Revisionary jurisdiction requires an assessment to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue; a possible need for further enquiry, without identifying an indispensable omitted enquiry, an untenable assessment view, and resulting prejudice, is insufficient. Employee stock-option discounts, including liability crystallising on scheme modification, constitute employee-remuneration expenditure rather than capital or share-premium shortfall. A revision cannot rely on a ground absent from the show-cause notice. MAT book-profit adjustment for exempt-income expenditure requires independent identification of book-debited expenditure and cannot mechanically adopt Rule 8D. Deemed dividend requires legal shareholder membership in the recipient conce.....

For a private discretionary trust taxable at the maximum marginal rate, surcharge on income-tax payable must be calculated by reference to the applicable slab rate. This requires recomputation of surcharge liability using the relevant income-tax slab rather than a calculation detached from that rate structure. The computation principle applies where the trust's status as a private discretionary trust subject to the maximum marginal rate is undisputed.

Erroneous inclusion of interest on tax-free bonds as taxable income was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, rather than a fresh claim requiring a revised return. Interest specifically exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(h) could not be taxed merely because it had been mistakenly offered as taxable income in the return. The Tribunal directed that interest on IIFCL and REC tax-free bonds be treated as exempt, with consequential refund and admissible interest.

Transfer-pricing comparability is determined by the real operational character of margin items, functional and risk profiles, consistently applied persistent-loss and aggregate related-party transaction filters, and economic circumstances such as turnover and extraordinary events. Under TNMM, working-capital differences require analysis based on average receivables, payables and inventory; delayed associated-enterprise receivables do not warrant notional interest where a debt-free enterprise bears no interest cost and no financing benefit is established. Medical-product distribution may be benchmarked under the Resale Price Method using comparable gross margins, while adjustments must be limited to associated-enterprise international transa.....

Reassessment based on third-party information was invalid where the recorded reasons alleged escaped income but the assessment disallowed a materially different penny-stock share-sale loss, demonstrating no independent application of mind and borrowed satisfaction. A claimed short-term capital loss on sale of shares remained allowable where contract notes, banking and broker records, demat records, and investment-account entries evidenced exchange-traded transactions through a registered broker, and no defect in that evidence was identified; general penny-stock allegations were insufficient. The Revenue's challenge to deletion of the loss disallowance was dismissed, while proceedings for another assessment year were remitted for fresh adjudication.

Benami status of agricultural land transactions was established through evidence that the ostensible holder lacked financial capacity, bank records did not support funding for the purchases or later transfers, and an initial sworn statement identified the beneficial owners. Subsequent transfers to family members of the beneficial owners and an unexplained reduction in stated consideration corroborated that statement; an unsupported retraction did not displace it. Restrictions on transfer of Scheduled Caste land to persons of other categories formed part of the surrounding circumstances. The properties remained subject to confirmed provisional attachment, and the challenges failed.

Provisional attachment of movable property under the benami regime requires compliance with the statutory route: attachment under section 24(4)(a)(i) is confined to property already provisionally attached under section 24(3), while other property requires section 24(4)(b)(i). An incorrect or omitted reference to the applicable benami category in a show-cause notice does not invalidate proceedings where the stated facts disclose an applicable category. Material from income-tax proceedings may be relied upon. Establishing benami ownership nevertheless requires proof that the alleged beneficial owner paid the consideration and would receive future benefit; a temporal and evidential gap between alleged funding and acquisition fails that burden.

Extended limitation for recovery of customs duty was not invocable where imports received preferential treatment after examination, the certificate verification was not undertaken within the prescribed period, and no evidence showed the importer's knowledge of defects, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The recovery notice was consequently time-barred. A Malaysian Certificate of Origin could not be rejected on an alert concerning different goods or on undisclosed emails not included in the notice or supplied to the importer; exemption denial and confiscation were therefore unsustainable. Redemption fine was also not imposable because the cleared goods were unavailable.

AIFTA preferential tariff treatment for imported silver bangle jewellery is available where a genuine Thai Certificate of Origin certifies origin and Regional Value Content, unless contrary certification is displaced by corroborative evidence. DGFT wastage limits applicable to Indian silver-jewellery manufacturers cannot be applied to a foreign manufacturer. Assumptions, presumptions, or Indian wastage standards cannot justify denial of the preferential tariff. The resulting value enhancement, differential-duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties are unsustainable, with consequential relief following.

Limitation for a customs appeal runs from proven service of the adjudication order; where Revenue cannot establish earlier service and the appellant files within the statutory period after receiving an RTI copy, dismissal as time-barred is erroneous. For unmarked gold carried openly by a domestic passenger, Revenue must establish foreign origin before the burden under Section 123 arises. A retracted statement without independent corroboration, absent foreign markings and without characteristics of standard foreign gold, does not meet that burden. Domestic travel creates no international baggage-declaration obligation. Confiscation and penalty under Sections 111(l) and 111(m) were therefore set aside, with consequential relief.

