Limitation for an Official Liquidator's claim under Section 446(2) is governed by Article 137. The right to apply accrues on the winding-up order, provided the underlying claim was legally enforceable when winding-up proceedings commenced. Section 458A excludes the period between commencement of winding-up proceedings and the winding-up order, as well as one year immediately following that order. The Liquidator therefore receives the three-year Article 137 period together with the additional one-year exclusion. A claim filed within four years of the winding-up order falls within limitation, defeating a preliminary limitation objection.

Customs valuation must disclose the method and basis used to redetermine the value of imported goods, because valuation underpins duty, interest, fine and penalties. Where that basis is absent, the valuation and resulting liabilities require fresh determination after a reasonable opportunity of hearing and a speaking decision. Permission to re-export goods imported contrary to statutory prohibition does not remove their confiscability or preclude redemption fine. Confiscation and redemption operate separately: prohibited goods remain liable to confiscation, and re-export may be permitted after redemption within the statutory framework.

Customs duty refund claims filed within the prescribed period remain timely where later submissions merely cure perceived documentary deficiencies. A chartered accountant's certificate, importer's self-declaration, import documents and sales-invoice particulars may establish that the duty burden was not passed on, satisfying the unjust-enrichment requirement. Revised certification or document abstracts cannot be insisted upon unless required under the applicable refund framework, particularly where the requested material has subsequently been furnished. The claim must be processed from the date of its original timely filing, and rejection solely because deficiency-curing documents were submitted later is unsustainable.

Preferential tariff benefit under the AIFTA origin regime cannot be denied solely on delayed, partial or inadequately authenticated verification of Certificates of Origin. Rules 7(c) and 7(d) require timely return of the certificate, notice of grounds for non-acceptance, and detailed clarification from the issuing authority; alleged fraud does not displace those safeguards. Uncorroborated signature discrepancies, unavailable test reports, and unverifiable foreign material do not conclusively establish fraudulent origin declarations. Extended limitation for customs duty recovery requires credible proof of the importer's collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression. An importer is not liable for defects in a foreign-issued certificate without evidence of conscious knowledge, active involvement, or procurement of falsification.

Interest is payable on amounts voluntarily deposited during investigation when retained by Revenue and later refunded. The compensatory principle applies from the actual date of deposit until refund, even where the statutory refund-interest provision does not independently confer entitlement. Established precedent supports interest at 12% per annum for the period of Revenue's retention, ensuring compensation for deprivation of the depositor's funds.

National Litigation Policy exceptions for classification issues permit, but do not compel, the Revenue to pursue an appeal falling within an exception to the monetary-limit policy. Where the Tribunal sought confirmation of the policy's applicability, the Departmental Representative did not oppose it, and the later rejection of restoration remained unchallenged, the Revenue could not subsequently invoke those exceptions to require a decision on merits. The substantial question of law was resolved against the Revenue, leaving the appeal closed under the policy.

Section 138B of the Customs Act does not govern evidentiary procedure in Customs Broker licence-revocation inquiries, which are not prosecution proceedings. Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires relevant oral evidence to be taken during inquiry and gives the Customs Broker a right to cross-examine persons examined in support of the charges. Reliance on investigation-stage oral statements without producing the witnesses denies that statutory opportunity. Such denial is a curable procedural irregularity: fresh adjudication may proceed after affording cross-examination and does not amount to allowing the Department to fill a lacuna.

Four opportunities for personal hearing, including an advance-notified virtual hearing, satisfied the requirements of natural justice in revisional proceedings. A claim that counsel attended but the authority did not was unsupported and contradicted by the contemporaneous hearing sheet recording non-appearance. No further hearing was sought before the reserved order was pronounced. An incorrect hearing time recorded in the order was treated as an isolated clerical error, clarified by the hearing sheet, and did not establish procedural unfairness.

Food-safety clearance issued after laboratory analysis under the prescribed food-import procedure conclusively establishes that imported food conforms to applicable safety standards. Customs authorities cannot reopen the categorisation of goods after that clearance or impose a contrary customs reclassification. Applying the governing precedent on roasted arecanuts, seizure of the goods and a bank-guarantee requirement for their provisional release were invalid. The imported goods were required to be released without a bank guarantee.

Secondment of employees to an Indian subsidiary does not create a fixed place permanent establishment where the secondees work solely under the subsidiary's direction, control and supervision, and the foreign enterprise lacks control, liability or rights over the subsidiary's assets or personnel. Under the India-Japan treaty, a dependent agent permanent establishment requires proof that the subsidiary habitually concludes contracts, maintains delivery stock, or secures orders for the foreign enterprise. Separate risk-bearing operations and principal-to-principal offshore purchases, despite corporate and operational links, do not demonstrate the required economic, functional or legal dependence. In those circumstances, offshore supply profits are not attributable to a permanent establishment in India.

