Payments for a non-exclusive, non-transferable and non-sublicensable licence to use software internally do not constitute royalty under Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA where the licensor retains copyright and proprietary rights and the user cannot commercially exploit, modify, sublicense, reverse engineer or copy the software except for backup. Such payments concern use of a copyrighted article, eliminating withholding-tax liability as royalty. Payments for video-conferencing equipment and allied products are not fees for technical services merely because installation, setup and training accompany the supply. Withholding applies only to the separately identified installation, setup and training component, subject to the applicable India-Germany DTAA rate.

Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 immunity protected declared long-term capital gains from further taxation where the taxpayer had disclosed the share-sale gains and paid the prescribed tax. ITAT therefore upheld deletion of the addition for differential share-sale proceeds under section 68. For unabated assessments under section 153A, additions require incriminating material found during the search of the taxpayer. Third-party investigation material and statements recorded in other proceedings did not satisfy that requirement. ITAT sustained deletion of additions relating to alleged bogus capital gains and short-term capital loss, dismissed the Department's appeals, and dismissed unpressed cross-objections.

For charitable trusts, fixed deposits and balances in a scheduled-bank savings account created from capital-asset sale proceeds constitute acquisition of another capital asset for capital-gains exemption under section 11(1A). A bank deposit is a permissible investment mode, and its status as a capital asset does not depend on the deposit duration. Eligibility requires sale proceeds to be invested only in prescribed modes; qualifying fixed deposits and savings balances therefore fall within the exemption.

Pecuniary jurisdiction over statutory notices under section 143(2) must comply with CBDT instructions allocating cases by returned-income limits. Where an Income-tax Officer issues the notice despite the returned income exceeding that officer's prescribed limit, the defect concerns pecuniary rather than territorial jurisdiction; the territorial-jurisdiction objection rule does not apply. CBDT instructions bind the Department, and issue of a jurisdictional notice by an officer without pecuniary authority is an illegality, not a procedural irregularity capable of validation under section 292BB. The notices and consequential assessment were therefore treated as void from inception and quashed; other grounds remained academic.

GST deregistration, subsequent non-filing of returns, a supplier's absence from its address, or vehicle discrepancies do not alone establish that documented purchases are bogus. Purchase orders, subcontract agreements, invoices, delivery records, e-way bills, GST records, attendance and project records, and banking payments support the genuineness of materials, labour, housekeeping and manpower transactions, particularly where books remain unrejected and contracts are undisputed. Incomplete third-party statements or chat extracts not supplied to the taxpayer, and not linked to its transactions, lack evidentiary force. Revenue must establish a nexus between alleged supplier fund diversion and taxpayer transactions; a taxpayer denying a transaction cannot be required to prove a negative.

Foreign leave travel concession paid to employees is taxable as salary and is not exempt. An employer-bank must deduct tax at source on those payments; this obligation is separate from recovery of tax from employees. A stay or suspension of recovery proceedings against employees does not remove the deduction obligation, which applies again once any stay is vacated. Bank branches were treated as assessees in default where tax was neither deducted nor recovered during periods without an operative stay. Interest for non-deduction is mandatory and consequential, although relief may be sought for stayed periods or where an employee has paid self-assessment tax.

Under TNMM, advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure included in operating costs cannot be separately benchmarked where inter-linked agency commission, advertising sales and marketing-service transactions have already been accepted at arm's length. A separate method for that horizontal cost item would distort the arm's-length determination; therefore, substantive and protective AMP adjustments were deleted. Whether working-capital adjustments were already reflected in the tested margins and comparable financials must be verified, since that would preclude a separate interest adjustment on outstanding receivables. The Form 26AS income mismatch, including claimed associated-enterprise receipts and mutual-agreement-procedure coverage, requires factual verification with admitted additional evidence. Both verification issues were remitted for fresh decision.

Foreign-currency loans repayable in US dollars were benchmarked using LIBOR plus 300 basis points rather than a domestic lending rate, and that transfer-pricing direction was sustained. Under TNMM, comparables must satisfy functional and product comparability; sectorally distinct engineering services and aluminium-capacitor manufacturing entities were excluded. No arm's-length interest adjustment applied to delayed associated-enterprise receivables where no interest was charged to either associated or non-associated enterprises and transaction pricing already reflected margins. Expenditure relating to investments could not be disallowed where no exempt dividend income was received or receivable during the year. The assessee's and Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

Revision for inadequate inquiry under section 263 requires a showing that the Assessing Officer's inquiry was inadequate; a different revisional view alone does not satisfy Explanation 2(a). Reassessment initiated on specific information about alleged penny-stock share transactions involved queries and consideration of contract notes, brokerage and ledger records, and bank statements. Acceptance of short-term capital gains as genuine was therefore a plausible view. The reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue interests, the revision was annulled, and the proposed-addition challenge became infructuous.