Statutory pre-deposit in a customs appeal is a curable defect where the appeal is filed within limitation; the bar applies to entertaining the appeal on merits, not to its presentation. Dismissal without notifying the deficiency and providing a hearing is unsustainable, although separate pre-deposit requirements apply at each appellate stage. Recovery proceedings for alleged erroneous Special Additional Duty refunds may be initiated while review or departmental appeals are pending, but recovery founded solely on appellate orders cannot survive once those orders are set aside or recalled and refund entitlement attains finality. Remand is unnecessary where it would merely implement binding final orders; the dismissal and consequential recovery demands were set aside.

The proviso to Section 129A excludes Tribunal jurisdiction over appeals from Commissioner (Appeals) orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. Baggage describes the mode and category of import, and goods retain that character regardless of whether they are dutiable, prohibited, confiscable, bona fide or non-bona fide. Gold articles carried into India by arriving passengers and dealt with as baggage therefore fall within the exclusion. Challenges to confiscation and penalties concerning such gold articles must be pursued through revision before the Revisional Authority under Section 129DD, rather than before the Tribunal.

SFIO investigation orders made in the public interest must be founded on demonstrable, relevant circumstances. Judicial review examines whether the statutory decision-making process was flawed, rather than reassessing the adequacy or propriety of the underlying material. Detailed grounds need not be disclosed where disclosure could prejudice public interest or the investigation. Quashing of an FIR following settlement of homebuyer complaints does not resolve separate allegations of false loan documentation and diversion of company funds. The High Court found that the investigation order and its stated scope showed due consideration of those distinct allegations, sustained the order, and dismissed the writ application.

Res judicata prevents reopening a compulsory share-buyout valuation once prior appellate proceedings have confirmed the valuation mechanism and report, following opportunities for submissions before the valuer and adjudicating authority. Liberty to seek further directions is confined to enforcing the earlier order and does not authorise a renewed valuation challenge. Merger principles associated with dismissal of a special-leave petition do not apply to this special statutory appellate jurisdiction. An application for rectification and fresh valuation is therefore not maintainable because it reopens a concluded issue and constitutes abuse of process; rejection of the application and dismissal of the appeal follow.

FERA liabilities, penalties and legal remedies remain preserved after repeal through FEMA's saving scheme, read with the General Clauses Act, so that prior contraventions continue to be dealt with as though FERA remained in force. The appellate route under FEMA does not recharacterise saved FERA penalty adjudications as civil revenue litigation. Appeals from FERA-based penalties are therefore maintainable in criminal appellate jurisdiction, and objections that they must proceed only on the Original Side do not apply.

The first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA addresses an exception to the statutory twin bail conditions for women accused of money laundering. Relevant considerations include prolonged custody, setting aside of an earlier cognizance order, extensive material and witnesses, continuing investigations into scheduled offences, and whether the trial is likely to conclude soon. Where those circumstances indicate that timely completion of trial is unlikely, continued pre-trial incarceration warrants scrutiny when considering regular bail.

Prosecution for possession of assets disproportionate to known lawful income requires proof of the public servant's known income, assets, pecuniary resources and expenditure during the relevant check period; it need not undertake a roving inquiry into undisclosed income. Once substantial disproportion is shown, the public servant must provide a satisfactory, credible and verifiable explanation because asset sources and acquisition are within that person's special knowledge. Unsupported challenges to asset valuation, household expenditure and claimed income did not rebut the established disproportion, so the conviction for criminal misconduct was affirmed.

Extended limitation for service-tax recovery under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires specific pleading and proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention committed with intent to evade tax. Revenue bears the burden of establishing such mala fide conduct. Non-collection of service tax, coupled with a bona fide belief that works-contract services were exempt, does not by itself demonstrate deliberate intent to evade. Where the available material does not establish the required intent, the extended period cannot support recovery and the demand is barred by limitation.

Appeals concerning baggage imported under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Baggage Rules, 1998 fall within the Central Government's revisionary jurisdiction rather than the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction. An appeal on such baggage matters is therefore not maintainable before the Tribunal. The prescribed remedy is a revision application to the Central Government under the Customs Act.

Transfer-pricing analysis under the Transactional Net Margin Method requires turnover and functional comparability: high-turnover, diversified, product-based, or otherwise functionally distinct entities should be excluded, and working-capital adjustments calculated from actual data should not be arbitrarily capped. A timely reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer triggers the extended assessment limitation period. For Section 10A, expenditure excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover, and the deduction is computed undertaking-wise before gross-total-income reductions, subject to verification of relevant figures. Employee misappropriation incidental to business may be deductible in the year discovered, subject to evaluation of recovery evidence and consequential adjustment to eligible undertaking profits.