Arm's-length-price determination for management support services requires verification of the service agreement, actual rendition, commercial need, taxpayer benefit, costs incurred, allocation keys and benchmarking material. Rule 10AB requires examination of evidence relevant to the need, benefit and rendition tests before a transfer-pricing adjustment can be sustained. Earlier-year treatment may be followed only where the factual matrix, evidentiary record and contractual arrangements are identical, since each assessment year is independently assessable. Where the Transfer Pricing Officer has not examined complete material, the adjustment requires fresh adjudication after evidence review and an opportunity of hearing; the merits remain open.

Absence of exempt income precludes expenditure disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Reconciliation of net salary and PF/ESI accounting can establish that welfare-fund contributions remain within the 27% ceiling under Rule 87 despite an apparent excess. Customer deductions from manpower-service bills for canteen and transportation may qualify as business expenditure under Section 37(1) where invoices substantiate that the costs were incurred in connection with the manpower-services business. These principles support deletion of the related disallowances and recomputation of taxable income.

Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits a respondent to support an appellate order on a ground decided adversely against it without filing a separate appeal or cross-objection, including a reassessment-validity challenge where the material facts are already on record. For an addition under Section 68 based on alleged fictitious profits from client code modifications, contract notes, broker records, bank statements and transaction details may establish the recorded nature of the profits. General investigation information and allegations concerning a trading platform do not establish unexplained income without independent evidence linking the assessee's transactions to undisclosed income, broker collusion, or false documentation.

For assessment year 2022-23, Explanation 4(ii) to Section 11(1) treated repayment of loans from current-year income as application of income. Qualifying restrictions introduced from 1 April 2023 applied prospectively and could not govern the earlier year. Section 263 revision was therefore unavailable where the assessment adopted this legally plausible interpretation. Limited scrutiny had specifically examined the repayment claim, obtained relevant particulars and supporting material, and accepted the explanation. The absence of detailed reasoning in the assessment order did not establish lack of enquiry; revision cannot rest solely on a view that more extensive enquiry was desirable. The original assessment consequently stood restored.

Section 90(2) allows a Mauritius-resident taxpayer to apply either the Income-tax Act or the India-Mauritius tax treaty, whichever is more beneficial; treaty provisions cannot be imposed compulsorily. Capital gains exempt under Article 13 do not enter total-income computation. Where capital losses on shares acquired before 1 April 2017 are determined or claimed under the Act, they may be set off and carried forward under the Act's computation rules. Previously accepted brought-forward losses remain available, requiring taxable income to be recomputed after allowing current-year and brought-forward long-term capital losses.

Notional rental income from unsold flats held as stock-in-trade was not assessable as income from house property where the units formed part of a real-estate project and were used as scheme offices, material stores and sample flats. Section 22 excludes property occupied for business or profession. Actual rent from let-out units had consistently been offered and accepted as business income. An ad hoc notional-rent addition under Sections 22 and 23 lacked proper enquiry, verification, supporting evidence and comparable treatment in other assessment years; therefore, the addition could not be sustained.

Section 151(ii) requires approval from the higher specified sanctioning authority where a reassessment notice is issued more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year. Approval by a Principal Commissioner does not meet that requirement. The prescribed sanction is a jurisdictional safeguard, not an internal administrative formality. Deeming an earlier notice as issued under section 148A(b), or applying TOLA, does not remove the requirement for valid approval before the consequential section 148 notice. Defective approval is not substantial compliance and cannot be cured under sections 292B or 292BB; it invalidates the reassessment notice, proceedings and order.

One-time club house charges, non-refundable corpus fund contributions and municipal taxes paid to a builder during construction may form part of a residential property's cost of acquisition for capital-gains computation where they have a direct and proximate nexus with acquiring the property and its appurtenant rights. Cost of acquisition is not limited to the basic sale price; each payment's purpose and commercial context determine its treatment. Contemporaneous receipts, banking evidence and undisputed genuineness support inclusion. Municipal taxes collected before the occupancy certificate, without evidence of recurring post-acquisition liability, are similarly includible. Tax deduction provisions concerning property transfers do not govern this computation.

Interest on borrowed capital is not disallowable under Section 36(1)(iii) merely because an interest-free advance is made to a family member where the taxpayer's own funds exceed that advance. An established connection between borrowed funds and the non-business advance is necessary, particularly where the overdraft was obtained for business purposes in earlier years. In the absence of evidence showing such nexus or proximity, the interest disallowance was deleted.

Section 200A acquired authority to compute and demand the Section 234E late-filing fee only from 01.06.2015, and that enabling amendment operates prospectively. TDS-statement defaults relating to periods before that date cannot attract the fee merely because the statements were filed or processed after the amendment took effect. Consequently, late-filing fees imposed under Section 234E for pre-01.06.2015 periods are unsustainable and require deletion.