First-motion scrutiny of a listed-company amalgamation scheme is generally confined to legality and public interest, leaving shareholders and creditors to assess the commercial proposal. An ante-dated appointed date requires justification, but its assessment must account for the regulatory and stock-exchange approval process applicable to listed entities. Delay in filing cannot be attributed to the company unless exclusively caused by its failure or default; valuation effects and delay may be examined at the second stage with regulatory and tax-authority input. The first-motion dismissal was set aside, and meetings were directed to be convened through appointment of a chairman and scrutinizers.

Fraud-classification action cannot rest solely on a forensic audit report that is inconclusive, based on limited lender-provided material, and qualified because complete records were unavailable. Where the borrower is in CIRP and liquidation, the erstwhile management lacks control and relevant books and records may be seized, reinforcing the report's evidentiary limitations. A show cause notice founded on the same report previously treated as inconclusive in relation to the lead bank remains defective despite the borrower filing a reply. The fraud-classification notice, resulting order, and consequential action were set aside, while fresh action on conclusive evidentiary material remains open.

Statutory ESI contributions, including amounts deducted from employees' wages, are trust funds held by the corporate debtor for statutory beneficiaries and do not beneficially belong to it. Their filing as a Form B claim is procedural and neither changes their trust character nor prevents ESIC from seeking exclusion. These contributions must remain outside the liquidation estate and cannot be distributed through the creditor waterfall as ordinary Government or operational creditor dues. Resolution-plan approval is set aside to the extent it treats qualifying ESI contributions as ordinary dues; the excluded amount must be determined from statutory records.

Liquidators may continue eviction or possession proceedings commenced during CIRP where their purpose is to recover and protect corporate debtor assets. Liquidation does not make such proceedings infructuous because the Liquidator has corresponding powers and duties to take custody and control of liquidation-estate property. Possession disputes concerning estate assets may fall within NCLT insolvency jurisdiction where the claim arises directly from liquidation. Unregistered fixed-term leases cannot prove their terms, particularly where occupants are related parties who have not paid rent. Where rent-control procedures obstruct recovery of liquidation-estate assets, the IBC overriding provision permits recovery and eviction without recourse to the Rent Controller.

FEMA adjudication requires the prescribed two-stage process: the adjudicating authority must form and communicate its opinion to hold an inquiry before granting a personal hearing. Non-compliance invalidated the adjudication order and consequential penalties, requiring fresh adjudication. Alleged FCCB contraventions also require consideration of the earlier RBI circular on eligibility to raise external commercial borrowings, alongside all relevant circulars and material. The matters were remitted for fresh determination after both sides received an opportunity.

ECIR is an internal, non-statutory departmental record that neither initiates prosecution nor independently imposes penal consequences. A first-instance acquittal in a scheduled offence is not final absolution while subject to appeal and does not determine the legitimacy of separately seized assets. The PMLA's specialised adjudicatory and appellate mechanism governs property retention and confiscation; writ jurisdiction should not bypass it where disputed financial facts require evidentiary assessment. Material indicating contravention of another law must be shared with the relevant agency under section 66(2), independently of an acquittal in a distinct predicate proceeding. The writ petition was dismissed, leaving statutory remedies available.

PMLA attachment may extend to Indian property of equivalent value where alleged proceeds of crime remain abroad, including property acquired before the alleged criminal activity or held in a spouse's name if funded by the accused and unsupported by an independent untainted source. Money-laundering is treated as a continuing offence, with timing assessed by reference to laundering acts and attachment; the value-of-proceeds limb independently supports equivalent-value attachment. A provisional attachment order may meet the reasons-to-believe requirement by recording the material, belief and risk of frustrating confiscation, without separate communication. Attachment proceedings do not determine the merits of a pending scheduled offence. Physical possession during pending prosecution is restricted to exceptional circumstances.

Chewing gum is classified as unclassified goods under residuary Entry 87 of Schedule II to the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, rather than as "sweets and sweetmeats" under Entry 74A. Applying the common-parlance test and the Supreme Court position that chewing gum or bubble gum is chewed and discarded rather than eaten, its sugar content does not make it a sweetmeat. Commodity codes used for e-services and prior departmental treatment cannot override statutory classification. As no specific entry covers chewing gum, the residuary entry applies; the contrary classification also affected the treatment of consequential interest and penalties.

