Approved resolution plans bind existing members and override inconsistent company-law remedies, so equity share capital validly extinguished under a concluded insolvency resolution cannot be revived through rectification of the Register of Members. Membership in a company limited by shares follows shareholding; no separate membership right survives cancellation of pre-resolution shares. Register-maintenance provisions are administrative and do not preserve extinguished rights, while Producer Company provisions do not apply to a non-Producer Company. Rectification is confined to wrongful entries or omissions and related damages, not independent compensation, fresh shares, interest, or mental-suffering damages. Claims omitted from the plan are extinguished under its clean-slate effect; the rectification claim and consequential reliefs were not maintainable.

Show-cause notices initiating disciplinary action against insolvency professionals must be based on material disclosed or at least identified to the noticee, particularly where an investigation report has found no actionable material. Reliance on undisclosed material extraneous to the investigation undermines procedural fairness and vitiates the notice. Disciplinary findings must also address relevant defences and contextual material, including creditor representation, absence of stakeholder objections, the scope of alleged consultation failures, and explanations for auction delays. Disregarding such material breaches natural justice; the resulting suspension order was quashed, while the regulatory challenge remained open.

Suspended directors are entitled to meaningful participation in CIRP and may challenge an approved resolution plan, but non-supply of plan materials does not invalidate approval absent a confidentiality undertaking, specific objection, or material prejudice. A practising Chartered Accountant is not ineligible to submit a plan solely because of professional status. CIRP may be withdrawn after admission only through the prescribed approval and statutory withdrawal process; an uncompleted settlement or part-payment cannot halt it. The CoC may assess viability, feasibility and implementation rather than accept the highest post-closure offer. Government claims omitted from an approved plan are extinguished, and statutory dues do not generally ra.....

Competing mortgage priorities in liquidation fall within the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction where determining encumbrances and liquidation-estate assets is necessary for custody, verification and realisation. Earlier second pari-passu charges moved into priority after discharge of the first mortgage; a later independent simple mortgage remained subordinate under the chronological priority rule, and assignees obtained no better rights than their assignor. Non-registration did not create or defeat the underlying charge as between parties and persons with notice. Failure to elect timely realisation of subordinate security outside liquidation caused the security interest to be treated as part of the liquidation estate, supporting dismissal of the assignee's claim and delivery of title deeds to the Liquidator.

Prolonged pre-trial custody in money-laundering proceedings may require constitutional protection of personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 to prevail over the bail restrictions in Section 45 of the PMLA. No fixed custody period determines this result; the assessment depends on the alleged role, prescribed sentence, trial stage and expected duration, and risks of absconding or interference with evidence. Where investigation is complete, trial progress remains delayed, no early completion is realistic, and delay is not attributable to the accused, the statutory twin conditions may be diluted. Regular bail may then be granted subject to appropriate conditions.

Redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation cannot be included in the estimated amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. High Court treated the issue as covered by an earlier High Court ruling and noted that the related special leave petition had been dismissed. The inclusion of redemption fine was quashed, and the authorities were directed to recalculate the Scheme liability after excluding it. A discharge certificate must issue once the legally recoverable dues are paid and all Scheme conditions are met.

Long-term leases conferring development rights, possession and effective control for a one-time premium are treated as transfers of immovable property rather than taxable renting services; associated premiums and transfer fees are consequently outside service tax. Construction of residential complexes remains taxable, but prescribed abatement applies where its conditions are met and CENVAT credit has been reversed. Interest charged for delayed payment of unit-sale consideration is liquidated damages, not service consideration. Water supplied by a governmental development authority in a sovereign function is treated as goods supply rather than taxable service. Repeated non-payment after prior notice and confirmation supports extended limitation for the residual liability.

Signed cheques attract statutory presumptions of consideration and discharge of legally enforceable liability, including where a voluntarily delivered blank signed cheque is relied upon. A drawer alleging that the cheque was misplaced must rebut those presumptions through cogent evidence, including credible particulars of loss and an explanation of the holder's possession. Territorial jurisdiction may arise where part of the cause of action occurred, such as collection of the loan or presentation of the cheque within the court's area. Pendente lite and post-decree interest may be awarded under the court's discretionary power even without an agreed contractual rate, provided the rate is fair and judiciously fixed.

Change of opinion precludes reassessment of share-capital and investment transactions already examined through detailed scrutiny, where the assessee neither concealed nor withheld material; an anonymous complaint alone cannot reopen those matters. Reassessment notices converted into show-cause notices under the amended regime must be issued within the surviving limitation period after excluding the stay period and response time. Extended limitation cannot apply unless the statutory conditions are invoked and recorded, and sanction is obtained from the competent authority where the relevant period has elapsed. A notice issued beyond the surviving period is void, rendering consequential reassessment, demand and penalty actions unsustainable, subject to fresh proceedings where legally permissible.

