Historical wealth-tax records, valuation reports and family-distribution evidence can substantiate ancestral and self-owned jewellery; non-filing of later wealth-tax returns, without evidence of disposal, does not establish that prior holdings were sold. Accordingly, jewellery disclosed in Schedule AL could not be treated as unexplained merely because original purchase bills were unavailable. Brokerage paid to a Hindu undivided family is not deductible as investment cost for capital-gains exemption where no family fund or asset generated the income and its Karta or coparcener was separately paid for the same personal services. Recipient confirmation or taxability does not establish deductibility; the brokerage disallowance remained sustainable.

Charitable entities whose exemption under sections 11 and 12 is not claimed may deduct expenditure incurred to advance their charitable objects when income is assessed under "Income from Other Sources". Section 57(iii) applies to the computation of such income, including donations made in furtherance of those objects. Applying the coordinate-bench approach where no material factual or legal distinction existed, ITAT deleted the disallowance of the donations and allowed the deduction. The alternative deduction claim under section 80G required no separate adjudication.

Interest-free, repayable housing assistance to financially needy persons may constitute relief of the poor where beneficiaries are selected on genuine financial need, assistance is for reasonable housing, and the trust receives no interest, fee, commission, mark-up or other commercial benefit. Systematic disbursement, repayment security and recycling through a revolving fund do not by themselves make the activity money-lending or commercial. Loans advanced towards charitable objects cannot be treated as impermissible investments without identifying a specific offending investment or deposit. Registration was remanded for limited verification of beneficiary need, loan terms, recoveries, absence of commercial return and redeployment; related donor-tax approval requires consequential fresh consideration.

Assessment-order limitation depends on when the order is made or passed within the statutory period, not on later dispatch, communication or receipt; a dated order remains timely absent material showing it was actually made later. Rental income reflected in Form 26AS cannot be added without verifying whether timing differences from straight-line lease-rental recognition have already been taxed in another year. Interest on refinancing may qualify for deduction under section 24(b) only where a direct nexus connects the original borrowing, property acquisition or construction, and subsequent loan. Tenant-wise reconciliation and refinancing fund-flow evidence require fresh verification; the limitation challenge was rejected, while the rental and interest issues were remanded.

Brought-forward capital cannot be assessed as current-year income merely because an originally reported balance-sheet figure is erroneous; a demonstrable accounting correction supported by accepted prior-year records is permissible absent evidence of fresh unexplained accretion. Alleged on-money for immovable property requires cogent proof of actual payment, and a retracted vendor statement or unconnected cash deposits does not establish ownership of unexplained money. Section 68 requires a credit arising in the relevant year, so aggregate closing creditor balances, internal appropriations, prior-year liabilities and supported chit liabilities cannot be taxed without component-wise examination. Recorded sundry debtors are debit receivables, not cash credits or unrecorded investments. On these principles, the four additions were deleted.

Operational expenditure incurred to run an already deployed, revenue-generating telecom network retains its revenue character even when recorded as capital work-in-progress; book entries do not conclusively determine tax deductibility. Absent identification of an asset created or a nexus with acquisition or construction, deferral until quality-of-service targets are met does not make recurring operating costs capital. Payments to non-resident telecom operators for connectivity, carriage, termination, bandwidth and maintenance are not royalty or technical-service fees where the payer obtains no right to use equipment or process and receives no technical capability. Without Indian taxability or a permanent establishment, no withholding obligation arises.

Business-expenditure and depreciation principles support deduction where expenditure serves ongoing operations without creating a capital asset or ownership right. Public-road contributions, compensatory afforestation, dry docking, mining-lease renewal stamp duty, dumping conversion charges, obsolete inventory write-offs and irrecoverable supplier advances are treated as revenue or business outgoings on the stated conditions. Depreciation is linked to use of any asset within a block and may extend to qualifying commercial vehicles, energy-saving generators and brought-forward goodwill. Interest disallowance is not justified where interest-free funds exceed investments or no borrowing-advance nexus exists. Withholding is not triggered for ex.....

DCF valuation adopted for share premium under Rule 11UA cannot be replaced by the NAV method merely because projected results differ from subsequent actual performance. Consistent acceptance of the same premium in earlier years and for identical shares issued to non-residents supports equivalent treatment for resident shareholders. Occupancy certificates do not determine the deductibility of borrowing interest where commercial buildings have been put to use, rental income is assessed as business income, and borrowings funded construction. Advertisement and marketing costs for commercial space remain allowable business expenditure where incurred for commercial exploitation, notwithstanding a subsequently obtained occupancy certificate.

Declared transaction value cannot be rejected merely because a foreign supplier mistakenly shipped different goods where the Bill of Entry matches the supplier's invoice and import documents, and no evidence establishes deliberate misdeclaration, fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement or duty evasion by the importer. The resulting classification change is not attributable to the importer. Goods received through a bona fide supplier-induced mix-up may be cleared on payment of appropriate duty. Confiscation, redemption fine and importer penalty do not arise without the required culpable conduct. Packaged-commodity declarations must be completed before home-consumption clearance and may be affixed with prescribed permission. BIS-non-compliant non-releasable amplifiers remain subject to re-export.

