Natural justice requires an appellant to be given an opportunity to explain the delay before an appeal filed within the statutory condonable period is rejected on limitation. Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 allows two months to file an appeal and a further month on sufficient cause. Relevant holidays are taken into account when computing the condonable period: where it expires on a Sunday, filing on the following working day falls within that period. Condonation depends on sufficient cause, separate from the underlying service tax liability.

Business Auxiliary Service includes the promotion or marketing of a client's goods or services. A service is an activity carried out by one person for another for consideration. Under Section 67, taxable services are valued by reference to the gross amount charged for the service. The extended period for demand under Section 73(1) requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a provisional attachment order is subject to adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority and cannot be directly appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. Appellate jurisdiction is limited to orders for which the statute provides an appeal. A direction to treat a writ petition as an appeal requires consideration in accordance with law and does not permit the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction beyond the statutory framework.

Insolvency appeals must be filed within 30 days of pronouncement, with a further maximum of 15 days available on sufficient cause. Lack of knowledge of the order or failure to intimate claimants of the payment formula cannot extend that limit. Provident fund dues are excluded from the liquidation estate and protected from the ordinary distribution waterfall. Interest and damages not determined before insolvency may be contingent liabilities for which the committee of creditors may decide whether to provide. Claimants may challenge claim verification during the insolvency process, while claims omitted from an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

Liquidation regulations contemplate claims as at the liquidation commencement date, while the insolvency code recognises disputed or unquantified rights to payment as claims. Permission to assess tax during liquidation does not restart the deadline for submitting a claim to the liquidator. A timely challenge to rejection is distinct from timely submission of the underlying claim. An explanation limited to the period after assessment does not account for earlier delay, and reopening the stakeholder list may disrupt time-bound liquidation and distribution. If a claim first arises after liquidation commences, it falls outside the claims contemplated by the regulations.

Complainant participation in an insolvency professional's disciplinary appeal is not mandatory. A complainant should not be impleaded against their wishes merely because of subsequently discovered facts, unless their presence is required for just disposal. Replacement of an authorised representative operates prospectively and does not invalidate acts validly performed during the predecessor's tenure. Where a complaint has been found maintainable and disciplinary proceedings have culminated in an order, subsequent material cannot be used to reopen the complainant's standing. The disciplinary order's correctness is assessed on the material before the disciplinary committee.

Condonation of delay in seeking recall of an ex parte order may be refused where the explanation lacks credible support and does not establish reasonable diligence. Article 122 of the Limitation Act prescribes a 30-day period from dismissal rather than knowledge. An explanation attributing delay to former counsel requires credible supporting material; the absence of a no-objection from counsel, as contemplated by Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may also be relevant. The time-bound nature of insolvency proceedings is relevant to condonation.

Separate corporate personalities mean that a parent company is not liable for its subsidiary's operational debt merely because of their corporate relationship. A unilateral letter does not itself novate the underlying contract. Assessment of an alleged debt transfer may involve contractual exclusions of pre-closing liabilities, contracts not novated by closing, and subsequent letters, part-payments and cheques. Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot substitute for recovery or adjudication of a disputed commercial claim.

Prima facie involvement in alleged corporate fraud may justify interim property restraints even without proof that company assets were received personally. Potential personal liability under section 35 of the Companies Act, 2013 was considered despite the absence of proof that company assets personally benefited the applicant. The money-laundering proceedings had not reached finality, and unrestricted property dealings could prejudice creditor recovery. The property restraints remain in force, but the bank account may be operated subject to quarterly reporting of withdrawals and expenditure. The liquidator's principal application remains pending.

Subsequent board resolutions concerning a company's authorization or ratification of acts connected with a suit may be produced without prejudging whether the suit was validly instituted. Authority to institute a suit is distinct from authority to sign and verify pleadings. An officer's signing of pleadings may be expressly or impliedly ratified, and curable procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights. The resolution's admissibility and effect on authorization and maintainability remain for determination at trial, based on the evidence and circumstances.

Natural justice in import valuation requires meaningful access to relevant import records and an opportunity to cross-examine material departmental witnesses. Cross-examination cannot be denied merely on the assumption that it would serve no purpose in light of the importer's statements. Before fresh adjudication, the importer must receive a copy of the original import file and an opportunity to cross-examine the department's chartered engineer. Relevant CBIC circulars must be considered during fresh adjudication; the valuation merits remain undecided.

Where a customs duty refund is payable to the importer rather than credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, statutory interest on the delayed refund is also payable to the importer in accordance with law. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 governs refunds and credit to the Fund. Where the determination that the refund is payable to the importer has been upheld, unjust enrichment no longer provides a basis for withholding payment.

Natural justice requires a fair opportunity to know, answer and rebut relied-upon material, but does not confer an automatic or absolute right to cross-examine every witness. In benami proceedings, a witness's failure to respond to repeated summons and opportunities to address the material are relevant to fairness. Distinguishing genuine sale consideration from benami receipts can involve the flow of funds, admissions about accommodation entries and discrepancies in commercial records. An income-tax appellate decision accepting a transaction as genuine does not displace a benami determination where it did not address the circumstances relevant to the arrangement. Income-tax and benami proceedings serve different statutory purposes, and benami legislation has overriding effect.

Provisional attachment under the amended Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and related Tribunal orders concerned transactions that predated 10 August 2016. Both sides accepted that an earlier decision applied to the transactions. In light of that decision, the provisional attachment and related Tribunal orders were set aside in the proceedings.

Review jurisdiction and condonation of delay raise the question whether an Appellate Tribunal may grant relief solely on the basis of liberty granted by the Supreme Court without determining whether the bar in the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies. Related issues include the binding effect of earlier coordinate and larger Bench decisions and the prospective application of substantive amendments to penal or confiscatory provisions.

Interest on funds borrowed exclusively to apply for shares in an initial public offering forms part of the cost of acquisition when it has a direct nexus with the shares acquired. Section 48 permits that acquisition cost to be deducted in computing capital gains. Under Circular No. 09/2024, a Revenue appeal falling within the low-tax-effect category is not maintainable where no exception to the circular applies.

Reassessment under sections 147 and 148 requires objections to the recorded reasons for reopening to be disposed of by a separate speaking order before reassessment proceeds. This jurisdictional safeguard preserves the opportunity to challenge rejection of the objections before reassessment is completed. Considering objections in the final assessment order, participation in proceedings, or substantial compliance cannot replace that sequence. Reassessments completed without the separate order lack jurisdiction and cannot be restored solely to cure the defect; consequential additions do not survive.

Late filing fees under section 234E cannot be levied for assessment years before 1 June 2015. Judicial precedents address the retrospective application of the fee. Where judicial views differ on retrospective application, the approach favouring the assessee applies to fees for the assessment years in question under section 234E.

Uncontroverted income-tax returns and balance sheets recorded jewellery disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, although no disclosure certificate was produced. Wedding photographs supported a separate quantity of jewellery, part of which was accepted under CBDT instructions. No evidence substantiated the source of purchase of the remaining jewellery. The evidentiary distinction concerns records of prior disclosure and proof of the source of jewellery beyond the quantity accepted under those instructions.

Bona fide claims for deductions on fixed assets written off do not attract penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars merely because the deductions are disallowed under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Where all relevant facts are disclosed, treating the expenditure as capital in nature and disallowing the claim does not, by itself, establish concealment or inaccurate particulars.