Customs enforcement against undeclared gold importation involved interception of a passenger arriving from Sharjah at Ahmedabad airport following passenger profiling. A gold chain concealed inside clothing was recovered after it was not declared for customs purposes. The chain was seized and the passenger was arrested under the Customs Act, 1962, before being released on bail, with further investigation continuing.

Digital arrest cyber fraud allegedly used impersonation of law-enforcement and central banking officials, fabricated notices, threats of arrest and continuous video communications to coerce a retired railway employee into disclosing financial details and transferring funds for purported verification. The alleged proceeds were routed through mule and shell accounts. Banking records, KYC details, digital evidence and transaction trails allegedly connected a recipient account with suspicious transactions and multiple cyber-fraud cases; part of the cheated amount was recovered or refunded.

CPI(M) alleges that enforcement action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in the CMRL matter is politically motivated targeting of Pinarayi Vijayan, family members and party associates. It contends that searches, questioning and public communications during the investigation were used to create suspicion without incriminating evidence, and characterises references to hawala as a new investigative narrative. The party also alleges selective anti-money-laundering enforcement against opposition leaders and states that the company will address the CMRL-related matter.

Money-laundering proceedings concerning alleged financial irregularities in liquor transport led to the arrest of former Andhra Pradesh minister Karumuri Nageswara Rao under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The inquiry concerns alleged wrongful loss to the government exchequer arising from liquor-transport operations. Investigative measures included raids and the arrest of Rao's son, along with arrests of a former state beverages corporation managing director and the person described as the principal accused.

Alleged forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy concern purported unauthorised changes to LLP statutory records filed with the Registrar of Companies. The allegations include use of false documents to remove a nominated partner, substitute another person as partner and transfer a partner's interest in the LLP. The matter also draws attention to separate land-collaboration allegations and delayed possession claims by homebuyers in a halted housing project.

Voluntary production curtailment by weaving units is being adopted in response to increased polyester yarn and related input costs. Units may reduce shifts or observe periodic holidays according to individual commercial feasibility to limit yarn consumption until prices and fabric-market conditions stabilise. Industry representatives allege that yarn-price increases exceed corresponding input-cost movements and seek examination of possible artificial pricing, along with customs-duty relief on yarn and relevant inputs.

Eligibility for Duty Drawback and RoDTEP on exports to Nepal and Bhutan is governed by the respective Customs notifications where specific conditions differ from amended FTP provisions. INR-denominated settlement permitted under the FTP does not itself confer export-incentive entitlement. Drawback and RoDTEP conditions operate independently under the Customs framework and continue unless the relevant notifications are amended. The FTP governs the permissibility and manner of export and payment, whereas Customs notifications determine admissibility of fiscal benefits.

G.I. wire welded mesh made of iron and steel is classifiable as wire mesh under Sub-heading 73142090, rather than poultry-keeping machinery under Sub-heading 84362900, because it is goods of general application and its use in poultry equipment is not exclusive. Iron cages without automatic devices do not constitute poultry-keeping machinery; excise duty, interest and penalties consequently apply. Freight paid to individual truck operators does not attract service tax under reverse charge as Goods Transport Agency service unless the transport provider issues a consignment note. In the absence of evidence of payments to a Goods Transport Agency, service tax, interest and consequential penalties are not leviable.

Approval under section 10(23C) requires adjudication on the material relevant to the applicant's registration, activities and financial position after a meaningful opportunity to respond. Rejection and cancellation of provisional approval based on non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, alleged diversion of funds through construction on trustees' land and profitability were restored for fresh adjudication because requested information had not been furnished by the earlier representative, while subsequent documents included trust registration and audited financial statements. The Commissioner (Exemption) must reconsider the application on merits after granting a hearing, without any finding on eligibility for approval.

Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was available to a co-operative housing society for the disputed income. The entitlement followed substantially similar findings in the society's earlier assessment years, supported by the applicable Supreme Court ruling and coordinate-bench decisions. Applying that established position, the disallowance of the deduction was deleted.

Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land constitutes an accretion to the value of the acquired land. It forms an integral part of enhanced compensation, rather than interest for delayed payment. Provisions governing taxation and timing of interest receipts, including Sections 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) and 145A(b), do not alter that compensatory character. Consequently, Section 28 interest forms part of exempt enhanced compensation under Section 10(37) and is not taxable as income from other sources.

Employee stock option scheme expenditure actually incurred and cross-charged by a parent entity is deductible as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. Characterising the cost as notional, contingent or capital does not justify disallowance where jurisdictional High Court and coordinate bench rulings recognise ESOP costs as revenue expenditure. Consistency also supports deduction where the identical issue on unchanged facts has been accepted for the same taxpayer in an earlier assessment year.

Penalty proceedings for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars require a notice that clearly specifies the applicable charge. Retaining both alternative limbs in a notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c), without striking out the inapplicable limb, prevents an effective response and invalidates the proceedings. Assessment context or separately recorded satisfaction does not cure this defect. The penalty was consequently deleted because the notice failed to identify the precise charge.

Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on enhanced compensation for compulsorily acquired agricultural land forms an accretion to the land value and is part of enhanced compensation, unlike Section 34 interest for delayed payment. The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 provisions governing taxation of compensation interest addressed timing and did not change the character of Section 28 interest. Where assessment followed enquiry into the receipt and exemption claim, acceptance of the claim was supported by the Supreme Court position or was at least a possible view on a debatable issue. Revision based only on an audit objection and a contrary High Court view lacking consideration of that position was unsustainable.

Cash deposits supported by documentary evidence of land-sale proceeds cannot be treated as unexplained. The sale deed and bank statement established that part of the deposits arose from the land sale, requiring deletion of the addition to that extent. The balance deposit remained unexplained because no satisfactory source was established, and the addition was sustained for that portion.

An alleged legal heir cannot maintain an appeal for a deceased assessee without establishing legal representative status. Representation requires proof that the person represents the deceased's estate or has intermeddled with it, or that proceedings have been initiated against that person in a representative capacity under the applicable statutory provision. In the absence of either proof of representation or representative-capacity proceedings, the alleged heir lacks competence to pursue the appeal.

Failure to file Form 10IC within the prescribed time may be treated as an inadvertent procedural error where a domestic company has elected the concessional tax regime under Section 115BAA in its return of income. Filing the form later with an incorrect assessment year does not by itself defeat the claim where the return evidences the election. Form 10IC should be considered and the claim for concessional taxation examined afresh, subject to verification that all remaining statutory conditions are satisfied.

Cash deposits were explained through an established opening cash balance, current earnings and past savings. A statement of affairs showed the opening balance, and the preceding assessment completed under scrutiny supported the availability of that cash. The unexplained-money addition was therefore unsustainable and was directed to be deleted.

Investment treated as undisclosed was explained through funds of the Hindu Undivided Family. The HUF's existence had been accepted and its substantial agricultural land was supported by the record. Bank deposits were substantially attributable to the HUF's agricultural income, making those funds available for the investments in question. The undisclosed-investment addition was therefore deleted.

Undisputed tax deducted at source reflected in Form 26AS must be credited against an assessee's tax liability when a return is filed in response to a reassessment notice. Tax deducted by the purchaser constitutes an income-tax payment on the assessee's behalf and, after adjustment against the determined liability, any excess must be refunded following verification. Reassessment proceedings cannot deny TDS credit merely because the assessee did not file an original return.