Writ challenges to orders-in-original should ordinarily yield to the statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly placed noticees were required to pursue appeals, and the appeal against the later order-in-original could be filed within one month without a limitation objection. Attached bank accounts could be released pending appeal where Revenue interests were secured by appropriation of the statutory pre-deposit from those accounts and an unconditional bank guarantee for the remaining amount, allowing continued business operations.

Limitation for customs appeals may exclude time spent pursuing refund and amendment proceedings where the importer acted diligently under binding jurisdictional law that treated refund as an independent remedy. A subsequent requirement to modify the assessment before seeking refund created transitional circumstances supporting application of principles underlying limitation-law exclusion. The period up to 02.06.2020 was treated as excludable, and statutory time extensions further preserved appeals filed on 31.08.2020. Separately, an appeal filed within twenty-eight days of the out-of-charge date fell within the prescribed customs appeal period. Limitation objections therefore did not prevent merits adjudication of the restored matters.

Customs-duty refund issues include whether FOB value may be treated as cum-duty value, the applicability of the CBEC circular dated 10 November 2008, and the effect of a final assessment that was not challenged. The scope for correcting an assessment under Section 154 of the Customs Act is distinguished from reassessment under Section 17(4). These issues arise in considering whether a customs-duty refund can be determined after an assessment has attained finality.

Third-party material cannot sustain an addition for alleged unaccounted cash purchases unless the material is disclosed to the assessee and requested cross-examination is provided. The addition rested solely on software allegedly recovered from a supplier, while the assessee produced records of accounted purchases, bank payments and related export transactions. Withholding the underlying material, the supplier representative's statement and cross-examination denied the assessee an effective opportunity to rebut the allegation. The assessee was not required to prove the negative proposition that no cash purchases occurred before access to the alleged contrary evidence. The addition was therefore unsustainable and deleted.

Overdue interest on non-performing assets is not treated as accrued income where RBI prudential norms indicate uncertain recovery, despite mercantile accounting. Release of a provision for non-performing assets does not fall within section 41(1) where the statutory deduction for bad and doubtful debts is not a loss, expenditure or trading liability, unless it represents recovery of an actual written-off debt. Provision for standard assets may qualify for deduction under section 36(1)(viia), subject to the statutory ceiling, and aggregate average rural advances under Rule 6ABA include opening balances and monthly outstanding advances. Quantification requires verification of the provision created. Penalty is not justified merely because a fully disclosed deduction claim is disallowed without concealment or inaccurate particulars.

Bank branches were not liable as assessees in default for failing to deduct tax at source on leave travel concession reimbursements involving foreign travel during the period covered by binding interim directions. Although the exemption was unavailable on merits, the interim directions treated the reimbursements as not constituting income for tax-deduction purposes. A default can arise only where a legally enforceable obligation to deduct tax exists and remains unfulfilled; the subsisting directions displaced that obligation for the relevant period. Consequently, no consequential interest was chargeable.

COVID-19-related unabsorbed fixed overheads that are exceptional, identifiable and non-recurring should be excluded from operating costs when computing the tested party's operating margin, where they materially impair comparability. Capacity-underutilisation adjustment requires comparable-company data and may be determined afresh using statutory information-gathering powers, with an opportunity for the assessee to respond. Under TNMM, transfer-pricing adjustment is confined to international transactions with associated enterprises and cannot extend to unrelated-party dealings. Bad-debt treatment requires verification to prevent double addition. Working-capital adjustment requires evidence of material differences between the tested party and comparables and their effect on price, cost or profit.

Reassessment may cover issues subsequently noticed under the Explanation to Section 147, but only where the reassessment results in an addition or modification on the issue that formed the basis for reopening. Additions arising solely from later verification and enquiries cannot be sustained when no addition is made on the information underlying the Section 148 notice. The stated position requires a nexus between the reopening foundation and an operative reassessment addition before other subsequently detected issues may be assessed.

Section 153D prior approval is a mandatory safeguard in search assessments, requiring an independent, quasi-judicial examination of draft assessment orders, seized material, enquiries and taxpayer replies. Approval spanning multiple assessees and assessment years without showing consideration of relevant records or incriminating material is characterised as mechanical. For non-abated years, additions based on financial material and Form 3CD rather than incriminating material further indicate non-application of mind. Section 292BC applies only to approvals granted on or after 1 April 2021 and does not validate earlier approvals. Mechanical Section 153D approval vitiates assessments framed pursuant to it.

Exemption under Section 11 remains available where a trust registered under Section 12A pursues education, medical relief and relief of the poor, despite earning rental income and licence fees from trust property. These objects fall outside the residual general-public-utility category subject to the restrictive proviso to Section 2(15). Substantial or systematically collected property receipts do not constitute trade, commerce or business without an independent commercial venture, particularly where they fund charitable objects. In the absence of changed objects, non-genuine activities, diversion of funds, or disputed application of income, the proviso does not apply and additions based on denial of exemption are deleted.

