Mauritius-resident foreign portfolio investors may claim the Article 13 exemption under the India-Mauritius tax treaty for current-year capital gains without first setting off validly brought-forward short-term and long-term capital losses. Section 90(2) permits selection of the more beneficial tax regime, and neither the Income-tax Act nor Article 13 specifically mandates such set-off before claiming treaty exemption. The previously carried-forward losses may be retained while the exemption is claimed for current-year gains.

Arm's length remuneration of an Indian associated enterprise constituting a dependent agent permanent establishment leaves no further profits attributable to that establishment when it accounts for all risk-taking functions of the multinational enterprise. This principle applies to an internet-advertising business where the Indian entity's cost-plus remuneration remains undisturbed in assessment. Ad hoc allocation of Indian business revenue and estimation of profits do not justify further attribution in those circumstances, particularly where a materially identical method was previously rejected and no distinguishing material was identified.

Percentage-based disallowance of employee benefit expenses and labour charges cannot rest on suspected inflation without verification. Taxpayers must establish the genuineness and business purpose of the expenses, and any disallowance must be confined to expenditure found unsupported, non-genuine or unrelated to business. For deemed rental income, actual occupation and business use of properties during the relevant year require verification before applying the business-use exclusion under section 22. If business use is not established, annual value must be computed after considering relevant fair-rental-value material. Where a negative cash balance is attributed to labour expenses wrongly posted through cash without recording the correspond.....

Pecuniary jurisdiction determines the validity of reassessment notices. Under the applicable instruction, jurisdiction over the corporate taxpayer's returned loss in a metro charge lay with an ITO. A notice issued by an ACIT without that jurisdiction rendered the reassessment proceedings and consequential order void. An appellate authority may conduct its own inquiry under section 250(4), and Rule 46A does not curtail that power. For unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits, the taxpayer established the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions. Advertising-service advances had already been offered as revenue.

Customs clearance of imported cryptocurrency-mining equipment was withheld because the description and declared value appeared incorrect. The undisputed difference between the declared value and the substantially higher market value supported a prima facie finding of misdeclaration. The circumstances disclosed no arbitrariness, mala fides or abuse of statutory power warranting a CBI investigation. Requests for an investigation and directions on equipment clearance and handling were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

Suspension of a customs broker licence pending enquiry requires a substantiated need for immediate action and must occur within a reasonable period. An unexplained delay of several months after the offence report, without new information justifying immediate intervention, undermines the required urgency. The 90-day period for issuing a show cause notice under Regulation 17(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, is mandatory. A notice issued beyond that period is time-barred and without jurisdiction, and dependent suspension proceedings cannot survive. Timely revocation proceedings remain available under the prescribed procedure.

Confiscation of goods as camouflage under Section 119 of the Customs Act requires evidence that they were used as a guise for moving contraband. Tea located at the rear of a truck did not establish camouflage where elephant tusks were found in the driver's cabin. Penalties under Section 114 require cogent evidence linking the consignor or transporter to the illicit carriage. Neither statements by the persons allegedly involved nor call records established that link, and waybill defects and errors in consignee particulars did not establish involvement by themselves.

Contradictory dates for appropriation of a corporate debtor's security deposit, placing the transaction before and after commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, can justify a limited forensic audit of the lessor's accounting records. An explanation that one date resulted from an inadvertent error does not resolve the inconsistency where the lessor supplied both dates. The audit is confined to establishing the actual date of appropriation.

Deliberate concealment of a subsisting decree debt can constitute fraudulent initiation of corporate insolvency resolution under Section 65, warranting recall of admission and a penalty even if the admission threshold is met. An affected creditor may challenge fraud despite a belated claim or pursuit of alternative relief. A resolution plan binds parties only upon approval by the adjudicating authority under Section 31; committee approval creates no indefeasible right, and the plan cannot survive recall of fraudulent admission. Subsequent consent, proposed recoveries and the committee's commercial wisdom cannot validate a fraudulently initiated process. Authorisation by additional directors whose tenure has ended is invalid, and Section 176 of the Companies Act does not protect acts taken with knowledge of that termination.

Suspended management remains under a continuing duty under Section 19(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to provide corporate records and cooperate with the resolution professional. Approval of a resolution plan by the committee of creditors does not establish cooperation, and partial compliance does not discharge the duty. Section 19(2) permits directions but does not itself authorise costs. Costs for conduct in proceedings may be imposed under Section 60(5) read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016; the penal remedy under Section 70 does not exclude that power. Reference to an incorrect provision does not invalidate an order where the power exists under another available provision.

