pools, joint businesses or reciprocal facilities cannot expand the India-UK definition, and OECD commentary cannot override an express treaty definition.

Section 143(2) requires a notice to be served within the statutory limitation, communicate scrutiny, and require attendance or evidence supporting the return. CBDT-prescribed scrutiny formats bind departmental authorities administratively, but non-use does not itself create a jurisdictional defect where the notice otherwise meets statutory requirements and no actual prejudice is established; Section 292B may cure formal defects. Section 292BB separately addresses objections to service, timeliness, or manner of service. Limited scrutiny remains confined to selected issues unless prescribed conversion safeguards are followed, and a later information notice cannot validate unauthorised expansion. Format non-compliance may nevertheless entail administrative accountability.

Extended limitation under Section 74 applies only where unpaid or short-paid tax, erroneous refund, or wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit is attributable to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts intended to evade tax. Audit under Section 65 and return scrutiny under Section 61 are distinct processes, and either may lead to proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74. A prior audit-based proceeding does not automatically bar a later Section 74 demand founded on a materially distinct discrepancy in return or reconciliation data. The notice must specify its factual grounds, and duplication must be assessed by comparing the factual basis, periods, source material, and legal allegations.

Pre-notice payment of the entire reverse-charge service-tax liability bars a recovery notice for that amount under the Finance Act, 1994. Following introduction of the negative-list regime, service descriptions no longer determine tax liability. Therefore, an incorrect service category in an ST-3 return does not by itself establish non-payment where the tax has been credited to the Central Government. Tax paid under an incorrect category may be adjusted against reverse-charge tax on services actually received, avoiding a fresh service-tax demand.

Cash payments for agricultural produce purchased directly from farmers fall within the Rule 6DD(e)(i) exception to cash-payment disallowance where direct purchases are supported by farmers' confirmations and land records. Accordingly, such payments are not subject to disallowance under Section 40A(3). Gross-profit estimation based on the average gross-profit rate of earlier years remains undisturbed where no basis exists to alter that estimation.

Ad hoc disallowance of site-wage expenditure requires an evidentiary basis showing that the claimed wages are excessive, non-genuine, or unsupported. Cash payments and alleged gaps in supporting details do not, by themselves, justify disallowance where signed wage registers, worker identification, cash-withdrawal reconciliations, and project-site transfer records support the expenditure. Comparable profit-margin material and remand verification must disclose a specific defect before an estimated disallowance can be sustained. On these facts, deletion of the ad hoc disallowance of site wages was justified.