SaaS subscription receipts from Indian customers for a standard, non-customised software development kit and dashboard facility did not constitute fees for included services under Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA. Customers integrated the product and generated reports independently, while the provider retained its algorithms, source code and processes; use of technology did not make technical knowledge available for independent post-subscription use. Incidental account management, support and demonstrations did not change the transaction's predominant automated character. The related additions were deleted for both assessment years. Tax deducted at source credit required Assessing Officer verification before grant, and the challenge to penalty initiation for under-reporting was premature.

Penalty under section 271AAB requires undisclosed income as exhaustively defined in its Explanation; a surrender made during a search does not alone establish that statutory character. Land and other advances represent application or outflow of funds rather than an unrecorded income inflow, and deeming provisions for unexplained investments cannot be automatically applied to this self-contained penal provision. Uncorroborated diary notings without verifiable particulars cannot independently prove real transactions or undisclosed income. As the amount was accepted as current-year business income without a requisite finding of undisclosed income, deletion of the penalty on the surrendered advances was sustained.

Revision of an assessment is warranted where the Assessing Officer fails to apply the statutory deeming provisions to additions for undisclosed investment and unexplained cash, omits the applicable special tax rate, and does not consider penalty proceedings. An order is erroneous when based on incorrect facts or law, made without due application of mind, or contrary to natural justice. It is prejudicial to revenue where lawful tax is not realised. The revisional authority may set aside such an assessment, direct further inquiry, and require reassessment under the correct provisions after providing an opportunity of being heard.

Protective assessment of seized jewellery requires independent evidence that the person in physical possession is its actual or beneficial owner where the same jewellery has been substantively assessed in the hands of a company claiming ownership. Physical possession and inability to prove another person's ownership do not displace the Revenue's substantive treatment when the individual consistently denies ownership and no positive material establishes ownership. Failure to pursue a first appeal does not cure the absence of evidence or transform a protective addition into a substantive charge. The protective addition for unexplained jewellery was deleted, and consequential interest was to be recomputed.

Donor-wise records containing names, PANs, addresses and supporting material established the identity of donors to a charitable trust. Undisputed remand-report records could not be displaced merely because donors did not comply with notices or because no further independent verification occurred. Evidence also showed that corpus contributions were intended for the trust's corpus. Voluntary and corpus donations from identified donors therefore could not be treated as anonymous donations, and the related additions were deleted. The challenge to the scrutiny notice was not pressed.

An approved resolution plan binds governmental and statutory authorities and operates on a clean-slate basis for tax proceedings relating to pre-approval periods. Where plan clauses expressly extinguish and require withdrawal of pending tax proceedings concerning the corporate debtor, affiliates and subsidiaries, income-tax jurisdiction cannot be exercised inconsistently with the plan. A legal plea based on subsequent undisputed approval of the plan may be admitted in appellate proceedings where it goes to the root of the matter and requires no fresh factual enquiry. Income-tax appeals for the relevant pre-approval assessment years cannot continue; the taxpayer's appeals succeed on this preliminary issue, the Revenue's appeals fail, and merits issues remain open.

Penalty immunity under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not extend to an independent penalty for failure to obtain a statutory tax audit merely because related quantum additions were settled. The penalty issue remains separately examinable. For futures and options transactions, tax-audit applicability depends on evidence establishing the transaction nature and turnover computation under the ICAI Guidance Note. Where the record does not show whether transactions were futures and options or delivery-based, the tax-audit requirement and consequential penalty require factual verification by the Assessing Officer after the taxpayer provides supporting particulars.

Section 54GB requires an investee company to have been incorporated in India within the stipulated period to qualify as an eligible company for capital-gains exemption. Commencement of business or manufacturing, acquisition of plant and machinery, or MSME registration cannot substitute for the legal incorporation date. A dormant company's later commencement of operations does not change its incorporation date under company law. Although incentive provisions may be construed liberally where ambiguous, an unambiguous exemption condition applies strictly. Investment in a company incorporated before the prescribed period therefore does not qualify for section 54GB exemption.

Transactional Net Margin Method was treated as the most appropriate method for benchmarking purchases by a medical-equipment distributor performing substantial post-import functions, including configuration, integration, installation, training, warranty and maintenance support. The Resale Price Method was considered unsuitable where resale involved significant value addition and risk assumption, and the transfer-pricing adjustment based on that method was deleted. Comparable companies require verification where related-party transactions may exceed the prescribed filter. Verification was also directed to prevent double taxation where a sundry balance written back had already been offered to tax and was again added during return processing. The appeal was partly allowed, with the remaining issues remanded for fresh determination.

Condonation of delay in customs appeals requires a bona fide, satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay. Although "sufficient cause" receives a liberal, justice-oriented construction, that approach does not excuse gross negligence, lack of diligence or prolonged inaction. Participation through counsel, communication of the adjudication order to counsel, departmental efforts to serve the order, and failure to enquire about the outcome for nearly three years may support refusal of condonation; later receipt of an order copy does not explain earlier inaction. Under the Customs Act, High Court review does not permit reappreciation of such factual findings absent perversity, disregard of material evidence or legal error.