Declared garments used to conceal substantial quantities of undeclared imported goods remain confiscable and may be released on payment of redemption fine. Concealment involving imports in breach of trade and intellectual-property laws supported confiscation, but redemption fine was reduced to 10 per cent of the declared or assessed value because the original fine was excessive. Liability to penalty for gross misdeclaration and improper importation was sustained where the importer failed to provide satisfactory material establishing lack of knowledge of the undeclared goods supplied by a foreign supplier. The penalty quantum was reduced, and the appeal was partly allowed.

Acceptance of reassessed customs value under protest does not extinguish the importer's independent statutory right to challenge the reassessment. Written acceptance relieves the proper officer of issuing a speaking order but does not create estoppel against statutory rights in taxation. Rejection of a declared transaction value requires written communication of the grounds for doubting its truth or accuracy. Enhanced valuation cannot rest solely on undisclosed alleged contemporaneous imports; the importer must receive the relevant comparable-import data and comparability particulars. Redetermination of value must follow the prescribed sequential valuation rules after the declared value is validly rejected.

Reverse burden for re-melted gold arises only when seizure rests on an honest, bona fide reasonable belief, supported by objective material, that the particular gold was smuggled; gold's fineness or purity alone does not establish foreign origin. Domestic purchase invoices, supplier confirmation and banking-channel payment may discharge that burden on a preponderance of probabilities unless rebutted through investigation. Promptly retracted Customs Act statements require independent corroboration, and reliance on material witness statements without effective cross-examination prejudices natural justice. Confiscation requires proof of contravention, while penalty requires knowledge or reason to believe goods were confiscation-liable; absent proof of smuggling, confiscation of gold, vehicle and packing material and related penalties were set aside.

Reverse burden for notified gold arises only when seizure rests on an honest, bona fide reasonable belief, supported by objective material that the gold was smuggled; suspicion, re-melted form, purity, or absent foreign markings do not suffice. Contemporaneous invoices, supplier confirmation and banking records may discharge the burden by establishing domestic procurement on a preponderance of probabilities unless rebutted through investigation. Retracted customs statements require independent corroboration, and material contradictions between a seizure record and electronic toll records undermine reliance on the seizure narrative. Denial of cross-examination of material witnesses prejudices natural justice. Without proof of illegal importation or knowledge of confiscability, confiscation and consequential penalties cannot stand; the departmental appeal was dismissed.

Extension of the ninety-day period for considering a compromise or arrangement in liquidation may be granted where circumstances materially change after an earlier rejection. Assignment of the debt changed the identity of the sole financial creditor and the relevant commercial decision-maker, so a fresh extension request was procedural rather than a collateral challenge to the earlier merits decision. Support from the sole financial creditor and a proposal exceeding liquidation value advanced value maximisation. In the absence of an auction notice or resulting prejudice, the NCLT could not replace the financial creditor's commercial wisdom with its own view. The High Court set aside the rejection of the extension request.

Delayed-payment surcharge for late electricity-bill payment does not constitute consideration for tolerating an act under Section 66E(e) where it secures timely payment, discourages default and lacks an express or implied reciprocal agreement to accept delay. Meter-testing charges are ancillary to statutory electricity distribution, inseparable from consumption measurement and billing, and therefore take the negative-list treatment of the principal distribution service despite separate pricing. Extended limitation requires positive evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression or contravention intended to evade tax; publicly regulated, recorded charges previously examined by the tax authorities do not establish deliberate suppression. Consequently, demands beyond the normal period, with related interest and penalty, were unsustainable.

Late-payment charges received as interest for delayed payment for industrial-gas supplies lack the consideration necessary for a service or declared service when they are compensatory damages in nature. Describing such charges as interest does not convert them into consideration for a taxable declared service. Service-tax demand on these late-payment charges was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.

Identity verification concerns arose after a tourist went missing from Teetwal near the Line of Control. His Aadhaar card was allegedly found to be fake after he left it and other belongings at a guest house. Local authorities registered a missing-person report and initiated a search. Cellphone tracking indicated that his phone was active elsewhere along the Jammu-Srinagar highway.

IGST refund eligibility on exports under Advance Authorisation is queried where imported inputs have been cleared using exemptions from basic customs duty and GST. The issue concerns the effect of the omission of rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules on entitlement to refund of IGST paid on such exports.

IGST refund eligibility is considered after omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, which had restricted refund claims for exports involving specified import-related benefits. The issue is whether exporters importing raw materials under Advance Authorisation may file shipping bills under the "With Payment of IGST" option, pay IGST on exports, and claim refund of that tax, along with any applicable procedural requirements.

Lab-grown diamond sector development is directed toward Indian control of the full value chain, including machinery, production, jewellery, brands and overseas retail. Central and state-level policy support is contemplated to expand domestic capacity, exports and global market participation. Rough diamond trading companies operating in special notified zones are stated to receive a 15-year income-tax exemption, supporting the objective of establishing India as a rough diamond trading hub. Infrastructure, jewellery parks, stamp-duty waivers, affordable electricity, connectivity and free trade agreements are identified as supporting measures.