Anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act engages the statutory twin conditions governing bail in money-laundering offences. Money-laundering proceedings operate independently of predicate offences for this purpose. The legal focus is the interaction between anticipatory bail, the twin conditions, and the separate treatment of predicate and money-laundering proceedings under the Act.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 overrides inconsistent provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 through its statutory overriding clause, notwithstanding the Electricity Act's non obstante provisions. Pre-CIRP parallel operation charge demands constitute liabilities arising before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process. Where an approved resolution plan expressly extinguishes pre-CIRP debts and related pending proceedings, those electricity-charge outstandings stand extinguished and cannot survive the plan.

Termination of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process granted the relief sought in relation to that process. As the termination itself resolved the relevant grievance, it did not provide a basis to challenge the NCLAT order before the Supreme Court. The NCLAT order terminating the CIRP was therefore not open to challenge on that stated ground.

Time-extension charges imposed under a lease and subsequent policy for delayed completion of housing projects were penal in nature, intended to deter the defaulting developer and ensure timely construction. Where the developer entered insolvency, homebuyers financed continued construction and the successful resolution applicant undertook implementation of the approved resolution plan. Treating charges arising from the corporate debtor's past default as Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process costs would penalise parties not responsible for the delay, undermine the lease's developmental purpose and obstruct project completion. In the stated circumstances, such penalty charges, including claims beyond three years, cannot be imposed on the resolution applicant or homebuyers.

Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 permits a permanent stay of winding-up where a revival proposal demonstrates public interest, commercial morality and bona fides. A scheme settling creditor and workmen dues, supported by secured creditors, shareholders and workmen, may satisfy those requirements even if it redevelops company land rather than resumes an unviable business. Objections concerning claim quantification, dividends, security and loans remain matters for claim adjudication and need not defeat revival. Changing the company's objects from textile operations to real-estate development is not prohibited where revival of the original business is commercially unviable. Negotiated workmen benefits materially support public-interest and commercial-morality assessment.

Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised against an order for provisional release of imported goods where an independent statutory appeal is available. The statutory appellate remedy remains effective unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing it. Pendency and stay of an appeal concerning an earlier adjudication involving similar goods do not remove or displace the separate appeal available against the provisional-release order. Writ relief was therefore declined, requiring recourse to the prescribed appellate mechanism.

Release of seized goods under Section 110(2) is unavailable where a show-cause notice under Section 124(a) is issued within a validly extended statutory period. The six-month period may be extended under the proviso before its expiry; return is required only if no notice is issued within the original or validly extended period. As the extension preceded expiry of the initial period and the notice was issued before expiry of the extension, release of the detained gold was not warranted. Challenges concerning the extension, waiver and evidentiary status of statements remain for statutory adjudication.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction against a customs adjudication order remains exceptional where an effective statutory appeal under the Customs Act is available. Participation in adjudication, including acknowledgement of an oral show cause notice and waiver of written notice and personal hearing, may undermine claims that the process was invalid. Allegations of coercion, statement validity, procedural compliance and service of the order involve disputed facts ordinarily requiring determination by the appellate authority. Statutory deeming provisions concerning dispatch by speed post may also be relevant to service and limitation. Substantial delay, without exceptional circumstances, does not justify bypassing the statutory appellate remedy.

Customs seizure safeguards under Sections 110(2) and 124 operate on the applicable factual and procedural record; they do not justify unconditional return of detained jewellery where customs liability and baggage treatment remain disputed. Article 226 relief is discretionary and may be refused for unexplained delay, suppression of material facts, and factual disputes requiring statutory adjudication. A contemporaneous Section 108 statement recording non-declaration, acceptance of appraisement, and waiver of written notice and personal hearing materially affects the claim. Article 300A does not require release while lawful customs proceedings continue. Appraisement and consequential proceedings must therefore be completed under the Customs Act.

Reliance on unverified AI-generated material falsely presented as judicial precedent undermines the integrity of customs adjudication. AI may assist research but cannot replace an adjudicating officer's responsibility to independently verify any authority before relying on it. Customs penalty orders founded on non-existent, falsely cited, or hallucinated AI-generated precedents are unsustainable. Such matters require fresh adjudication by a different officer of equivalent rank.

