Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act may extend to proceeds of crime held by any person, including a person not named as an accused in the FIR or ECIR. Sections 5 and 8 focus on tracing and freezing tainted property rather than the holder's accused status. Where the property holder fails to establish disclosed, ancestral, or other legitimate sources capable of explaining acquisition, the statutory burden remains undischarged and attachment may be sustained. A prior Supreme Court order warrants release only where it demonstrably concerns the attached properties and directs such relief.

Anticipatory bail in Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings remains an extraordinary discretionary remedy, granted sparingly in economic-offence investigations. Section 45 imposes twin conditions for bail, alongside safeguards governing arrest and bail. The necessity of arrest under Section 19(1) is an additional consideration, but prima facie material indicating the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence weighed against relief. Anticipatory bail was therefore denied.

Going-concern sales in liquidation may receive consequential directions needed to implement the sale effectively, including recognition of revised shareholding and listing arrangements, release of charges, updating credit records, unfreezing accounts, continuity of litigation under new management, continuation of subsisting licences and entitlements, and change of corporate status from liquidation to active. These measures operate subject to applicable filings, fees, ownership-change compliance and independent statutory powers. The clean slate doctrine prevents pre-transfer unpaid claims from being imposed on the purchaser after distribution of sale proceeds. Relief cannot, however, preserve all receivables, create a fresh limitation period, waive stamp duty, taxes or registration charges accepted under sale terms, or grant concessions beyond the transaction documents.

Company-affairs investigations require the Tribunal to satisfy the statutory conditions for investigation, record rational reasons demonstrating necessity, apply its mind to the prescribed circumstances, and give the affected company or persons a reasonable opportunity of hearing. These safeguards apply before investigative steps are initiated or external agencies are asked to provide tracking information, because such directions may have civil, economic and reputational consequences. Directions to the Enforcement Directorate and Central Bureau of Investigation for tracking information issued without recorded satisfaction, reasons or prior hearing are unsustainable. Any reconsideration of their necessity must follow a hearing and an order made in accordance with law.

Restricted import of second-hand goods, other than capital goods, requires authorisation under the Foreign Trade Policy. Their restricted status may make them liable to confiscation, but does not by itself justify absolute confiscation. Denial of redemption on payment of fine requires specific, reasoned exercise of discretion under the Customs Act; absent recorded reasons, redemption should remain available. Penalties for improper importation and penalties for false or incorrect declarations rest on distinct statutory bases. A penalty imposed under one provision cannot be enhanced or substituted under the other without the requisite legal basis. The original redemption option and penalty framework were restored.

Extended limitation for customs duty requires deliberate non-disclosure of material facts with intent to evade duty; prior departmental knowledge and acceptance of the declared classification therefore precluded extended-period liability. Specific classification of woven warp cut-pile fabrics under CTH 5801, rather than headings based on constituent textile material, applied because the pile-fabric heading governed their essential character; the live consignments remained so classified. Alternative CVD and SAD exemption claims may be raised after clearance absent fraud but require fact-based determination of notification conditions, requiring remand for merits review. Prior acceptance also negated blameworthy conduct, so confiscation and penalties did not survive.

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers appointed as customs officers and assigned proper-officer functions may issue recovery notices under the Customs Act. Assignment of functions relating to assessment and recovery distinguishes the statutory roles under the relevant provisions and defeats a jurisdictional objection to such notices. Personal penalties for smuggling prohibited goods are sustainable where an admitted arrangement with de facto importers enabled clearance of concealed goods for cash consideration, demonstrating an active and serious role in the operation. The recovery notice and penalties consequently remain valid on these grounds.

Excess export duty first quantified through departmental reassessment is governed by the reassessment date for refund limitation and statutory interest. Refunds based on an alleged legal error must follow the self-contained mechanism under Section 27 of the Customs Act; the Limitation Act and Article 265 cannot independently override that regime. Where the excess payment was not reflected in the original assessment records, reassessment ascertains the refund entitlement, rendering a pending correction request and refund claim maintainable. Interest under Section 27A runs after three months from reassessment until actual payment, at the notified rate.

Section 110A permits bond, security and conditions for provisional release pending adjudication, but requires a case-specific and proportionate exercise of discretion. For non-prohibited goods involving tariff classification and differential-duty disputes, security should correspond to the disputed duty and be assessed on relevant material, including classification test reports. Compliance with interim security to maintain business operations does not end the importer's grievance or appellate entitlement. A tribunal cannot treat revenue protection as sufficient and dispose of the challenge without deciding the validity and extent of the security demand on merits.

Statutory revision under the Customs Act is the appropriate forum for examining confiscation of baggage goods where the alleged waiver of notice and hearing, oral show-cause notice, and their voluntariness and legal effect are disputed. Although an alternative remedy does not absolutely bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226, its exercise is discretionary and is unsuitable where contested factual questions require examination of the record. The legality of confiscation, penalty, and compliance with the notice requirement remains open for determination by the revisional authority in accordance with law.

