Social Welfare Surcharge does not arise where basic customs duty on imported goods is exempt under Notification No. 24/2015-Customs through debit of a MEIS duty credit scrip. The debit records the value of the basic customs duty exemption availed; it is not payment of basic customs duty. Because the surcharge is computed by reference to basic customs duty, no Social Welfare Surcharge is payable when that duty is fully exempt. The conclusion favours the importer claiming the MEIS-based exemption.

Before 3 June 2016, the RNI-registration requirement for newsprint applied at clearance rather than import; its later extension to imports of warehoused goods operated prospectively. Serial No. 264 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. granted newsprint exemption without an RNI-registration or Actual User condition. For newsprint not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the Department bore the initial burden of proving unlawful import, diversion, or clearance through dummy users. Without cogent evidence of excess goods, local-market diversion, illicit consideration, or dummy users, serial-number discrepancies alone could not sustain confiscation or penalties.

Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 expressly limits penalties to Rs. 50,000. Penalties proposed under other Customs Act provisions and licence cancellation were not imposed and were not challenged. The statutory ceiling cannot be exceeded, and an earlier order cannot displace the Regulation's clear maximum. The penalty therefore stands restricted to Rs. 50,000.

Breach of a post-import condition restricting duty-exempt aircraft to approved non-scheduled charter operations renders the aircraft confiscable and makes customs duty recoverable upon redemption. Recovery arising from confiscation and redemption following breach of an exemption condition operates independently of the limitation regime for non-levy or short-levy demands. Customs valuation must use actual ferry transport charges and actual transit-insurance premium where available, rather than notional additions; the duty quantum requires recalculation accordingly. Unauthorised commercial use may also support penalties for improper importation where the importer and responsible managerial personnel were directly involved and the penalties are proportionate.

Target Plus Scheme exemption permits duty-credit imports with a demonstrable broad nexus to the product group stated in the certificate; it does not require an item-by-item link between imported goods and the precise exported goods. The nexus must be established separately for each export product group, so entitlement cannot extend to unrelated groups. Extended limitation and consequential penalties require fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade duty. Ambiguous policy language, reliance on a bona fide interpretation, valid unrevoked certificates, and Customs-held export records do not, without more, establish such culpable conduct; duty recovery on the extended period is therefore unsustainable.

Gold imported contrary to restrictions imposed under the Customs Act or any other law in force falls within the definition of prohibited goods. Import controls may arise from regulatory notifications and circulars, including restrictions limiting bulk imports to authorised agencies and passenger imports to the Baggage Rules. Importation by persons outside those permitted categories, including through an unauthorised land route, attracts confiscation consequences and the applicable Customs penalty regime. Where prohibited status is identified and the basis for penalty is disclosed, an adjudicating authority's failure to expressly cite the specific penalty clause does not invalidate the exercise of statutory power.

Ex-gratia compensation under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, where paid under a Government-approved workforce-reduction plan, is treated by substance as retrenchment compensation rather than voluntary-retirement compensation. It is a capital receipt eligible for exemption under section 10(10B), without the ceiling applicable to section 10(10C), notwithstanding the scheme's nomenclature or a restrictive understanding of workman. Appellate authorities may admit a legitimate exemption claim not made in an original or revised return to determine correct tax liability. Revised computations may be submitted for verification of the compensation and scheme, followed by consequential refunds where due.

Limitation under the first proviso to section 149(1) retains the pre-amendment reassessment time limit for assessment years beginning on or before 1 April 2021. For assessment year 2015-16, the applicable six-year period ended on 31 March 2022; consequently, a section 148 notice issued on 7 April 2022 was time-barred. The amended extended period does not revive reassessment proceedings already barred by limitation. Later provisos permitting exclusion of time were neither in force on the notice date nor applicable where no additional time to respond under section 148A(b) had been sought. The consequential reassessment was vitiated.

Overdue receivables arising solely from software development and ITES transactions accepted at arm's length must be assessed within the transfer-pricing analysis of those underlying transactions. Rule 10B requires reasonably accurate adjustments to uncontrolled comparables for material differences affecting price, cost or profit. Denying a working capital adjustment while making a separate notional-interest adjustment for delayed associated-enterprise receivables is inconsistent with that framework. Working capital adjustment must be granted first; once allowed, no separate transfer-pricing adjustment for interest on the overdue receivables is warranted.

Transfer pricing adjustment was recomputed at nil in the order giving effect to the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions. The Assessing Officer consequently accepted the taxpayer's returned income. As no transfer pricing adjustment survived, the taxpayer's grounds became infructuous.

