Confiscation of Indian currency under section 113(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires evidence that the goods were brought to a place for the purpose of export contrary to law. Concealment of currency in a motorcycle and departure from the spot may raise suspicion or invite inquiry under another statute, but do not establish attempted smuggling. Without evidence linking the currency to intended illegal export, confiscation of the currency and the consequential confiscation of the motorcycle and imposition of a penalty cannot be sustained.

Written acceptance of customs reassessment and an enhanced value relieves the proper officer of the requirement to issue a speaking order under Section 17(5), but does not waive the importer's statutory right to challenge the reassessment. Rejection of the declared transaction value requires compliance with Section 14 and Rule 12(2), including the formation and communication of reasonable doubt about its truth or accuracy. NIDB or contemporaneous-import data alone cannot justify an increased value without independent, cogent supporting material and substantiated grounds for rejecting the declared value.

Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that a domestic purchaser knew or had reason to believe that imported machinery was liable to confiscation. Knowledge that machinery was imported is not sufficient, and the buyer-beware principle does not displace the customs department's burden to prove the statutory requirements. A domestic purchase on invoices, without an exemption claim or proven involvement in the importer's alleged misdeclaration, does not support a penalty in the absence of the requisite knowledge or reason to believe.

Printed knitted fabric made entirely of cotton is classifiable under CTH 6006 2400 and falls outside the specified minimum import price restriction. It is not prohibited on that basis and is eligible for clearance for home consumption after assessment and payment of applicable duty. Classification depends on the tariff entries and established characteristics of the goods. The authenticity of an official customs laboratory report recording the fabric as printed cannot be rejected without verification, clarification or retesting, even if the report was initially obtained to test for hazardous azo dyes. The original tariff declaration and failure to seek its amendment are not conclusive where the classification dispute and test results are before the adjudicating authority.

Customs Act penalties for attempted export smuggling cannot rest on commercial negligence or intermediary status alone; they require evidence of knowing involvement, abetment or a legally attributable act connected with the attempt. Liability for using false documents requires knowing use. Declared steel wire loaded under official supervision and sealed at the factory is not liable to confiscation merely because prohibited wood logs were substituted during transit, where the substitution is not attributable to the exporter. A consequential redemption fine is likewise unsustainable.

Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits post-export amendment of shipping bills on the basis of contemporaneous documentary evidence, including conversion from the Advance Authorisation Scheme to the Drawback Scheme. The provision contains no three-month limitation, and an administrative circular cannot introduce a statutory time bar absent from it. Where conversion approval and subsequent brand-rate fixation remain unchallenged, the approval cannot be reopened at the drawback-sanction stage without being dealt with in accordance with law. In those circumstances, failure to seek conversion before the jurisdictional authority within the circular's three-month period does not justify rejecting drawback; the claim must be processed in accordance with law.

Penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 require evidence that an act or omission knowingly caused, abetted or facilitated conduct rendering export goods liable to confiscation. Failure by a customs house agent to verify exporters' credentials, signatures or authorisations may breach licensing obligations, but does not by itself establish conscious abetment of misdeclaration, overvaluation or wrongful drawback claims. Without evidence of knowing involvement or intentional facilitation, penalties against the agent and its partner are unsustainable.

Personal penalty for dealing with smuggled goods under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires cogent evidence of a culpable connection with the goods. Where alleged tenancy or control lacks objective support, statements are uncorroborated and the panchnama does not identify the person as owner or occupier, proximity of separate business premises does not establish possession or conscious knowledge. Suspicion or an inferred association with the premises cannot replace the proof required for personal penal liability.

Customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be recovered jointly and severally from several persons without identifying the statutory importer. Directorship of entities involved in high-seas sales does not by itself establish importer status. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA require proof of their statutory ingredients. Relevant considerations include whether the person dealt with the goods, filed bills of entry or supplied documents for them, or used an advance licence for clearance, and whether the licences were valid at import and the alleged licence transaction was linked to the imports.

The Settlement Commission rejected the importer's proposed value for imported goods in a dispute over differential duty, the settlement amount and a penalty. The disputed issues included whether the importer intended to avoid duty. The challenge to the settlement amount and penalty was dismissed because no good reason was found to interfere with the High Court's order.

Revision of an assessment under Section 263 requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Where employee stock option expenditure is allowed after the Assessing Officer obtains explanations and supporting material, the absence of detailed discussion in the assessment order does not itself establish a lack of enquiry. Revision cannot rest merely on substituting a different view for a legally permissible view adopted after enquiry. Allowance of the expenditure under Section 37(1) is a permissible view supported by High Court authority; admission of a special leave petition without a stay or reversal does not displace that authority.

