Rule 5(5) permits acceptance of a fixed deposit in place of jointly owned immovable property only up to the concerned person's estimated share, and its discretionary wording creates no general enforceable right to substitute attached property with equivalent security. Financial hardship and the preservatory purpose of attachment do not independently establish substitution rights. Where a statutory appeal against an Appellate Tribunal order is available, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked unless jurisdictional error, perversity, breach of natural justice, manifest illegality, or another exceptional circumstance is established. Challenges to attachment remain for the statutory appellate process.

Anticipatory bail after proclamation proceedings, pre-arrest protection in a money-laundering prosecution involving a person not arraigned in the scheduled offence, and the Prevention of Money-laundering Act's twin bail conditions were raised before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the special leave petition. The supplied material does not provide the High Court's reasoning or specify the substantive legal effect of the dismissal beyond that outcome.

Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code binds governmental and local authorities to an approved corporate insolvency resolution plan. Statutory claims for electricity duty, cess and royalty that were not lodged during the resolution process, despite public notice, do not form part of the plan and stand extinguished once the plan attains finality. Pre-approval recovery proceedings for such dues cannot be initiated or continued. As the authorities neither submitted claims before the NCLT nor challenged plan approval, the statutory demands were quashed.

IBC moratorium under Section 14 restricts proceedings against the corporate debtor but does not shield directors or authorised signatories from statutory cheque-dishonour liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Suspension of board powers during insolvency does not retrospectively extinguish personal penal liability for pre-moratorium acts. Where complaints specifically plead the signatory's role and cheque issuance, defences concerning knowledge, due diligence or inability to operate accounts require trial and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Criminal complaints may therefore proceed, while liability and statutory defences remain subject to evidence.

Competing open-offer timelines require a competing acquirer to make its public announcement within fifteen working days of the first acquirer's detailed public statement. A subsequent letter of offer or its advertisement is a distinct procedural stage and cannot reset the period, ensuring identical timelines and equal treatment of competing bidders. The exemption power applies only to the obligation to make an open offer; it does not permit relaxation of requirements governing an ongoing competing offer. Once the prescribed period has expired and the existing open-offer process has closed, a competing offer cannot be revived, although a fresh takeover process may be initiated in accordance with the Regulations.

Limitation for an Official Liquidator's claim under Section 446(2) is governed by Article 137. The right to apply accrues on the winding-up order, provided the underlying claim was legally enforceable when winding-up proceedings commenced. Section 458A excludes the period between commencement of winding-up proceedings and the winding-up order, as well as one year immediately following that order. The Liquidator therefore receives the three-year Article 137 period together with the additional one-year exclusion. A claim filed within four years of the winding-up order falls within limitation, defeating a preliminary limitation objection.

Customs valuation must disclose the method and basis used to redetermine the value of imported goods, because valuation underpins duty, interest, fine and penalties. Where that basis is absent, the valuation and resulting liabilities require fresh determination after a reasonable opportunity of hearing and a speaking decision. Permission to re-export goods imported contrary to statutory prohibition does not remove their confiscability or preclude redemption fine. Confiscation and redemption operate separately: prohibited goods remain liable to confiscation, and re-export may be permitted after redemption within the statutory framework.

Customs duty refund claims filed within the prescribed period remain timely where later submissions merely cure perceived documentary deficiencies. A chartered accountant's certificate, importer's self-declaration, import documents and sales-invoice particulars may establish that the duty burden was not passed on, satisfying the unjust-enrichment requirement. Revised certification or document abstracts cannot be insisted upon unless required under the applicable refund framework, particularly where the requested material has subsequently been furnished. The claim must be processed from the date of its original timely filing, and rejection solely because deficiency-curing documents were submitted later is unsustainable.

Preferential tariff benefit under the AIFTA origin regime cannot be denied solely on delayed, partial or inadequately authenticated verification of Certificates of Origin. Rules 7(c) and 7(d) require timely return of the certificate, notice of grounds for non-acceptance, and detailed clarification from the issuing authority; alleged fraud does not displace those safeguards. Uncorroborated signature discrepancies, unavailable test reports, and unverifiable foreign material do not conclusively establish fraudulent origin declarations. Extended limitation for customs duty recovery requires credible proof of the importer's collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression. An importer is not liable for defects in a foreign-issued certificate without evidence of conscious knowledge, active involvement, or procurement of falsification.

Interest is payable on amounts voluntarily deposited during investigation when retained by Revenue and later refunded. The compensatory principle applies from the actual date of deposit until refund, even where the statutory refund-interest provision does not independently confer entitlement. Established precedent supports interest at 12% per annum for the period of Revenue's retention, ensuring compensation for deprivation of the depositor's funds.