Mandatory safeguards under Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act require more than a mechanical pre-printed waiver; such a waiver alone does not meet the notice requirement. Signed contemporaneous statements and a subsequent written acknowledgement may, however, record non-declaration through the Green Channel, receipt of an oral show cause notice, and a request for merits adjudication. Where allegations of coercion, fabricated records, or Red Channel declaration conflict with those records, they require evidentiary assessment and cannot be resolved in Article 226 proceedings. Release of detained gold through mandamus is therefore unavailable absent an undisputed statutory violation, while confiscation and penalty remain for competent adjudication.

Section 123 of the Customs Act shifts the burden of proving lawful acquisition of notified goods only after reasonable belief of smuggling is established through material evidence. Foreign markings, concealment, carrier statements, high purity and inconsistent explanations may support that threshold, while general invoices and stock records lacking a traceable link to seized gold do not discharge the reverse burden. Silver bullion without foreign markings, clandestine transport, or evidence of illicit import does not attract the presumption merely because of stock discrepancies. Indian currency requires cogent evidence connecting it to sale proceeds of smuggled goods before confiscation; suspicion cannot replace proof.

Irrecoverable VAT/CST refund claims arising after sales returns may be deductible as business losses where the tax has been refunded to customers and the loss directly arises from ordinary business activity, even if it is not a bad debt. Export-sale receivables written off after goods are rejected and returned for quality defects may qualify as bad debts where the sales were recognised as income and the amounts are actually written off in the accounts; an earlier year of sale does not by itself defeat the claim. For exempt-income expenditure, availability of own funds may preclude interest disallowance, but administrative expenses may still be disallowed under Rule 8D where the taxpayer's computation is not accepted.

Execution of a registered joint development agreement, coupled with authority for the developer to undertake construction and obtain approvals, did not constitute a transfer under the capital-gains provisions read with the part-performance rule. The owner was entitled to receive her share only after construction, and construction-related access did not itself transfer the property. As the agreement related to an earlier financial year, no long-term capital gain arose in the assessment year in which the addition was made; the capital-gains addition was deleted.

Unexplained-investment addition under Section 69 could not be sustained where the cash-payment computation incorrectly treated the stated total purchase cost as consideration paid in addition to the registered value, available funds explained the actual cash payments, and no corroborative evidence established unexplained investment. Rural agricultural land was not a capital asset for capital-gains purposes where, for Assessment Year 2011-12, distance had to be measured from municipal limits existing on the relevant notification date rather than subsequently expanded limits. Diversion of land at the purchaser's request did not alter its agricultural character for the transaction. Consequently, no taxable unexplained investment or capital gain arose.

Suo motu disallowance of expenditure for failure to deduct tax does not extinguish the separate obligation to deduct and deposit tax under the tax-deduction regime, nor does it preclude consequences for default. Liability concerning year-end expense provisions depends on verified facts rather than aggregate tax-audit disclosures. Relevant verification includes whether provisions identify particular vendors and credited amounts, whether liabilities arise from estimates or invoices, whether entries were reversed, and whether tax was deducted when invoices were received. Deletion of tax and interest demands requires examination of these vendor-wise provisions and subsequent tax-deduction compliance.

Compensation received by BSNL employees under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 is characterised in substance as retrenchment compensation rather than voluntary-retirement compensation taxable beyond the separate statutory exemption. On that characterisation, the payment constitutes a capital receipt and is exempt from income tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The treatment follows coordinate decisions addressing the same scheme compensation.

Reassessment jurisdiction requires a valid statutory notice, clear and specific jurisdictional satisfaction, and approval showing independent scrutiny. Omnibus notices that retain mutually inapplicable contingencies without identifying the relevant search, documents, or alleged income fail to establish jurisdiction. A reassessment cannot materially depart from the recorded satisfaction by adopting a different basis for taxing the transaction. Where reliance is placed on third-party material or statements, the affected person must receive the underlying material and an effective opportunity for cross-examination when specifically requested. Defective notice, vague satisfaction, mechanical approval, and denial of procedural fairness render the reassessment proceedings and resulting order void from inception.

Foreign withholding taxes eligible for double-taxation relief under sections 90 or 91 fall within Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii), even when nil Indian tax liability prevents use of the foreign tax credit. Such taxes therefore cannot be claimed as business expenditure under section 37(1). An additional claim for that deduction may be examined in appellate proceedings where foreign-source income, taxes paid and credit claimed were already disclosed in the return, computation and Form 67, so that no further fact-finding is required; Rule 46A does not warrant threshold rejection. Eligibility for relief, rather than actual credit utilisation, determines the deduction bar.

Deletion of an addition for alleged unexplained expenditure is justified where the taxpayer substantiates purchases through invoices, ledger accounts, bank-payment records, supplier confirmations, transport documents, e-way bills, bill-T receipts and supplier GST returns. Differences between books and GST data require reconciliation, including whether book figures are GST-inclusive and GST figures GST-exclusive. Non-response by suppliers to information notices alone does not warrant an adverse inference when the taxpayer's evidence is unrebutted. Unexplained-expenditure provisions apply only where the source of expenditure remains unproved; documented banking-channel payments establish that source.