Group support services covering supply chain, human resources, strategic planning, marketing, finance and information systems are treated as managerial services outside the definition of fees for included services under the India-US tax treaty. Business-wide support under a separate agreement is neither product-specific nor ancillary and subsidiary to the limited trademark licence. Recurring services under a one-year arrangement do not meet the make-available requirement when they do not impart enduring technical knowledge, skills, know-how or capability enabling the recipient to perform the functions independently. The consideration is not taxable as fees for included services under the treaty or as fees for technical services under the Income-tax Act.

Discounted cash flow valuations under Rule 11UA(2) may be scrutinised for share premium assessments under section 56(2)(viib), but valuation assumptions cannot be replaced without cogent evidence of material error. In transfer pricing, the tested party and method must reflect functions, assets, risks and reliable comparable data. Comparables must be functionally similar, and profit indicators must treat operating items consistently. Adjustments must be confined to relevant international transactions, and safe-harbour definitions cannot be applied mechanically. Employee stock option discounts are allowable business expenditure under section 37(1) when incurred and recognised over the vesting period, even without cash outflow. The same expenditure cannot be disallowed twice.

An insolvency moratorium bars the institution or continuation of proceedings against a corporate debtor. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides inconsistent laws. Binding jurisdictional precedent treats income-tax assessment proceedings themselves as impermissible during the moratorium. Reassessment proceedings initiated and completed while the moratorium remains operative are void from inception. A departmental technical opinion cannot prevail over binding precedent.

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires the searched person's Assessing Officer to record satisfaction and then transfer the relevant material to the other person's Assessing Officer before proceedings are initiated. The latter must independently record satisfaction that the material pertains to the other person and bears on determination of that person's total income. Proceedings initiated before satisfaction and transfer, without the required finding on total income, are void, as are consequential assessments. A subsequent note on income escapement cannot validate the earlier initiation.

Income of universities and educational institutions existing solely for education and not for profit is exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab) if they are wholly or substantially financed by the Government. Under Rule 2BBB, the substantial financing test is met where Government grants exceed 50% of total receipts in the relevant previous year. UGC grants sourced from Central Government allocations and Government land grants in kind are included in that calculation. A penalty for under-reporting or misreporting has no surviving basis where it rests solely on an addition that has been deleted.

Receipts from services inextricably connected with mineral oil prospecting, extraction or production, including field development consultancy and NDR preparation, fall within the mining or like projects exclusion and are taxable under the presumptive regime in section 44BB rather than as fees for technical services or royalty. Interest on an income-tax refund arising from taxes paid on core business conducted through an Indian permanent establishment is taxable as business profits under Article 7 at the maximum marginal rate, rather than at the Article 11 treaty rate, because the debt claim is effectively connected with that establishment. Offshore supply income is not taxable in India under section 44BB where cementing units and batch mixers are completed and inspected outside India and directly imported by the Indian purchaser, title and risk pass and payment is made outside India, and no related Indian business connection or permanent establishment is established.

Filing ITR-7 instead of the prescribed ITR-5 creates a defective return under section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Where processing does not show that the defect was identified or a rectification opportunity provided, the correct form must be accepted. Late filing of Form 10B is a technical defect that does not by itself defeat exemption. Returns covered by sections 139(4A) and 139(4C) must meet the section 139(1) due date; exemption for a late return can be restored only upon condonation under section 119(2)(b). Even without exemption, income computation under section 143(1) must consider expenditure and the declared deficit rather than tax gross receipts in full.

Best-judgment profit estimates following rejection of books under Section 145(3) must be reasonable and based on relevant material, such as past results or comparable cases, rather than arbitrary assumptions. Incomplete purchaser details can justify verification concerns and estimation of income, but do not support an arbitrary profit rate. Information about substantial cash deposits may provide a basis for reopening an assessment under Sections 147 and 148 to verify the nature and source of the deposits.

Contract cancellation charges for unfulfilled export supply contracts, where directly connected with ordinary business, qualify as business expenditure rather than speculative loss. Commission paid to non-resident agents for soliciting export customers outside India is not subject to tax deduction where the agents have no Indian business connection, the payment is not fees for technical services and the sum is not chargeable to tax in India; it is therefore not disallowable for non-deduction. Losses on forward foreign-exchange contracts used to hedge export receivables and incidental to export business are business losses, not speculative losses. Rule 8D requires recorded satisfaction on the correctness of the exempt-income expenditure claim; interest disallowance is unsustainable where neither satisfaction nor material connecting the interest to exempt income exists.