Fire-damaged motor cars brought with a vessel for ship-breaking may be classified as scrap where extensive damage has destroyed their identity and utility as motor vehicles, and salvage arrangements restrict disposal to demolition. Such goods are not restricted commercial or passenger vehicles, usable second-hand goods, or prohibited imports; confiscation for import without a licence is therefore not attracted. Unloading requires physical removal of cargo from a vessel; berthing at a notified ship-breaking port is not unloading. Where no unauthorised removal or other statutory contravention is established, neither the scrap cargo nor the vessel carrying it is liable to confiscation, and consequential penalties are unsustainable.

Post-export conversion of free shipping bills into EPCG shipping bills cannot be rejected solely for delay where contemporaneous documentary evidence supports the export. The three-month limitation prescribed by a Board Circular was treated as inconsistent with Section 149, while the one-year period under the 2022 Regulations applies prospectively and does not govern earlier exports. Failure to state EPCG authorisation details in the original free shipping bills is a curable procedural lapse when export duty payment records, invoices and bank realisation documents establish the goods exported and receipt of export proceeds. Conversion must be processed after verification of that evidence.

Interest on delayed customs refunds of excess duty following reassessment commences after three months from receipt of the refund application, rather than from the later reassessment or refund order. Where the importer pursued reassessment and refund but Revenue delayed action for several years, the delay is attributable to Revenue. Interest was therefore payable from 20.02.2019 until the refund date. The applicable rate was 12 per cent, not 6 per cent, because the refund was withheld through prolonged inaction. The balance interest was required to be paid within eight weeks.

Special Additional Duty refund limitation under an amending customs exemption notification is addressed in relation to a claim rejected solely for filing beyond one year. The limitation was treated as requiring read-down because subordinate legislation could not impose a time bar affecting substantive refund rights without applying a statutory limitation under the parent enactment. A contrary High Court view was noted, but the refund claim was treated as covered by the decisions supporting read-down. The time-bar rejection was set aside, with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Imported electric ride-on toy components comprising only 60-65% of the parts needed for a complete toy, with essential components absent, are treated as toy parts rather than complete toys in CKD/SKD condition. Assembly with locally procured or manufactured components and subsequent testing produces a distinct finished product and constitutes manufacture under the concessional-duty import rules. Such imports are classified under CTH 95030091 and qualify for concessional customs-duty exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. The Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020 does not apply because toy parts cannot independently be regarded as toys and BIS certification is not required for them.

Customs valuation rules require the proper officer, before rejecting a declared transaction value, to form reasonable and cogent grounds for doubt, seek necessary information, disclose those grounds when requested, and provide a hearing under Rule 12. An importer's written consent to reassessment may dispense with a speaking order under Section 17(5), but does not make the enhanced value the declared transaction value, waive mandatory valuation procedures, or prevent challenge to final assessment. Enhancement of imported scrap values solely on consent was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh reassessment after statutory compliance and observance of natural justice.

Tribunal jurisdiction to convene a requisitioned extraordinary general meeting is not conditional on the requisitioning member first using its statutory power to call the meeting after Board default; those remedies operate independently. However, intervention in corporate internal management remains exceptional and requires a reasonable factual basis showing that convening the meeting through ordinary statutory or articles-based mechanisms is impracticable. Board division or rejection of a requisition alone does not establish impracticability. Where the requisitioning member neither demonstrates difficulty in convening shareholders nor uses the available statutory mechanism, a direction to convene the meeting lacks the required factual basis and should be set aside.

Committee of Creditors may reconsider a resolution plan at any time before the Adjudicating Authority approves it, including after remand to address statutory stakeholder claims. Directions requiring provision for provident fund, gratuity and other claims became final when unchallenged. Although the resolution applicant sought revision, it declined to increase the plan value when the remanded plan was reconsidered. The Committee of Creditors' commercial decision to reject the plan and proceed with liquidation was treated as non-justiciable in these circumstances. The proposed plan's rejection and the challenge to that rejection were upheld, with no basis for appellate interference.

Earnest money guarantees furnished by scheme proponents in a liquidation process cannot be recovered merely because the proponent withdraws after its proposed scheme is not accepted. The guarantee secures submission of the proponent's own scheme and does not require submission of a scheme meeting the satisfaction of the stakeholders' committee or Adjudicating Authority. Commercial considerations and delay may justify a decision not to continue participating. Without an established legal basis imposing liability, withdrawal does not permit recovery of the guarantee for the liquidation estate. The direction requiring deposit of the earnest money guarantee into the liquidation estate was therefore set aside.

Alleged arrest irregularities did not support bail where the accused was produced before an available Magistrate after court hours and before the Special Court within twenty-four hours. Material showing that the written grounds of arrest were subsequently handed to relatives, together with prompt legal action on the accused's behalf, rebutted the claimed non-communication and showed no prejudice at the bail stage. Money-laundering bail remained unavailable despite prolonged custody because prima facie material linked the accused to providing mule accounts for illegal online betting, indicated a principal role, and raised risks of absconding, witness influence and evidence tampering. Proceedings had progressed towards framing of charges, and bail was refused.