National Litigation Policy exceptions for classification issues permit, but do not compel, the Revenue to pursue an appeal falling within an exception to the monetary-limit policy. Where the Tribunal sought confirmation of the policy's applicability, the Departmental Representative did not oppose it, and the later rejection of restoration remained unchallenged, the Revenue could not subsequently invoke those exceptions to require a decision on merits. The substantial question of law was resolved against the Revenue, leaving the appeal closed under the policy.

Section 138B of the Customs Act does not govern evidentiary procedure in Customs Broker licence-revocation inquiries, which are not prosecution proceedings. Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires relevant oral evidence to be taken during inquiry and gives the Customs Broker a right to cross-examine persons examined in support of the charges. Reliance on investigation-stage oral statements without producing the witnesses denies that statutory opportunity. Such denial is a curable procedural irregularity: fresh adjudication may proceed after affording cross-examination and does not amount to allowing the Department to fill a lacuna.

Four opportunities for personal hearing, including an advance-notified virtual hearing, satisfied the requirements of natural justice in revisional proceedings. A claim that counsel attended but the authority did not was unsupported and contradicted by the contemporaneous hearing sheet recording non-appearance. No further hearing was sought before the reserved order was pronounced. An incorrect hearing time recorded in the order was treated as an isolated clerical error, clarified by the hearing sheet, and did not establish procedural unfairness.

Food-safety clearance issued after laboratory analysis under the prescribed food-import procedure conclusively establishes that imported food conforms to applicable safety standards. Customs authorities cannot reopen the categorisation of goods after that clearance or impose a contrary customs reclassification. Applying the governing precedent on roasted arecanuts, seizure of the goods and a bank-guarantee requirement for their provisional release were invalid. The imported goods were required to be released without a bank guarantee.

Secondment of employees to an Indian subsidiary does not create a fixed place permanent establishment where the secondees work solely under the subsidiary's direction, control and supervision, and the foreign enterprise lacks control, liability or rights over the subsidiary's assets or personnel. Under the India-Japan treaty, a dependent agent permanent establishment requires proof that the subsidiary habitually concludes contracts, maintains delivery stock, or secures orders for the foreign enterprise. Separate risk-bearing operations and principal-to-principal offshore purchases, despite corporate and operational links, do not demonstrate the required economic, functional or legal dependence. In those circumstances, offshore supply profits are not attributable to a permanent establishment in India.

Arm's-length-price determination for management support services requires verification of the service agreement, actual rendition, commercial need, taxpayer benefit, costs incurred, allocation keys and benchmarking material. Rule 10AB requires examination of evidence relevant to the need, benefit and rendition tests before a transfer-pricing adjustment can be sustained. Earlier-year treatment may be followed only where the factual matrix, evidentiary record and contractual arrangements are identical, since each assessment year is independently assessable. Where the Transfer Pricing Officer has not examined complete material, the adjustment requires fresh adjudication after evidence review and an opportunity of hearing; the merits remain open.

Absence of exempt income precludes expenditure disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Reconciliation of net salary and PF/ESI accounting can establish that welfare-fund contributions remain within the 27% ceiling under Rule 87 despite an apparent excess. Customer deductions from manpower-service bills for canteen and transportation may qualify as business expenditure under Section 37(1) where invoices substantiate that the costs were incurred in connection with the manpower-services business. These principles support deletion of the related disallowances and recomputation of taxable income.

Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits a respondent to support an appellate order on a ground decided adversely against it without filing a separate appeal or cross-objection, including a reassessment-validity challenge where the material facts are already on record. For an addition under Section 68 based on alleged fictitious profits from client code modifications, contract notes, broker records, bank statements and transaction details may establish the recorded nature of the profits. General investigation information and allegations concerning a trading platform do not establish unexplained income without independent evidence linking the assessee's transactions to undisclosed income, broker collusion, or false documentation.

For assessment year 2022-23, Explanation 4(ii) to Section 11(1) treated repayment of loans from current-year income as application of income. Qualifying restrictions introduced from 1 April 2023 applied prospectively and could not govern the earlier year. Section 263 revision was therefore unavailable where the assessment adopted this legally plausible interpretation. Limited scrutiny had specifically examined the repayment claim, obtained relevant particulars and supporting material, and accepted the explanation. The absence of detailed reasoning in the assessment order did not establish lack of enquiry; revision cannot rest solely on a view that more extensive enquiry was desirable. The original assessment consequently stood restored.

Section 90(2) allows a Mauritius-resident taxpayer to apply either the Income-tax Act or the India-Mauritius tax treaty, whichever is more beneficial; treaty provisions cannot be imposed compulsorily. Capital gains exempt under Article 13 do not enter total-income computation. Where capital losses on shares acquired before 1 April 2017 are determined or claimed under the Act, they may be set off and carried forward under the Act's computation rules. Previously accepted brought-forward losses remain available, requiring taxable income to be recomputed after allowing current-year and brought-forward long-term capital losses.