Post-amendment section 80JJAA extends to additional employees and does not require engagement as regular workmen. Fixed-term personnel deputed to customers remain employees of the staffing provider where it retains appointment, remuneration, deployment, disciplinary and termination powers, and fulfils tax-withholding and social-security obligations; customer supervision at its premises is operational only. A marginal Covid-period delay in filing Form 10DA may not defeat the deduction where the reporting requirement is treated as directory. Second- and third-year claims require verification of statutory conditions. Transfer-pricing comparables require functional similarity and adequate segmental information, including for KPO, IT and ITeS providers.

Land acquisition compensation for parcels in the same village and acquired for the same project is aligned with the rate determined for similarly situated lands in connected proceedings. The applicable valuation is Rs.105 per square foot, together with admissible solatium and statutory interest. Interest is excluded for the period attributable to delay in filing the appeals.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits equitable condonation of delay on sufficient cause, particularly where a landowner's ability to obtain fair compensation engages property protection under Article 300-A. Personal hardship, medical treatment and financial distress may support condonation even after substantial delay. Compensation parity requires similarly situated landowners, whose comparable lands are acquired under the same acquisition for the same purpose, to receive the same compensation rate notwithstanding separate adjudication of their claims. Statutory solatium and interest may accompany the enhanced compensation, while interest can be excluded for the period attributable to delayed pursuit of the claim.

Interest awarded on enhanced compensation for compulsory land acquisition under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is treated as an accretion to the value of the acquired land and forms part of enhanced compensation. It is distinct from interest for delayed payment under Section 34, which becomes payable after compensation is determined. Consequently, no tax deduction at source is applicable to enhanced compensation, including the Section 28 interest component payable to landowners.

CENVAT credit is admissible for duty-paid capital goods received in a manufacturer's factory and used to install a captive cogeneration power plant essential to producing finished goods. Rule 2(a) requires use of specified capital goods in the factory, not ownership by the manufacturer at receipt or direct procurement in its own name. Procurement through an EPC contractor does not break the nexus between the goods and manufacture where invoices show the manufacturer as consignee. Subsequent incorporation of the goods into an immovable plant also does not bar credit. Recovery, interest and penalty based on denial of such credit are unsustainable.

Rule 3(5A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 requires payment of an amount equal to duty leviable on the transaction value when capital goods on which CENVAT credit was availed are cleared as waste and scrap. This obligation arises from the availment of credit and applies independently of whether the scrap was manufactured by the assessee or is separately classifiable under a tariff entry. The same principle applies under the materially similar predecessor provision. Consequently, clearance of such waste and scrap attracts duty based on transaction value.

Erection services undertaken before 10.09.2004 were outside the service-tax levy, as taxability of erection service commenced with commissioning and installation service from that date; consideration for pre-taxability work was therefore exempt. For 2004-05 and 2005-06, where short-paid tax had already been discharged, a residual demand could not be sustained without established suppression of material facts. Information available from the assessee's own records did not support invocation of the extended limitation period. Consequently, no further service tax was recoverable on the impugned demand, and related interest and penalty did not survive.

Supply of tangible goods service applies to wet leasing of CNG compressors and related equipment where the supplier installs, operates and maintains the equipment, provides personnel and spares, and retains possession, command, management and effective control. A transfer of the right to use goods, constituting a deemed sale, requires transfer of both possession and effective control; payment of sales tax does not alter the arrangement's service-tax character. Extended limitation may apply where contractual terms and applicable tax clarifications establish taxability, but the supplier suppresses material facts with intent to evade service tax.

Section 72 best-judgment assessment must rest on available, verifiable records and cannot substitute arbitrary growth, pro-rata or peak-turnover estimates for audited accounts and statutory returns. Gross receipts require transaction-level verification before exempt, export/SEZ, non-taxable and reimbursable amounts are included in taxable value; genuine pre-14 May 2015 reimbursements not constituting consideration are excludible, while later claims must meet pure-agent requirements. CENVAT credit requires verification of invoices, ledgers and statutory records. Extended limitation requires deliberate suppression with intent to evade and cannot exceed five years. Overlapping liabilities in parallel investigations must be identified and excluded to prevent duplicate demand or recovery.

Maintenance and repair activities involving transfer of property in goods taxable as a sale, supported by consumption records and VAT payment, fall within composite works contracts rather than taxable management, maintenance or repair services. The goods component cannot be subjected to service tax, making denial of abatement and related tax, interest and penalties unsustainable. Electricity supplied to individual flat owners for consideration is goods sold, not a service, and the related receipts fall outside the service-tax charge.

