Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable where a taxpayer fully discloses a slump-sale transaction, consideration and negative net worth, but computes capital gains by treating negative net worth as nil on a bona fide legal interpretation. A claim that is ultimately unsustainable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars merely because a quantum addition is sustained or not contested. Divergent Tribunal views and admission of a substantial question of law support the conclusion that the treatment of negative net worth was genuinely debatable. The penalty deletion was sustained and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Business dependence on regulatory affairs and compliance processes established an associated-enterprise relationship, which was sustained because the relationship had also been accepted in transfer-pricing documentation. Foreign associated-enterprise selection as the tested party was rejected where reliable foreign comparable data was not readily accessible and geographical and economic conditions differed; the assessee was retained as the tested party. Domain-specific regulatory affairs services were not treated as KPO services merely by reference to the Rule 10TA definition, and comparables from diverse R&D, engineering, IT, advertising and gaming activities were unsuitable. Fresh benchmarking and comparable selection were directed in line with the assessee's FAR profile after a hearing opportunity.

Trade and quantity discounts received by a milk resale agent constituted an explained source of income where bank statements showed that sale proceeds were deposited into a joint account with the dairy and withdrawn by the dairy on the same day. Treating those discounts as unexplained money was therefore unwarranted. Profit estimation at 70% of the total discounts, with only 30% allowed for storage and distribution expenses, lacked a proper basis. The addition relating to the discounts was deleted.

Foreign withholding tax eligible for double-taxation relief under sections 90 or 91 cannot be deducted as business expenditure merely because nil Indian tax liability prevents use of the credit. Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii) applies based on eligibility for relief, not actual allowance or utilisation; the claimed deduction was therefore rejected. An additional legal claim for that deduction, raised before the first appellate authority, required examination on merits where the return and Form 67 contained the relevant material. Rule 46A did not justify threshold rejection, although the claim ultimately failed.

TDS obligations on year-end expense provisions remain independent of any suo motu disallowance for non-deduction of tax. Such disallowance is intended to secure compliance with withholding requirements but does not eliminate liability for TDS default or consequential interest. General tax-audit disclosures, without vendor-wise details, credited amounts, accounting treatment, and the basis of provisions, cannot establish the nature or extent of TDS liability. Verification is required of subsequent invoice-based TDS deduction, reversal of ad hoc provisions, and entries claimed to be outside TDS requirements before determining default and consequential liability.

For foreign-marked gold, the reverse burden applies once the statutory conditions are met, requiring specific, credible and traceable evidence linking lawful acquisition to the seized articles. General business records and GST invoices that do not correspond to the seized gold, explain its foreign markings, or reconcile with relevant accounts do not discharge that burden; confiscation of the gold was therefore justified. For silver bullion, the burden does not shift without reasonable belief of smuggling, supported by a nexus beyond stock discrepancies; relief from confiscation was sustained. Cash may be confiscated as sale proceeds only on cogent evidence linking it to smuggled goods, not suspicion. Penalties were correspondingly reduced to 50 per cent.

Writ jurisdiction cannot support mandamus for release of detained gold where alleged non-compliance with Customs Act notice and seizure safeguards depends on disputed facts. Statutory requirements for notice and release of seized goods must be observed, and a mechanical pre-printed waiver alone does not establish compliance. However, a passenger's signed statement and later written acknowledgement of receiving an oral show cause notice may constitute contemporaneous material that cannot be disregarded in favour of later allegations of coercion, fabrication, or prior declaration of goods. Such evidentiary disputes require determination before the competent Customs authority or another appropriate forum. The petition for release was dismissed without deciding confiscation or penalty.

Availability of a statutory revision in baggage confiscation matters may warrant declining writ jurisdiction where alleged procedural breaches depend on disputed facts. Although an alternative remedy does not automatically preclude a writ petition alleging natural justice or jurisdictional defects, disputes over waiver of written notice, oral notice, the alleged statement and voluntariness of contemporaneous documents require factual examination in revision. The writ petition challenging confiscation of a gold bar and consequential penalty was not entertained, with merits left open for statutory revision. A revision filed within the stipulated period could not be rejected merely because the petitioner had first approached the High Court.

Clinical Research Organisations performing sponsor-approved clinical trials qualify for service-tax exemption on technical testing and analysis of newly developed drugs, even though regulatory approval is issued to the sponsor rather than separately to the CRO. Employee bond deposits forfeited on premature resignation are compensation for breach of an employment undertaking, not consideration for commercial training or coaching or for tolerating an act. Extended limitation requires deliberate suppression or other specified conduct with intent to evade tax; prior departmental disclosures and a tenable belief in exemption negate that requirement. Consequently, the technical-testing and training-related demands fail, with the latter also time-barred. Interest and penalties cannot survive where no principal tax demand or intent to evade is established.

Refund of excess export duty following reassessment of steel-slab shipping bills remains subject to statutory refund limitation; an alleged mistake of law cannot invoke general limitation law or Article 265 to bypass it. Where additional duty paid by challan was absent from shipping bills, Let Export Orders and contemporaneous assessment records, and a departmental recomputation constituted reassessment, the excess became ascertainable only on reassessment. A prior refund application read with a pending correction request was therefore within time. Interest on delayed refund runs from the day after three months from reassessment, rather than from the earlier application, because the claim could not be both premature before ascertainment and overdue for interest purposes.