GST limitation under Section 73 may be affected by extensions for annual returns and exclusion of the COVID-19 limitation period. The limitation for the relevant financial years was treated as expiring on 28 February 2025, making a show-cause notice issued on 13 June 2025 time-barred. The issue is whether suo motu limitation extensions, described as protecting litigants unable to institute proceedings, extend to departmental GST proceedings and statutory notice issuance.

Clubbing and transfer of FIRs arising from the same allegations and forming one transaction require a consistent investigative forum, as parallel investigation is improper. The operative direction was corrected to align with that reasoning: the later FIR registered at Gurugram must be clubbed with and transferred to the earlier FIR registered with the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. The clarification only rectified the transfer inconsistency and did not permit selection of an investigating agency.

Article 21 protection of life and personal liberty extends to timely pronouncement of reserved High Court judgments, particularly where custody or urgent remedies are involved. A nationwide framework under Article 142 requires High Courts to endeavour to deliver reasoned reserved judgments within three months, supported by priority treatment, administrative monitoring, reassignment after continued default, and remedies for early pronouncement or transfer for fresh hearing. Reasoned judgments should ordinarily be uploaded within 24 hours of open-court pronouncement; urgent operative orders require reasons within seven days, extendable to fifteen days for practical difficulty. Status updates, advocate communication, escalation, and corrective measures promote transparency.

Restoration of an appeal dismissed for failure to remove defects, including mandatory statutory pre-deposit, requires sufficient cause supported by a bona fide, diligent and documented explanation proportionate to the delay. Service of Registry communications and repeated non-appearance weigh against restoration where the appellant fails to establish compliance efforts or justified inability to act. An unexplained delay of nearly five years, coupled with unsupported grounds for non-compliance with pre-deposit, does not satisfy the sufficient-cause standard. Rejection of restoration raises no substantial question of law or perversity on these facts.

Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires a service-tax appeal to be filed within two months and permits condonation for sufficient cause only up to one additional month. Delay beyond that statutory maximum cannot be condoned because the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal lack jurisdiction to extend the prescribed limitation period. A service-tax appeal filed 101 days after expiry of the normal filing period therefore remains barred by limitation, and the Commissioner (Appeals)' limitation finding operates against the assessee.

Residual penalty under the Customs Act requires identification of a specific statutory provision contravened where no express penalty is otherwise prescribed. A classification dispute alone does not establish a contravention by a customs broker for this purpose. Because the adjudicating authority did not identify any provision breached by the broker, and that omission was accepted, the residual penalty was unsustainable and was set aside.

National Litigation Policy monetary limits restrict Revenue appeals in customs matters where the revenue involved is below the prescribed threshold. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on that basis. No substantial question of law arose from that dismissal, so the connected customs appeal was also dismissed. The stated effect is to prevent continued litigation below the threshold where no legal issue warrants review.

Cash deposits during demonetisation may be satisfactorily explained by documented prior bank withdrawals and loans where the Revenue does not dispute the withdrawals or establish that the cash was used elsewhere. Mere passage of time between withdrawal and redeposit, or the obtaining of a later loan, does not by itself show that the withdrawn cash was unavailable. Treating deposits as unexplained money requires material disproving the stated source rather than presumptions about the cash's utilisation. On the stated facts, the explanation supported by prior withdrawals was sufficient, making an addition for unexplained money unsustainable.

Loss arising from transfer of non-performing assets to an asset reconstruction company crystallises when the loan portfolio is transferred for cash and security receipts and the loan accounts are closed. RBI norms require derecognition of transferred financial assets and write-off of any shortfall against net book value. Where previously deducted bad-debt provisions have already been reversed in tax computation, allowing the transfer loss does not create a double deduction. The loss is characterised as a revenue trading loss incidental to banking business, rather than a contingent or notional loss, and is allowable as a business loss under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Exempt agricultural income requires authentic corroborative material showing that agricultural operations were actually carried out within the scope of the Income-tax Act. Mere ownership of agricultural land does not establish that agricultural income was generated. Where no supporting evidence is produced, the claimed agricultural income may be treated as income from other sources. A materially identical claim rejected for an earlier assessment year may not warrant a different treatment when the facts remain unchanged and no justification for departure exists.

Interest on fixed deposits maintained to secure release of retention or security money forms part of eligible-business profits for deduction under section 80IA(4). An additional deduction resulting from depreciation reallocation requires verification of the computation's factual and legal correctness before consequential relief is allowed. Section 14A read with Rule 8D does not permit expenditure disallowance where no exempt income arises in the relevant year; the Finance Act 2022 Explanation operates prospectively from 1 April 2022. Purchases supported by invoices, banking records, supplier tax returns, delivery and inventory documents cannot be characterised as bogus without evidence that payment returned in cash.