Composite letting principles treat receipts for ancillary amenities, furniture and fixtures as income from house property where the facilities are contractually inseparable from, co-terminus with and incapable of independent enjoyment apart from the commercial premises. Separate agreements or apportioned consideration do not change that character where the dominant intention is to enable beneficial occupation; the statutory deduction for house-property income consequently applies. Interest on refinanced borrowings remains deductible where records trace the refinancing to earlier loans used to acquire the property. Continued borrowing from the original lender is not required, although limited verification of fund utilisation and arithmetic may be necessary.

Registration under section 12AB cannot be refused merely because a charitable institution established otherwise than under a written instrument does not furnish a trust deed or memorandum of association. Rule 17A(2) permits such an institution to provide documents evidencing its creation or establishment, including statutory registration records. The relevant enquiry remains charitable objects, genuineness of activities and compliance with laws material to those objects. Where no independent adverse finding exists under section 80G(5), approval cannot be denied solely because section 12AB registration was refused; the approval must be granted.

Penalty proceedings for concealment under section 271(1)(c) require the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction during assessment proceedings, forming the jurisdictional basis for initiation. The deeming provision in section 271(1B) applies only where an assessment or reassessment contains an addition or disallowance and a clear direction to initiate penalty. Where reassessment accepts the returned income without adjustment, a statement that penalty proceedings will be initiated separately is merely prospective and does not establish present satisfaction. Notices issued under section 274 only after assessment completion cannot remedy invalid initiation. Explanation 5A may deem concealment for penalty purposes but does not cure the absence of valid jurisdictional initiation.

Comparable Uncontrolled Price method is appropriate where reliable internal and external data for identical raw materials show that associated-enterprise prices are no higher than independent-supplier and relevant import prices. Consistent acceptance of that method on unchanged transaction and business facts supports its continued application, while replacing it with the Transactional Net Margin Method would breach consistency. Even under TNMM, a diversified manufacturer and service provider without segmental financial data is not functionally comparable to an entity manufacturing only optical fibre. The assessee's arm's length price determination was upheld and the transfer-pricing adjustment was deleted.

Offshore supply profits from equipment, integrated designs and spares were not taxable in India where manufacture and supply operations occurred abroad, title passed on FOB shipment, consideration was received abroad, and no Indian fixed place or supervisory permanent establishment carried on those supplies. The force of attraction rule did not apply without a relevant permanent establishment. Supervisory activities exceeding the treaty threshold created a supervisory permanent establishment; receipts effectively connected with it were taxable as net business profits rather than fees for technical services, avoiding gross taxation and double taxation. Project-specific designs and drawings supplied without any right to commercially exploit intellectual property constituted sale of copyrighted products, not royalty or technical services.

Section 90(2) permits an assessee to choose, independently for each assessment year, the more beneficial treatment under the Income-tax Act or an applicable tax treaty. Where treaty treatment under Article 13 of the India-Mauritius DTAA is elected, capital gains exempt from tax in India do not enter the domestic computation mechanism for set-off of brought-forward losses under Section 74. Short-term capital losses validly determined and carried forward under the Act in earlier years therefore need not be adjusted against treaty-exempt capital gains and remain available for carry forward to subsequent years.

Delayed remittance of deducted TDS may be compounded where an initially approved application was not paid within time because of bona fide financial constraints, including company liquidation. Deposit of the full compounding amount pursuant to a judicial direction justified extending the payment period until the deposit date and reviving the earlier approval. Rejection of the compounding application was set aside, with the prior compounding approval made effective up to the date of payment, subject to additional costs.

Registration under Section 12A cannot be directed solely on unpleaded and unsubstantiated oral assertions of charitable activity. Claims concerning implementation of a charitable healthcare project require supporting material on record or legally admissible additional evidence, with formal notice to the Revenue. Registration granted for later years does not establish eligibility for earlier relevant years, which must be assessed from the activities actually undertaken and evidence available for those years. The registration issue therefore requires fresh determination on the existing record and any legally admissible additional evidence.

Section 153A's extended ten-year period for search-related reassessment is computed from the end of the assessment year relevant to the search year, unlike the six-year period under section 153A(1)(b), which covers years immediately preceding that assessment year. The search assessment year is therefore included as the first year of the ten-year block. For a search conducted in financial year 2023-24, Assessment Year 2024-25 was the first year and Assessment Year 2015-16 the tenth year. Assessment Year 2014-15 fell outside the permissible period, rendering the reassessment notice time-barred and liable to be quashed.

Conditional condonation of delay may be justified where alleged non-service of the assessment order, a prima facie challenge to reassessment jurisdiction, and disputed computation of tax on total turnover rather than taxable income require merits examination. A 570-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned subject to costs, and the appeal was restored for an independent decision on all available grounds without rejection on limitation.