Personal penalties for participation in smuggling were sustained where the appellant and customs broker conspired with de facto importers to clear containers concealing prohibited R-22 gas and admitted acting for monetary consideration. This conduct established a serious role in the smuggling operation. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers appointed as customs officers and assigned proper-officer functions may issue show cause notices for customs-duty recovery. Assessment and recovery of short-paid duty are distinct statutory functions, so the earlier contrary jurisdictional view did not invalidate the notice. The jurisdictional challenge failed and the appeal was dismissed.

Departmental knowledge of identical imports and prior acceptance of the declared classification negated suppression and intent to evade duty; the extended-period duty demand and related interest were therefore set aside. Woven warp cut-pile fabrics were correctly classified under CTH 5801 because that specific heading for woven pile fabrics prevailed over general silk or rayon fabric headings, irrespective of rayon predominance. Exemptions not claimed at clearance may be claimed at adjudication, absent fraud, if substantive and procedural conditions are met; the alternative CVD and SAD claims require fresh merits determination, with any duty and interest confined to the normal period. Prior departmental acceptance also excluded deliberate misclassification, preventing confiscation and penalties.

Restricted second-hand parts of capital goods imported without the required authorisation may be confiscated, but restriction alone does not justify absolute confiscation without specific reasons. Where the goods are restricted rather than prohibited, redemption on payment of fine remains available. Penalty for importing such goods was treated under the provision applicable to improper import; enhancement under a separate provision operating on different premises was not sustainable. The appellate order directing absolute confiscation and enhancing the penalty was set aside, while the original order allowing redemption and imposing the applicable import penalty was restored.

Section 213(b) requires recorded satisfaction, reasons showing application of mind, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an investigation into company affairs, or preliminary steps towards it, is directed. Requests to external investigative agencies for tracking information at the initial stage cannot proceed without a rational basis, compliance with those statutory conditions, and prior hearing of affected parties. Directions issued without these safeguards are contrary to natural justice and require fresh consideration after hearing the affected party.

Residuary jurisdiction in liquidation permits incidental and consequential directions necessary to give commercial effect to a going-concern sale, including revised shareholding, fresh equity, listing-related steps, removal of historical encumbrances, and restoration of active corporate status, subject to applicable procedures and regulatory powers. A going-concern purchaser receives clean-slate protection from pre-sale liabilities, while pending proceedings may continue in the corporate debtor's name under new management without determining their merits. Subsisting licences, approvals and contractual rights continue subject to compliance obligations. Relief extending to all receivables or creating a fresh limitation period is unavailable w.....

Arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires more than formal satisfaction of statutory conditions: the necessity and need for arrest must also be assessed. Anticipatory bail remains an exceptional discretionary remedy, particularly in economic offences, requiring a balance between personal liberty and the investigating agency's need for interrogation and evidence collection. Relevant considerations include the accusation's gravity, the applicant's antecedents, risk of absconding, and the effect of pre-arrest protection on the investigation. Prima facie involvement in the alleged money-laundering offence led to refusal of anticipatory bail and dismissal of the criminal petition.

Equivalent-value attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act requires that proceeds of crime have been passed on or layered and are unavailable with the person or entity to whom they were laundered. Attachment was not justified where subsidiary companies had no established money trail to the alleged kickback. Provisional attachment also requires a real likelihood that confiscation will be frustrated; mortgaged properties subject to admitted insolvency proceedings could be sold or transferred only under National Company Law Tribunal orders. The confirmation order was set aside, and the properties remained subject to the insolvency proceedings.

Fair-hearing requirements require supply of documents relied on in pleadings where the retention order is founded on them; service of a panchnama alone does not provide an adequate opportunity to respond. Retention of seized documents is justified only when they are relied on in a prosecution complaint or supplementary complaint and required to prove the case against an accused. Documents not so required must be released within a reasonable time, while authenticated photocopies may be retained. The retention direction was consequently limited to documents necessary as prosecution evidence.

Penalty under Rule 26 for dealing in goods liable to confiscation requires proof that the person acquired, possessed or dealt with excisable goods knowing or believing them to be liable to confiscation. Allegations of clandestine removal require affirmative evidence across the production and supply chain, including unaccounted procurement and production, transport and clearance, identified buyers' receipt, and unaccounted consideration; recovered diaries or notepads alone do not establish their contents as true. Statements recorded during investigation may be relied on where examination and cross-examination opportunities were provided but not used, without violating natural justice.

Taxability of a U.S. Economic Impact Payment in India remains unsettled. One approach treats it as taxable global income absent a specific exemption, while another regards a genuine refundable tax-credit payment as lacking the character of taxable income. Tax-free treatment in the United States is relevant but not determinative. Separately, a non-taxable payment may still be included in aggregate deposits for Category B foreign-bank-account valuation if credited by 31 March 2026. Payment classification should be supported by bank statements, dates, and IRS records.