Statutory savings under Section 49 of FEMA and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserve FERA offences, accrued penal liabilities, penalties and related proceedings after FERA's repeal. FEMA's appellate provision supplies the forum without changing the penal character of saved FERA adjudications. Original Side revenue-appeal procedures apply to civil FEMA contraventions rather than saved FERA penal proceedings. Appeals challenging penalties for saved FERA contraventions are therefore maintainable in criminal appellate jurisdiction, and the preliminary objection to maintainability fails.

Delayed-payment interest for raw materials supplied during CIRP and liquidation requires a contractual or otherwise binding basis. Where invoices contain no interest stipulation, no separate agreement imposes interest, and a private association circular is non-binding, no additional interest claim arises. Acceptance without objection of the audited amount, coupled with an undertaking that payment constituted full and final settlement with no further proceedings, estops the operational creditor from pursuing further claims. Unsupported allegations of financial duress do not displace that undertaking.

Reopening a finalised valuation is barred by res judicata where valuation objections, including alleged mathematical errors and asset-base reassessment, were previously determined in appellate proceedings and the Supreme Court declined interference. Failure to use available opportunities before the registered valuer and Tribunal cannot justify a fresh valuation after final determination. Liberty to seek further directions for implementing the original order is confined to execution and does not reopen the valuation mechanism. The doctrine of merger does not permit re-agitation of settled matters; renewed challenges undermine finality of litigation and constitute abuse of process.

Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act permits the Central Government to assign an SFIO investigation in public interest where its opinion rests on relevant and demonstrable circumstances. Judicial review is limited to the decision-making process and does not permit reassessment of the adequacy of material unless the action is arbitrary, relies on irrelevant material, or shows non-application of mind. Quashing an FIR after settlement with certain homebuyers did not negate broader allegations of false loan documents and fund siphoning. The recorded investigation scope concerning transactions, money trail, diversion of funds, and beneficiaries supported the order's validity and excluded judicial interference.

The proviso to Section 129A(1) excludes Tribunal appellate jurisdiction over Commissioner (Appeals) orders concerning goods imported or exported as passenger baggage. This exclusion turns on the mode and category of import, not on whether the goods were bona fide, duty-free eligible, declared, or liable to confiscation. Gold recovered from an arriving passenger remains baggage under Section 77 despite allegations of smuggling. Appeals concerning such baggage-related orders must therefore be pursued by revision before the Revisional Authority under Section 129DD, rather than before the Tribunal.

Timely customs appeals filed without the mandatory first-appellate pre-deposit contain a curable procedural defect. Section 129E bars entertainment, rather than presentation, of an appeal without deposit; notice of the deficiency and an opportunity of hearing are required before dismissal. Final appellate determination may be appropriate without remand where demands have no independent basis beyond refund-review orders already set aside or recalled. Recovery notices for erroneous refunds may be issued under Section 28 while refund review proceedings are pending, including to protect limitation, but their enforceability remains consequential on the refund outcome. Demands founded solely on overturned refund-review orders cannot survive once refund entitlement has attained finality.

Proof of service of an Order-in-Original is necessary to compute limitation; where no earlier service is established and a copy is supplied through the RTI process, an appeal filed thereafter is timely. For unmarked gold carried on a domestic journey, Section 123 of the Customs Act shifts the burden only after reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled. Foreign origin must be established, and an uncorroborated statement retracted within days cannot alone support confiscation or penalty. A domestic passenger is not subject to the baggage-declaration requirement applicable to international passengers, leaving the statutory conditions for confiscation and penal liability unfulfilled.

AIFTA preferential Basic Customs Duty depends on the prescribed regional value-content threshold, and a Certificate of Origin issued by the competent Thai authority certifying compliance cannot be disregarded without a genuine challenge or corroborative evidence. Domestic DGFT wastage norms for Indian silver-jewellery manufacturers do not apply to goods manufactured abroad and cannot support recomputation of regional value content. Denial of preferential treatment on assumptions or presumptions undermines the related valuation basis; declared-value enhancement, differential-duty demands, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties consequentially lack support.

Preferential certificates of origin require verification within the prescribed six-month period under the applicable Rules of Origin. Extended limitation for recovery of short-paid customs duty requires evidence of the importer's collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or knowledge of certificate defects. An alert concerning non-corresponding goods, or verification emails not disclosed in the show-cause process, does not establish certificate invalidity and conflicts with principles of natural justice. Where imported goods have been cleared and are unavailable, confiscation and redemption fine require an independently sustainable basis; they cannot rest on an unsustainable duty demand or alleged exemption misuse.

Section 24(4)(a)(i) permits provisional attachment only of property previously attached under Section 24(3); attachment of other property requires recourse to Section 24(4)(b)(i). Failure to cite, or citation of an incorrect, clause under Section 2(9) does not invalidate action where the stated facts otherwise disclose a benami transaction. Material obtained in income-tax proceedings may be relied upon, particularly where additional evidence exists. A benami allegation under Section 2(9)(A) requires proof that the alleged beneficial owner funded the purchase consideration and that the property was held for that person's benefit. Earlier funding without a demonstrated nexus to the purchase does not satisfy that burden, supporting refusal to confirm attachment.