Committee of Creditors, constituted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for specified functions in the corporate insolvency resolution process, has no separate legal existence or independent capacity to sue, be sued, or seek impleadment. Its collective decisions and communications must be placed before the Adjudicating Authority through the Resolution Professional, who represents it in proceedings. Where a dispute concerns only an individual financial creditor's authority to represent lenders and seeks no relief against or prejudice to the Committee, the Committee is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

Observations concerning directors' status and the filing of financial statements, made while directing appointment of a statutory auditor under the Companies Act, are confined to the limited purpose of enabling preparation of the company's financial statements. They cannot operate to the appellants' detriment in pending or future company proceedings. Any subsequent proceeding must be determined independently in accordance with law, without treating those observations as determinative beyond the auditor-appointment direction.

Cash deposits used for share-trading transactions cannot be added as unexplained money under section 69A merely because supporting affidavits share identical wording, were executed on the same date, or were obtained after the transactions. Sworn confirmations from friends and relatives satisfactorily explained the source where no substantive infirmity undermined their genuineness. The limited cash component of the overall transactions further supported the explanation, requiring deletion of the addition.

An electronically filed first appeal lodged within the prescribed 30-day period cannot be treated as time-barred on an unsupported calculation of delay. For cash deposits during demonetisation, documented prior cash withdrawals may provide a plausible and sufficient explanation of source; deposits so explained do not constitute unexplained money under section 69A. On the stated facts, the limitation objection fails and the cash-deposit addition is unsustainable.

Alleged bogus purchases require an evidence-based estimated disallowance where the taxpayer has not fully established genuineness but the tax authorities cannot disregard available supporting evidence. Rather than disallowing the entire purchase amount, the appropriate adjustment was confined to 15% of the purchases, reflecting both evidentiary deficiencies and evidence supporting the underlying transactions.

Employees' ESIC and provident fund contributions deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant welfare statutes are not deductible. Sections 36(1)(va), 2(24)(x) and 43B distinguish employees' contributions from employer contributions: delayed employee deposits remain taxable and cannot be allowed merely through the provisions applicable to employer payments. The disallowance of delayed employees' ESIC/PF contributions was therefore sustained, against the assessee and in favour of Revenue.

Section 68 requires a satisfactory explanation for cash deposits, but available evidence should not be wholly disregarded where it partly substantiates the source; the unexplained-credit addition was therefore restricted. Section 115BBE applied only to transactions occurring on or after 1 April 2017 and did not apply to earlier transactions. Where the return was late and books were unaudited, net business profit could be estimated at 8% of accepted turnover, so that addition remained sustained.

Development agreements already filed and examined during assessment are not additional evidence for appellate purposes, so Rule 46A does not require a remand report. A partner signing such an agreement solely as managing partner for a partnership firm acts in a representative capacity. Where the firm is the developer and contracting party, neither a property transfer nor income arises to the partner individually merely from that signature. Any tax liability arising from the agreement attaches to the contracting entity rather than the individual partner.

Section 40(a)(ia) does not disallow expenditure merely because tax was deducted at a lower rate under a different TDS provision where the dispute concerns the characterisation of payments and no default finding exists under section 201. Any shortfall in tax deduction is addressed through default proceedings rather than expense disallowance. Rejection of audited books under section 145(3) requires specific defects establishing that the accounts are unreliable. Cash payments below the prescribed threshold and unavailable bills, when adequately explained and supported, do not alone justify rejecting accounts. Estimated net-profit additions require meaningful opportunity and must account for changed commercial arrangements affecting margins and indirect costs.

Assessment and first appellate proceedings conducted without effective compliance by the assessee resulted in ex parte additions and disallowances. The need to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing required remand of the assessment for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer must permit the assessee to present its case and make a fresh determination after granting that opportunity.

Section 153D requires prior approval for each assessment year before an assessment under sections 153A and 143(3) is completed. Approval received after the assessment order is passed does not satisfy the prior-approval requirement. A consolidated approval covering several years must also demonstrate independent application of mind to each draft assessment order and the relevant material; a bare statement approving the drafts does not establish that consideration. Absence of timely, reasoned, year-specific approval renders the assessment invalid.

Parallel substantive additions for the same alleged undisclosed share-capital income were unjustified where the connected entity had already been assessed as the ultimate beneficiary of those funds. Once deletion of the corresponding addition in that entity's assessment attained finality, the duplicate substantive addition in the assessee's hands could not stand. The assessee's deletion was consequently sustained.