Government-financing eligibility for an educational institution exemption may account for University Grants Commission-distributed Central Government grants and notional interest on Government-granted land, alongside pervasive statutory control by the State Government. Where those components cause Government funding to exceed the prescribed share of total receipts, the institution satisfies the financing condition for exemption. A penalty for under-reporting or misreporting founded solely on denial of that exemption cannot continue once the underlying assessment addition is deleted.

Section 153C jurisdiction requires the Assessing Officer of the searched person to record satisfaction and hand over seized material before proceedings against another person commence. Where notices preceded these steps, the jurisdictional condition was absent, rendering the notices and consequential assessments void ab initio and quashed. The material must also pertain to the other person and bear on determination of that person's total income; mere discovery of books, documents or assets is insufficient. A later satisfaction note cannot cure defective initiation or establish the required nexus.

IBC moratorium under section 14 prevents initiation or continuation of reassessment proceedings against a corporate debtor while the moratorium remains operative. Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of the Income-tax Act, so a faceless-assessment limitation period cannot create jurisdiction prohibited by the IBC. Reassessment completed during the operative moratorium is void ab initio; challenges to the underlying disallowances and additions remain open on their merits.

Transfer-pricing adjustments require a functional, asset and risk-based selection of the tested party and reliable functionally comparable data; operating PLI items must be assessed by their nexus with operations and consistently with comparables. Any adjustment must be confined to relevant associated-enterprise international transactions, requiring fresh examination. DCF valuation of CCPS may be scrutinised on valuation-date assumptions, but cannot be replaced by alternative assumptions without a cogent technical basis; the share-premium addition was deleted. ESOP expenditure recognised over vesting is deductible under section 37(1) where statutory conditions and accepted fair value are satisfied, despite no cash outflow; duplicate disallowance for subsidiary employees is impermissible. The ESOP disallowance was deleted.

Managerial support covering supply chain, human resources, strategic planning, marketing, finance and information systems falls outside the India-US DTAA definition of fees for included services. Such support is not ancillary or subsidiary to a separate trademark licence where it serves the recipient's overall business rather than licensed products. Recurring services also fail the make-available test unless they transfer enduring technical knowledge or skills enabling independent performance, rather than temporary reliance on the provider's expertise. Consequently, the consideration is not taxable as treaty fees for included services or domestic-law fees for technical services; tax-deducted-at-source credit remains available according to law.

Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer specifically examined the nature and allowability of ESOP expenditure, considered supporting material, and adopted a legally permissible view under section 37(1). A concise assessment order does not by itself establish lack of enquiry. Where two permissible views exist, an assessment is not erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue merely because the Commissioner prefers another view. Admission of an SLP without a stay or reversal does not make the High Court view unsustainable. The revisionary order was quashed.

Customs-duty recovery under Section 28 is confined to the person liable to duty and does not permit joint and several recovery from a high-sea seller who is not the statutory importer. Importer status depends on evidence of filing bills of entry, furnishing clearance documents, receiving or owning the goods, or otherwise undertaking the import. A retracted statement or an alleged licence sale, without proof linking the person to the relevant imports, is insufficient. Penalties for alleged misuse of advance licences require evidence that the person used the licence for the impugned clearance or dealt with the imported goods or clearance documentation.

Personal penalty for smuggled foreign-origin cigarettes under Section 112(b)(i) requires cogent evidence that an individual possessed or controlled the premises and consciously knew of, or was involved with, the smuggled goods. The goods' liability to confiscation or an inferred association with the premises does not by itself establish personal liability. Unsupported allegations of tenancy, absence of identification as owner or occupier in the panchnama, and uncorroborated statements linking the individual to the premises did not establish the statutory ingredients. The personal penalty was therefore set aside.

Section 114 penalty for a Customs House Agent's role in attempted export of misdeclared goods requires cogent evidence of knowing participation or a culpable act or omission. Failure to verify exporters' credentials, signatures, or authorisation documents may breach licensing obligations, but without proof of knowledge of the goods, false documentation, overvaluation, fraudulent drawback, conspiracy, or deliberate facilitation, it does not establish conscious abetment. Where the same goods, investigation, and allegations had already led to licence revocation and security forfeiture, an additional Section 114 penalty was treated as unsustainable; penalties on the firm and its partner were set aside.

Post-export amendment of shipping bills for conversion from the Advance Authorisation Scheme to the Drawback Scheme is not subject to a three-month limitation where the governing provision prescribes none. Administrative circulars cannot independently create a statutory time bar. An unchallenged conversion order, together with unchallenged brand-rate fixation, cannot be reopened at the drawback-sanction stage without being addressed according to law. Rejection of the drawback claim was set aside, and the jurisdictional authority was required to process the claim with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Proof of an exporter's, director's or intermediary's knowing involvement or connivance is required before penalties for attempted export of red sanders can be sustained. Where a steel-wire consignment was loaded, inspected and sealed under Central Excise supervision and substitution occurred during transit, absence of evidence linking those parties to the substitution defeats penal liability. Declared steel wire loaded for export under proper supervision is not liable to confiscation merely because part of the consignment was substituted in transit; the related redemption fine is likewise unsustainable. Penalties, confiscation and redemption fine were set aside.