Benami status under Section 2(9)(A) requires consideration from a person other than the ostensible holder and property held for that person's benefit. Corroborated statements identifying beneficial owners, later transfers to their family members, unexplained reduction in transfer value, and involvement of persons connected with a beneficial owner may support that finding. Absence of bank records showing funding by the registered holder and unsupported claims of agricultural income, ancestral-land sale proceeds, or other sources weaken assertions of independent ownership. An unexplained retraction of a sworn statement may not displace corroborative evidence. Restrictions on transfer of Scheduled Caste land may also support an inference that the registered holder's name was used to circumvent statutory restrictions, justifying confirmation of provisional attachment.

Reassessment based on investigation information requires the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind. A substantial mismatch between the alleged escaped income in the recorded reasons and the loss ultimately disallowed indicates borrowed satisfaction, rendering the reopening invalid. For share transactions alleged to be penny-stock accommodation entries, contract notes, bank and broker records, demat statements, and investment records can discharge the taxpayer's evidentiary burden where trades occurred through a registered broker on the stock exchange. In the absence of identified defects in that evidence, a general allegation of penny-stock dealings cannot justify disallowing a short-term capital loss.

Belated furnishing of the Form 10B audit report by a registered charitable trust does not, by itself, defeat substantive eligibility for exemption under sections 11 and 10(23C). Where the report is available during appellate proceedings, the filing requirement is procedural and directory despite delayed furnishing after return processing. Exemption should therefore be granted rather than denied solely for technical delay in furnishing the audit report.

Unverified purchases supported by invoices, banking payments, stock records, quantitative reconciliation and accepted sales cannot be wholly disallowed merely because named suppliers are suspicious or untraceable. Where stock movement and corresponding sales establish that goods were acquired, doubt about the actual supplier supports taxation only of any additional margin or savings from alternative sourcing. Undisclosed third-party material and incomplete transport details cannot conclusively override documentary and quantitative evidence. An ad hoc 10% addition without reference to trading margins, disclosed gross profit or comparable material is unsustainable. Only an additional gross-profit element of 2% of disputed purchases, beyond disclosed gross profit, is taxable.

Retracted survey admissions cannot alone displace profits disclosed in audited books where no defects or corroborating material are identified. Unsecured loans are not unexplained cash credits where confirmations, lenders' income-tax returns and bank statements establish the transactions, particularly when repayment occurs during the relevant year. Contractual expenditure is not disallowable merely for short deduction of tax at source; disallowance applies where tax is not deducted. Capital introduced is explained where bank records trace it to withdrawals from the taxpayer's proprietary concern. These principles render the respective additions unsustainable and require recomputation of income.

Penalty notices under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) must clearly identify whether the alleged default is concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Retaining both statutory limbs without deleting the inapplicable charge fails to give the assessee clear notice of the accusation and impairs the opportunity to respond effectively. This defect invalidates the initiation of penalty proceedings, and a consequential penalty order cannot be sustained.

Fully disclosed claims for deduction of employees' PF and ESI contributions do not constitute under-reporting of income merely because subsequent judicial clarification requires deposits within statutory due dates. Section 270A penalises under-reporting, whereas section 36(1)(va) governs deductibility of employees' contributions. Disclosure in the tax-audit report, books and return, coupled with a claim consistent with the then-prevailing legal position, means that a later disallowance does not establish under-reporting or inaccurate particulars. Penalty under section 270A is therefore unsustainable on those facts.

Unsecured-loan additions require contrary material where creditor identity, financial capacity and transaction genuineness are supported by tax, banking and confirmation records; suspicion about preceding cash deposits alone is insufficient. Purchase inflation cannot be inferred by comparing purchased rice with closing stock where the purchased goods were sold and closing stock comprises manufactured rice consistently valued at lower of cost or market value. Estimated yield-based additions require valid rejection of books of account before best-judgment assessment. Cash purchases from farmers may be verified through contemporaneous registers, gate passes and vouchers, particularly where audited records correlate purchases, production and sales. Additions lacking evidentiary or legal foundation are unsustainable.

Transfer-pricing margins under the Transactional Net Margin Method treat trade-receivable bad-debt provisions, rates and taxes, business-related receipts, and deferred operating-revenue amortisation as operating items. Comparable selection requires functional, asset and risk analysis, uniform related-party transaction filtering, and exclusion of entities affected by extraordinary events, high-end functions, or materially different scale. Distribution adjustments remain limited to associated-enterprise transactions and use gross-margin comparison under the Resale Price Method. Working-capital differences require average-balance analysis. Delayed associated-enterprise receivables do not warrant notional interest without demonstrated financing cost, arrangement, or benefit. Intra-group services cannot be priced at nil without valid method selection, comparability analysis, or evidence of shareholder activity; the segmental computation requires recomputation accordingly.

Interest on qualifying tax-free bonds remains exempt even where it was mistakenly disclosed as taxable income in the return. Rectification is available where the erroneous classification is apparent from the record, particularly when the interest was consistently treated as exempt in other years. Correcting such an error does not amount to making a fresh claim; it gives effect to the statutory exemption. Expiry of the period for filing a revised return does not prevent correction of an apparent mistake through rectification.