Provisional attachment of immovable property as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 involved scrutiny of the claimed independent sources of acquisition funds. Claimed masonry earnings were supported only by a Sarpanch's certificate that stated no income amount. An agreement to sell ancestral property did not establish receipt of consideration, and no sale deed or documentary proof of instalment payments was produced. Cash deposits remained unexplained, while cash was withdrawn on the date the sale deed for the attached property was executed. The withdrawal was treated, on the facts, as evidence that proceeds of crime funded the acquisition, supporting confirmation of the attachment.

Sale proceeds from discarded vehicle parts are consideration for goods, not taxable services, while pre-sale logistics and handling naturally bundled with vehicle sales retain the character of those sales despite separate charges. From 14 May 2015, taxable consideration includes reimbursable expenditure; bilateral outdoor-service payments do not qualify as pure-agent receipts. Booking and billing cancellation charges form part of the intended principal supply, and vehicle dealers' insurance and endorsement commissions are taxable even if the principal pays tax. CENVAT credit cannot be denied solely on differences between audited accounts and returns without complete reconciliation; disclosure in a return is not itself a condition for claiming credit recorded in books or statutory records. Interpretational disputes may preclude extended limitation and related penalties.

Transfer of possession and effective control of deep freezers, giving dealers an exclusive right to use them during the agreements, constitutes a deemed sale excluded from service tax. Supply without transfer of that right is a declared service. Interest-free security deposits refundable when the freezers are returned, subject to deductions for damage, are not consideration for a service; taxable consideration must have a nexus with the service. Extended limitation requires a positive act of suppression with intent to evade tax, with the burden on the Revenue. Non-registration and non-filing for a non-taxable activity, or existing reverse-charge registration, do not establish deliberate suppression.

Bona fide requirement for eviction is ordinarily assessed as at the date of the suit. A subsequent event may be material if it changes the ground of relief, but it must be brought promptly and procedurally before the court, with an opportunity for the opposing party to respond. An affidavit alleging the availability of alternative premises must be assessed with the entire record. Failure to contest the affidavit alone does not establish the absence of bona fide requirement or justify dismissing a challenge to the reversal of an eviction decree.

Freight to the buyer's premises is included in the assessable value for excise duty on FOR destination sales because the buyer's premises are the place of delivery. Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the extended limitation period requires specified grounds, including suppression or contravention with intent to evade duty. Conflicting decisions may support a bona fide belief that freight is not includible and do not establish intent to evade. Without the statutory grounds for extension, a demand relating entirely to a period beyond normal limitation, together with associated interest and penalty, cannot be sustained.

The first proviso to section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken on a complaint, where the proviso applies. Cognizance taken without that hearing resulted in the order being set aside, with a fresh order directed after hearing the petitioner. The merits remained open.

Bail on parity with similarly placed co-accused was sought after their release and the petitioner's prolonged custody. The petitioner was alleged to have played a significant role in a fraudulent input tax credit scheme, and documents and electronic records had been seized. The investigation had been completed when an earlier bail application was rejected. Bail was granted subject to a bond, sureties and conditions, while the criminal proceedings remained pending.

Pre-arrest bail concerning alleged dishonoured cheques and monetary transactions remains undecided. The assessment involves the volume and pattern of account transactions, the absence of clear disclosure of their nature and source, and the petitioner's past record. The observations on those matters are prima facie. Tax authorities are to furnish information, and the District Court is to pass a fresh bail order.

Revision under section 263 requires an assessment to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Where the assessing officer has made specific and follow-up inquiries into unsecured loans and considered lender creditworthiness, bank records and repayment, disagreement over the extent of inquiry or a permissible assessment view does not by itself justify revision. Without valid revisional jurisdiction, the assessment remains undisturbed.

Reopening an assessment previously scrutinised under section 143(3) beyond four years requires a failure to disclose material facts fully and truly, as well as a reason to believe that income escaped assessment supported by material. An investigation report and general statement that do not identify the taxpayer or substantiate accommodation entries do not supply that material. Approval based on a mistaken assumption that no prior scrutiny occurred and reliance on the wrong statutory clause do not cure these deficiencies.