High-sea merchant trading conducted through back-to-back USD sales, supported by letters of credit, may justify selecting the foreign associated enterprise as the tested party under the Resale Price Method where the Indian entity bears no significant inventory, collection, market or foreign-exchange risk and has minimal working-capital needs. The associated enterprise's trading margins with unrelated parties can serve as comparable uncontrolled transactions. Steel manufacturers are not functionally comparable to pure merchant traders because their functions, assets and risks materially differ. Currency conversion does not materially affect the analysis where both purchase and sale transactions are denominated in USD.

Expiry of the period for issuing a show-cause notice precluded further departmental proceedings concerning detained gold articles, as additional action would prolong the matter and cause undue harassment. The recorded collective weight of the gold bangle and chain in the release order was corrected. Release remained subject to payment of applicable customs duty and warehousing charges, but those charges were limited to the period ending on the original release order. Release also remained subject to any order passed in a pending Supreme Court SLP.

Natural rubber latex toy balloons are classified under the specific toy-balloon tariff heading rather than residual vulcanised-rubber or general festive-article headings. HSN Explanatory Notes expressly include toy balloons, and General Rule for Interpretation 1 gives priority to the heading that specifically describes their function; a notification clarification supports the same treatment. Deliberately changing classification from the toy heading to avoid BIS conformity requirements, coupled with incorrect exemption use, evidences mala fide intent and supports penal consequences for customs-duty evasion.

Customs valuation rules permit rejection of a declared transaction value where higher National Import Database values for contemporaneous identical goods give reasonable doubt as to its truth or accuracy. Comparable imports must be at the same commercial level, in comparable quantities and from the same country of origin; the lowest comparable value may be adopted. An importer's earlier self-assessed import does not displace such comparables where product specifications are absent from invoices and packing lists. Failure to issue a speaking assessment order does not itself invalidate the assessment where the importer may seek issuance of that order from the competent authorities.

Drawback recovery from an exporter whose goods were shipped under another entity's IEC requires evidence that the exporter actually received the drawback; ICES ordinarily credits the IEC holder's bank account. Recovery is an execution proceeding, but interest liability arises only upon proof of payment to that exporter. Goods already taken outside India are exported goods, not export goods liable to confiscation under section 113, so consequential section 114 penalties fail. Export through another person's IEC may breach foreign trade law, but section 114AA penalties require evidence of knowing or intentional use of materially false customs declarations or documents. The Tribunal set aside recovery and penalties, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

Foreign customs declarations received through proper channels, with authenticated English translations, attract the statutory presumption for documents received from outside India; absent rebuttal, they may establish import undervaluation. Statements made to Customs officers under summons are admissible because those officers are not police officers, and may corroborate such declarations. The Tribunal held that discrepancies in declared quantity and brand justified rejection of transaction value under the Customs Valuation Rules. Valuation then had to proceed sequentially, and use of identical goods from the same exporter supported redetermination. Differential duty and the mandatory equal penalty for wilful misstatement and suppression were restored.

Residual customs penalty provisions apply only where a contravention, abetment, or statutory non-compliance is established and no separate penalty is prescribed. Penalty discretion must be exercised reasonably, rationally, and proportionately; it cannot justify a mechanical maximum penalty where a bona fide re-export request, unobjectionable goods, unavailable transport, and required no-objections reveal no identified breach. The penalty was therefore set aside. Detention and demurrage arising from Customs-attributable delay in permitting re-export cannot fairly be imposed on the importer or exporter after compliance with re-export conditions. A waiver certificate was directed for charges accruing until the let export order became available.

Re-export of imported goods declared as mixed metal scrap but treated as e-waste warranted substantial reduction of redemption fine and penalty because the goods never entered home consumption. Classification as e-waste rested solely on a Chartered Engineer's report, which was not conclusive evidence for classification. The redemption fine and penalty were each reduced, and the challenge succeeded in part.

Unauthenticated electronic invoices and computer printouts could not establish undervaluation of imported heavy earth-moving machinery. Unsigned invoices did not attract the statutory presumption under section 139, while computer-generated invoices were inadmissible because safeguards for electronic records under section 138C(2) were not met. Statements alleging extra remittances to the overseas supplier lacked independent corroboration and admissible supporting evidence. Substantially identical evidence from the same investigation had already been found insufficient in connected proceedings. The redetermined value, differential duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were set aside, with consequential relief.

Corporate insolvency admission requires the outstanding default on the date of admission to meet the statutory minimum threshold. Part-payments made before admission reduce the debt in default for this purpose, and financial creditors must disclose those payments to the Adjudicating Authority. Where the remaining default falls below the threshold, admission of the insolvency application cannot be sustained. The admission was set aside because pre-admission repayments reduced the outstanding default below the applicable minimum, and CIRP costs were directed to be borne by the appellant.

Judicially fixed interest at 9% per annum on balance loan dues was maintained after the principal and substantial interest had been repaid and the insolvency admission was set aside. Although loan terms ordinarily bind parties, judicial relief may be moulded for the nature and circumstances of insolvency proceedings. Replacing that rate with contractual default interest of 3% per month would have converted closed corporate insolvency resolution proceedings into a recovery mechanism, contrary to the Code's objectives. Supreme Court liberty to seek modification conferred no entitlement to enhanced interest; any contractual claim may be pursued before the forum specified in the loan agreement. The modification application was dismissed.