Election to pursue objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel prevents an assessee from relying on the assessment-completion period applicable where objections are not filed or proposed variations are accepted. Rejection of those objections as belated does not revive that alternative limitation period, so the final assessment is not time-barred on that basis. Where the Panel rejects belated objections without issuing directions on proposed variations, the resulting order is an assessment simpliciter rather than an order implementing Panel directions. The statutory first appeal lies before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which must consider the grounds on merits without treating that appeal as time-barred.

Uncorroborated third-party seized material, including unsigned or vague records, cannot support additions for undisclosed payments or unaccounted sales against an assessee. The statutory presumption relating to seized material applies against the searched person and cannot be extended to a third party without reliable independent evidence. Reliance on a retracted statement where cross-examination is denied breaches natural justice. Disallowance computed under the normal-income mechanism for exempt-income expenditure cannot be imported into book-profit computation, which operates as a separate code. Components integral to a cogeneration system and incapable of independent operation qualify for the depreciation rate applicable to that system.

Selling commission paid to associated enterprises, when included as an operating cost of a software development services segment benchmarked under the Transactional Net Margin Method, is a closely linked cost and cannot be separately benchmarked at a nil arm's length price. Acceptance of TNMM as the most appropriate method and of the segment's arm's length outcome covers the commission within the operating-cost base used to compute the segment margin. Verification under an appellate direction resulted in deletion of the proposed transfer-pricing adjustment. Consequently, no separate adjustment for the selling commission was warranted.

Accepted Transactional Net Margin Method benchmarking of aggregated manufacturing and service transactions precludes separately testing the markup on closely linked IT support services without justification, eliminating the proposed downward adjustment. Notional interest on overdue associated-enterprise receivables is unwarranted where the taxpayer is debt-free, has no significant interest cost, and identical earlier factual findings remain undistinguished. Section 115BAA excludes the weighted scientific-research deduction under Section 35(2AB), but does not restrict deduction for qualifying capital scientific-research expenditure under Section 35(1)(iv). Form 3CM is not a statutory condition for the latter deduction where no depreciation or weighted deduction is claimed.

Profit embedded in unaccounted on-money receipts should be assessed after considering related cash expenditure recorded in the same seized material, as both form an integrated business stream. A uniform 15% profit rate lacks support where it rests only on general industry assumptions rather than historical margins, comparable projects, or tangible evidence. Fluctuating yearly results, project characteristics and uncorrelated receipts and expenditure make a fixed higher margin excessive, although an aggregate deficit does not establish absence of taxable income. Profit is estimated at 5% of net on-money receipts after adjusting booking cancellations.

For transfer-pricing benchmarking of software development services, companies with turnover exceeding ten times the tested party's turnover may be unsuitable comparables where their scale and brand value materially affect comparability. Applying this turnover filter, entities within up to ten times the assessee's turnover may ordinarily remain in the comparable set. Tata Consultancy Services, LTIMindtree, Mindtree and Tata Elxsi are excluded because their substantially higher turnover makes them unsuitable for a fair comparability analysis. The arm's length price requires recomputation in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Penalty for unexplained money under Section 271AAC(1) was not leviable where cash deposits connected with trading activity were assessed only by estimating an embedded profit element. Restriction of the quantum addition to 10% of the deposits reflected an ad hoc estimation rather than proof of conscious concealment or undisclosed income. The penalty was therefore deleted.

Reassessment notices issued under the substituted regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 require approval under Section 151(ii) where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Approval by a Principal Commissioner is not valid for that period because Section 151(ii) limits sanctioning authority to the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Director General. Consequently, a notice issued under Section 148 on a Principal Commissioner's sanction is jurisdictionally defective, and the consequential reassessment proceedings lack jurisdiction.

Limitation-based dismissal without adjudicating the grounds on merits requires reconsideration where the appeal was rejected solely for delay. An unsupported explanation attributing non-compliance and delayed filing to an authorised representative may justify costs, but does not remove the need for substantive adjudication. Presumptive application of tax-deduction requirements to all purchases is insufficient without examining whether purchases from each relevant party exceeded the prescribed threshold. Merits must be considered after allowing additional evidence, obtaining the Assessing Officer's remand report, and payment of imposed costs.

Sufficient cause supported by a tax professional's affidavit, including health-related inability to attend assessment and appellate proceedings, warrants condonation of delay so that substantial justice prevails over procedural default. Where an assessment is completed ex parte without an effective opportunity to explain bank deposits and furnish supporting evidence for claimed business receipts, the deposits require fresh examination. De novo adjudication should allow the taxpayer to substantiate the source and nature of the deposits before the Assessing Officer.