Enhanced due-diligence duties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act require banks to verify customers, examine records, seek information and report suspicious transactions to competent agencies. These compliance obligations do not grant a bank adjudicatory or investigative power to impose an indefinite blanket freeze on a customer's entire account. KYC directions likewise support due diligence and regulatory reporting, not unilateral restrictions based solely on transaction volume or an account threshold. In the absence of statutory authority exercised by a competent authority, particularly where no FIR, criminal proceeding or complaint exists, a blanket account freeze is arbitrary and unsustainable; the account must be de-frozen.

Provisional attachment challenges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must ordinarily proceed through statutory adjudication where the Adjudicating Authority has yet to determine validity after notice and hearing. Section 8 provides for adjudication, followed by appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 and further appeal to the High Court under Section 42. Although Article 226 jurisdiction is not barred by an alternative remedy, writ intervention is ordinarily declined where those remedies are efficacious, absent patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or manifest statutory illegality. Objections concerning proceeds of crime, reasons to believe, and attachment validity fall for consideration within that statutory process.

Approved insolvency resolution plans do not extinguish GST liabilities arising after their implementation date. The contemplated waiver covered indirect-tax dues up to that date, while any further relief remained subject to consideration by the appropriate authorities. Interest and penalty waiver for liabilities covered by the plan had not been sought. As the impugned GST proceedings concerned a subsequent tax period outside the plan's temporal scope, applicable insolvency-law amendments and the stated legal position did not support extending the plan's relief to those liabilities.

Article 226(2) territorial jurisdiction remains discretionary even where part of the cause of action arises within a High Court's territory. Issuance of an SFIO investigation order from New Delhi and the location of SFIO headquarters there did not create a substantial connection where the investigated companies' registered offices and records, the Registrar of Companies, insolvency proceedings, and prospective prosecution forum were in Mumbai. Forum conveniens required adjudication by the High Court with the closest connection, particularly as related investigation proceedings were pending there. Territorial jurisdiction was therefore declined in favour of the High Court of Bombay.

Customs reclassification of imported mixed polyester warp knitted fabrics requires Revenue to prove that the declared tariff item is incorrect through reliable evidence of fibre composition, predominance and textile construction. Invoice descriptions and visual examination alone cannot establish that fabrics are exclusively synthetic, particularly where goods are mixed lots. Absence of sampling, laboratory reports, technical or expert material, market enquiry, or a specifically identified alternative tariff entry prevents reclassification. On these principles, the declared classification remained valid, concessional duty continued, and consequential differential duty, interest and penalties failed.

Recovery of allegedly erroneous drawback under Rule 16, despite no express limitation period, must commence within a reasonable time. Unexplained proceedings initiated long after the last drawback payments cannot rely on principles permitting delayed action for fraud where no fraudulent availment or suppression is alleged; non-production of export-proceeds realisation proof alone does not establish either. On that basis, the delayed recovery demand and consequential bank-account attachment lack legal effect. Availability of a statutory appeal and asserted delay in seeking writ relief do not bar intervention where the foundational recovery action was initiated beyond a reasonable period and is legally invalid.

Classification of imported monitors, alleged suppression or mis-declaration, and invocation of the extended limitation period require factual examination by the adjudicating authority. The importer must submit its explanation to the show cause notice within four weeks. The authority must then decide the matter in accordance with law, after considering the relevant prior judgment and the importer's response to the audit consultative letter. No final determination on classification, suppression, or limitation has been made in the writ proceedings.

Interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is taxable as income from other sources under Sections 56(2)(viii) and 145B(1), rather than exempt under Section 10(37). Rectification under Section 154 is limited to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to depart from binding jurisdictional precedent; a contrary coordinate-bench view does not override that precedent. Section 57(iv) requires a deduction of 50% of interest taxable under Section 56(2)(viii), so only the balance is taxable. The prescribed statutory deduction must be applied when computing taxable interest on enhanced compensation.

Differences between gross receipts in Form 26AS and commission income disclosed may constitute trade discounts on recharge vouchers rather than taxable commission. Taxability depends on the transaction's real character, not the deductor's description in TDS reporting or Form 26AS. Invoice-wise voucher details and a reconciliation that substantively establish purchase discounts support exclusion of the differential amount from commission income. Absence of a revised TDS certificate, Form 26AS correction, or deductor confirmation does not by itself displace uncontroverted evidence of the discount's nature.

Revision under section 263 requires both an erroneous assessment order and prejudice to Revenue. Where scrutiny records show that the taxpayer supplied relevant financial, deduction, banking and transaction details, the absence of detailed reasoning in the assessment order does not by itself establish inadequate enquiry. A revisionary authority cannot disregard an earlier coordinate-bench ruling in the taxpayer's own matter that treated loss on sale of non-performing assets as business loss, substitute a capital-loss view, or order fresh enquiry without a demonstrable prejudicial error. Revisionary jurisdiction was therefore invalid, and the loss remained allowable as business loss.