Maintainability of writ jurisdiction despite an available statutory appeal arose from an order requiring a bank guarantee for provisional release of imported goods. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition without interfering with the impugned order or judgment. The provisional-release direction, including its bank-guarantee condition, consequently remained undisturbed. No further legal reasoning on the alternative statutory remedy or writ maintainability is specified.

Alleged bogus long-term capital gains from penny-stock share transactions require evidence linking taxpayers to share-price manipulation or accommodation-entry providers. Exchange-traded purchases and sales, demat-account records, and banking-channel payments support transaction genuineness where no material shows conscious participation in manipulation, dealings for accommodation entries, or a regular pattern of share trading. Identification of a scrip as a penny stock and presumptions based on human probabilities cannot replace direct evidence. Estimated commission expenditure likewise requires evidence that services were obtained or commission was paid. Without such evidence, additions for the gains and estimated commission are unsustainable.

Immunity from penalty for under-reporting of income applies where the assessee pays the assessed tax and interest within the stipulated period and does not challenge the assessment order. Failure to submit the prescribed Form 68 within time is a technical or venial procedural breach and does not defeat substantive entitlement to immunity where the statutory substantive conditions are fulfilled. Consequently, penalty is not leviable merely because the prescribed application was omitted.

Contributions paid directly to an approved LIC Group Gratuity Scheme pursuant to actuarial valuation are deductible under Section 36(1)(v) where the employer retains no control over the funds. Rule 103 does not require disallowance solely because an actuarially determined contribution exceeds 8.33% of employees' salaries. Revision under Section 263 is unavailable where the assessment examined the gratuity claim and allowed it consistently with the settled treatment of payments to approved gratuity funds, since no error prejudicial to the Revenue arises. The gratuity deduction therefore remains admissible and cannot support revisionary action.

Interest for deferment of advance tax must be computed instalment-wise on the net tax due on returned income. Tax chargeable on returned income is reduced by foreign-tax relief and tax deducted at source credit before determining any instalment shortfall. After these credits, no shortfall arose for the first two advance-tax instalments, while only the later instalments attracted interest. Interest must therefore be recomputed on the reduced net liability, with consequential relief for any excess charge.

Section 68 requires evidence establishing the identity and source of loan credits; lender confirmations, tax identifiers, bank records, repayments and interest details may substantiate related-party loans. Section 41(1) applies only where a trading liability is remitted or ceases, not merely because it remains outstanding in the accounts. Section 69A does not apply to bank cash deposits reconciled with recorded cash sales, cash-book entries, stock records, audited books and GST-reported sales where the books and sales remain undisputed. Deeming additions require proof of each statutory prerequisite.

Section 50C deems stamp-duty value to be the full value of consideration for capital-gains computation, subject to a DVO valuation where the taxpayer objects. The third proviso to Section 50C(1), providing a 10% safe-harbour tolerance, applies retrospectively. Therefore, where the DVO valuation exceeds the declared sale consideration by only 8.5%, the declared consideration cannot be substituted and no addition under Section 50C should arise.

Section 80-IA deduction for profits from solar-electricity generation requires the prescribed audit report in Form 10CCB together with the relevant agreement, approval or permission under Rule 18BBB. Furnishing Form 10CCB alone does not establish eligibility where the solar-plant approval and completion certificate stand in the name of a separate partnership firm rather than the proprietary concern claiming deduction. Where that partnership firm also sells the generated electricity to the supplier, the proprietary concern cannot claim the deduction.

Penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable where additional income disclosed in a Section 153A return is accepted without variation after tax payment and no incriminating material supports the disclosure. Treating the Section 153A return as a return under Section 139, the requirements for concealment, including deemed concealment under Explanation 5A, are not met. In an unabated assessment, a search-related addition requires incriminating material found during the search; an estimated addition without such material is unsustainable, and no penalty can rest on it. Penalties for both categories of additions remain deleted.

Accommodation-entry additions based substantially on a third-party statement cannot be sustained where the taxpayer receives no opportunity to cross-examine the statement-maker. Documentary evidence including lender details, ledger records, bank records and an affidavit supported the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of a short-term loan repaid through banking channels. Once the primary evidentiary burden is discharged, suspicion alone cannot justify an unexplained-credit addition without independent contrary enquiry or material. The alleged accommodation-entry addition and consequential commission were therefore deleted.