Imported 100% cotton, weft-knitted fabrics bearing printed characteristics fall under CTH 6006 2400 rather than the dyed-fabric entry CTH 6006 2200. A Customs laboratory report may establish relevant product characteristics even where obtained to test hazardous azo dyes, unless its parameters are verified, clarified, or rebutted by re-test. An importer's initial declaration and failure to amend the Bill of Entry do not prevent correct classification. As printed fabrics under CTH 6006 2400 fell outside the notified minimum import price restriction, the goods were freely importable; confiscation and penalty were set aside, subject to assessment and payment of appropriate duty.

Penalty under Section 112(b) against a domestic purchaser of improperly imported goods requires material showing participation in the import-related wrongdoing, or knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Purchase under domestic invoices, payment of invoiced consideration and taxes, and awareness that goods were imported do not by themselves establish abetment or the statutory basis for penalty. The purchaser's failure to claim the customs exemption further distinguishes its position from that of the importer. Caveat emptor does not displace the Department's burden to prove the required knowledge or reasonable belief. The penalty was therefore set aside with consequential relief.

Customs valuation rules require reasonable doubt about the declared transaction value before its rejection and reassessment under the prescribed valuation methods. Grounds for rejection must be communicated in writing where required, and contemporaneous-import particulars must support any enhancement. NIDB data alone, without independent cogent material and justification, cannot sustain enhanced import values. An importer's written acceptance of reassessment may dispense with a speaking order by the proper officer, but does not waive the statutory right to challenge the basis or merits of reassessment. Enhanced valuations founded solely on unsupported data were set aside, with consequential relief.

Clear evidence of an attempt to take Indian currency across the border is required before confiscation for attempted illegal export under customs law. Concealment of currency, a general allegation of smuggling, and departure from the place of seizure do not, without evidence that the currency was being taken toward or across the border or intended for a recipient abroad, establish attempted export. Where the seizure material fails to prove that border-directed conduct, confiscation of the currency and vehicle and the associated penalty cannot be sustained; consequential relief follows.

Customs valuation rules require the proper officer to form a reasonable doubt about the declared transaction value and, where required, communicate written grounds before rejecting it under subsequent valuation rules. Undisclosed particulars of contemporaneous imports and NIDB data alone do not support enhancement; independent, cogent material is required. An importer's written acceptance of reassessment removes only the requirement for a speaking order and does not waive the statutory right to challenge the officer's opinion or reassessment on merits. Enhancement founded solely on undisclosed data and acceptance letters is unsustainable, while appeals against reassessment remain maintainable.

Written acceptance of customs reassessment does not waive an importer's statutory right to challenge the formation of opinion for reassessment or the reassessment on merits; it may only relieve the proper officer of issuing a speaking order. Rejection of a declared transaction value requires written communication of the grounds for reasonable doubt about its truth or accuracy. A generic assertion that contemporaneous import particulars were shown is insufficient. Reassessment based solely on NIDB data must be supported by independent, cogent and justiciable material. The enhanced valuation was set aside, with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Countervailing duty on imported notebook computers remained assessable on transaction value because the Tariff Act's retail-sale-price proviso does not authorise customs officers to ascertain or substitute an undeclared retail sale price using Excise Act retail-sale-price rules. Goods marked for Government supply and distributed free to students were not packages intended for retail sale, so no retail sale price declaration was required. The disclosed contract, price and supply arrangement, together with conflicting metrology views, showed an interpretational dispute rather than deliberate concealment; extended limitation was unavailable. With no retail-sale-price obligation or duty short levy, confiscation, interest and penalty did not arise. Pending provisional assessments were to be finalised on transaction value.

Finality of a prior remand adjudication bars re-agitation of continued custody where the earlier determination was not disturbed, while preserving the option to seek regular bail. A complaint filed within the period prescribed by section 187 of the BNSS satisfies the requirement for statutory/default bail purposes; cognizance need not be taken within that period. Setting aside cognizance for failure to provide a pre-cognizance hearing under section 223 of the BNSS does not make further remand illegal or create an entitlement to statutory release. The appropriate recourse remains a merits-based regular bail application.

Under Maharashtra money-lending law, an advance at interest against a promissory note falls within the meaning of a loan; lending without a licence is prohibited and renders the loan unenforceable. The resulting liability cannot qualify as a legally enforceable debt for cheque dishonour proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the lender must produce a licence at the threshold in cheque-dishonour or loan-recovery proceedings. Prior cheque-dishonour proceedings did not examine the Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu money-lending enactments and therefore did not determine the statutory bar in an individual pending matter. Applicability of those enactments remains for determination on the merits by the court concerned.