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.

Transfers of a corporate debtor's funds during the CIRP moratorium are prohibited where made without the Resolution Professional's knowledge, and transferred amounts may be directed to be remitted. Public announcement and publication of CIRP proceedings create deemed knowledge of the moratorium, preventing a recipient from relying on ignorance as a defence. A claim that transferred funds were held in trust requires proof of a trust relationship and a basis for identifying the funds as trust money; an unsupported assertion is insufficient. Proceedings for a moratorium breach may be pursued under Section 60(5) read with Section 14(1)(b). Reliance on Section 74 was unavailable where it was not previously pleaded and had been omitted by the 2026 amendment.

Continuation of a pre-liquidation aircraft sale process is not barred merely because liquidation begins, where the sale had been approved during the insolvency process and was later adopted by the Stakeholders' Consultation Committee. No material irregularity or illegality was established in completing the sale. Former employees could not challenge the transaction on that basis; their entitlement remained limited to recovery of dues under the statutory liquidation waterfall. The challenge to the sale and the related order was dismissed.

Limitation for a personal guarantor's insolvency application begins when the guarantee is invoked. Section 18 of the Limitation Act creates a fresh limitation period only through a written acknowledgment by the party against whom the creditor asserts the right. A personal guarantor cannot rely on unilateral one-time settlement proposals to extend limitation for an application filed by the guarantor; those proposals may operate as admissions usable by the creditor against the guarantor. The Section 94 application was therefore time-barred, and dismissal of both the application and the challenge to the auction notice was upheld.

Under the PMLA, continued freezing or retention of property requires material linking the property to proceeds of crime and a statutory finding that it is involved in money laundering. General allegations of bribery, unconnected to identified transactions or quantified proceeds held by the property holder, do not meet that standard; continued freezing based solely on investigative necessity is unsustainable. Attachment, seizure and freezing may extend to property held by persons not named in the scheduled offence or money-laundering proceedings. Reasons to believe for search or freezing must be recorded, but post-recording communication is not mandatory where the show-cause notice incorporates the relevant reasons. Filing a prosecution complaint does not remove the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction over a freezing-confirmation order.

The dispute concerns customs classification of imported unassembled vehicle parts. Customs authorities allege that parts imported in separate shipments should have been declared as completely knocked down (CKD) units, attracting the higher duty applicable to CKD imports, rather than as individual components subject to lower duty. The manufacturer contests the resulting customs demand. Proceedings have been released for fresh hearing before the regular indirect-tax writ bench, with status quo maintained for four weeks.

Canada has imposed retaliatory tariffs on United States-origin industrial and consumer goods following increased United States tariffs on Canadian goods. Effective 8 September, the measures apply at rates of 15%, 25% and 50% across more than 700 products, including steel, aluminium, appliances, dairy products, seafood, furniture, clothing, pulp and paper, and electronics. Existing countertariffs on automobiles remain in force. The measures seek to protect domestic businesses and reduce imports, supported by assistance for affected workers and businesses amid risks to integrated cross-border supply chains.

Foreign-exchange market conditions supported rupee appreciation against the US dollar, driven by stronger domestic equity markets, a weaker US dollar and lower crude oil prices. The USD/INR pair remained broadly range-bound, with oil-price movements and Reserve Bank intervention identified as key near-term influences. The special USD-INR foreign-exchange swap facility for FCNR(B) deposits, overseas foreign-currency borrowings and external commercial borrowings mobilised substantial foreign-exchange inflows.

Economic resilience is attributed to buoyant domestic demand, increased manufacturing and services activity, improving liquidity conditions, credit growth, investment activity and rebounding foreign capital inflows. Recovery in the southwest monsoon improved kharif sowing and reservoir storage, partly mitigating agricultural-sector risks. US Section 301 tariffs are expected to have a comparatively lower effect because major Indian exports to the United States, including smartphones, petroleum products and pharmaceuticals, remain outside their scope. Foreign direct investment improved with higher gross inflows, while outward foreign direct investment continued to decline.

Recognised stock exchanges fall within the definition of public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 where governmental control is deep and pervasive. Ownership, control and substantial financing in the inclusive limb operate disjunctively. Statutory recognition under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 is constitutive rather than merely regulatory because an entity cannot operate as a stock exchange without it. SEBI's recognition order, exercised through delegated Central Government power, is attributable to the Central Government. The National Stock Exchange is therefore amenable to the RTI Act under both the first and inclusive limbs of Section 2(h).

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to appeals under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Under Section 29(2), provisions on limitation, including condonation of delay, apply to special or local laws prescribing distinct limitation periods unless expressly or necessarily excluded. The thirty-day appeal period contains no bar on extension, no outer limit for condonation, and no self-contained limitation scheme. Exclusion of time for obtaining a certified copy further indicates that general limitation principles are not wholly displaced. Delay may therefore be condoned upon sufficient cause, preserving the appellate remedy against externment orders.

Complete settlement of operational debt before pronouncement of a Section 9 admission order, coupled with a pending withdrawal application by the operational creditor, prevents the insolvency proceedings from validly resulting in admission to CIRP. The withdrawal request should be processed where payment and settlement occurred before admission. CIRP initiated despite the pre-admission settlement and pending withdrawal application is unsustainable and should be withdrawn.

Seized goods must be returned under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, if notice under Section 124(a) is not issued within six months of seizure. The period may be extended only once, for up to a further six months, by the competent authority for recorded reasons and after prior intimation to the person concerned. Expiry of the statutory period without notice renders continued detention of seized gold jewellery impermissible; a hearing notice issued after proceedings begin cannot cure the lapse. Release may be directed subject to payment of applicable customs duty and warehousing charges.

Interest on NRE/FCNR deposits retained by a returning non-resident until maturity remains exempt where retention is permitted under the foreign-exchange regime; the exemption is not confined to continuing non-residents. Presumptive interest on foreign investments cannot be taxed without evidence of actual receipt or accrual, and disputed foreign-currency bank credits require bank verification before being treated as unexplained income. Chapter VI-A deductions, along with consequential deduction and rebate claims, were allowable in the stated circumstances. Reassessment reopening based on information concerning foreign bank accounts remained valid, while the related income additions required correction or fresh factual determination.

Penalty for under-reporting is not automatic: a valid show-cause notice, reasonable opportunity, and identification of the applicable statutory clause are required before levy. Where no notice followed initiation in assessment orders and no penalty was imposed, appellate confirmation of initiation was premature. Intimation adjustments do not merge automatically into a later scrutiny assessment; they may be challenged in an appeal against that assessment only if the assessment considered and decided them. Otherwise, a separate statutory appeal against the intimation is required. Liability for delayed-return interest requires factual verification where timely filing of the original return is claimed.

Section 69A requires material establishing that money or specified valuable assets found in an assessee's possession are unexplained. Cash traced to prior bank withdrawals and supported by cash-book records cannot be treated as unexplained without evidence that it was used elsewhere or derived from an undisclosed source. An alleged excess sale consideration cannot rest solely on a self-incriminating statement without independent verification or corroborative evidence of receipt. Differences in sundry creditor balances, particularly where draft accounts are subsequently reconciled in audited financial statements, do not constitute unexplained money under Section 69A because creditor discrepancies fall outside the provision's specified subject matter.

Interest awarded under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is treated as an accretion to the land's value and forms part of enhanced compensation. It differs from interest under section 34, which compensates for delayed payment. Provisions governing taxation and timing of interest on compensation receipts do not alter the capital character of section 28 interest. Consequently, section 28 interest qualifying as enhanced compensation is eligible for exemption available for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and is not taxable as income from other sources.

Consolidated determinations of tax-deduction default and interest liabilities across multiple assessment years, instead of separate quarterly orders for each relevant year, are identified as procedurally invalid. Combining assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 into one order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) is treated as a defect invalidating the assessment proceedings from inception. The resulting consolidated order is regarded as void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

Employees' ESI/PF contributions paid after the due date under the relevant welfare legislation are not governed by the income-tax return filing deadline under Section 139(1). Determining the precise statutory due date requires verification of the actual dates on which salaries were paid. The disallowance applies in principle, but its computation requires fresh verification and recomputation by the Assessing Officer.