The possessor bears the burden of proving that gold or its manufactures are not smuggled when seizure is based on reasonable belief under the Customs Act. Credible invoices, stock records and supplier statements supporting lawful local acquisition may shift the evidential burden to customs authorities. Incomplete identification of bullion and inadequate investigation can undermine an allegation of smuggled origin. Confiscation of currency as sale proceeds requires evidence linking it to smuggled goods; concealment of cash alone does not establish that link.

Provisional-release security for seized perishable goods must be proportionate, balancing revenue protection against the risk of deterioration and taking account of the bond and available documentary evidence. Where a full-value bond and certificates of origin were available, the bank guarantee was reduced to 20% of the duty involved, with the bond retained. Origin and duty entitlement remain subject to investigation and adjudication.

Penalties for handling import documents require proof of knowledge of the offending nature of goods or their misdeclaration; repeated document handling alone does not establish that knowledge. Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 addresses acts or omissions that render goods liable to confiscation, including abetment, while Section 114AA addresses knowing or intentional use of materially false documents. Verification of document authenticity or consignment contents is not ordinarily required.

Section 123 of the Customs Act places the burden on the possessor or claimant to prove that gold seized under a reasonable belief of smuggling is not smuggled. Undisputed purchase invoices and trading records establishing a matching supply shift the evidentiary burden to customs authorities to investigate and rebut that explanation. Courier statements and delivery records can support the supply link. Foreign origin alone does not establish smuggling, since bullion can enter domestic circulation through authorised channels. Unrebutted evidence of a matching domestic purchase can therefore undermine seizure and confiscation based on foreign origin.

Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 permits provisional release of seized goods subject to conditions. Cloud point alone is insufficient to establish the nature of distillate oil cargo, and the test reports did not definitively establish that the oil was restricted diesel. End-use certification and a bond provide safeguards for release. The bank guarantee condition is set aside, with the guarantee to be returned upon submission of all end-use certificates and a bond.

Under Sections 110 and 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proving that seized gold is not smuggled shifts to the possessor only when reasonable belief at seizure is supported by objective material rather than suspicion. The absence of discernible foreign markings and the availability of similar purity in the domestic market are relevant considerations. Retracted and general statements lacking independent corroboration were insufficient to establish smuggling where Section 138B requirements were not met. Purchase invoices, stock records, bank payment and a refining voucher can support domestic procurement; differences in invoice layouts do not necessarily affect material transaction particulars.

Setting aside a customs broker's licence revocation does not automatically extinguish a G-card holder's penalty liability, which depends on the holder's own conduct. The holder independently filed documents without informing the F-card holder and failed to verify KYC copies against the originals, which did not match. Physical verification of the importer's address was not required. The penalty remained payable but was reduced because it was excessive in light of the holder's salary and financial circumstances, including family medical treatment.

A difference in tariff classification alone does not justify denying customs exemption for qualifying capital goods covered by an unaltered EPCG authorisation. The exemption notification adopts the Foreign Trade Policy definition of capital goods, which refers to their use in manufacture or production. The spools were described in both the authorisation and the bill of entry, and their inclusion in the negative list was not alleged. Customs neither sought clarification from the authorising authority nor obtained modification or annulment of the authorisation. The classification difference does not warrant a duty demand, penalty or redemption fine.

Arm's-length remuneration of an associated enterprise leaves no further profits attributable to it even if it constitutes a dependent agency permanent establishment, where the remuneration accounts for relevant functions and risks. An advance pricing agreement under section 92CC binds the applicant and revenue authority for covered transactions and years; the unilateral agreement covering marketing support services did not bind the foreign assessee. Under section 144C, a direction to comment on admitted additional evidence in the final assessment order, without giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut those comments, violates natural justice.

Section 69 applies to investments made during the relevant financial year whose nature and source are not satisfactorily explained. The tax authority must first establish the investments made during that year and their amount; the taxpayer must then explain their nature and source. A year-end asset disclosure may reflect cumulative holdings, including earlier investments. An addition cannot be sustained solely on that disclosure without determining the investments made during the year and examining admitted evidence of investment movements. The investments and their nature and source require fresh determination.

The difference between the valuation and purchase consideration of a co-owner's share was excluded from taxable income based on similar treatment for co-owners of the same property and reliance on a coordinate-bench decision. The deletion also reflected the particular facts and the small amount involved and did not establish a proposition of general application.

For assessment year 2019-20, a section 80P deduction could not be disallowed for late filing through a return-processing adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(v), although section 80AC imposed a due-date condition. The Finance Act, 2021 later expanded the adjustment provision to cover deductions under the relevant heading of Chapter VI-A. Eligible interest from investments or deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), subject to verification: the exclusion of co-operative banks from claiming the deduction does not prevent their treatment as co-operative societies. An otherwise admissible deduction cannot be denied solely because disclosed income was entered in the wrong return column, subject to verification of its source.

Article 13 of the India-UK tax treaty requires technical or consultancy services of the kind in issue to make technical knowledge or skills available for the recipient's independent use; managerial services fall outside the definition of fees for technical services. IT, shared information, group support, regional and other support charges are not taxable as fees for technical services where there is no evidence that the recipient can independently perform the services using transferred knowledge or skills. Charges for centrally procured standard third-party software supplied to group entities at cost also fall outside that category where the arrangement provides no technical, managerial or consultancy services and makes no technical knowledge, expertise or processes available.

Penalty under section 271G for failure to furnish transfer pricing information is not sustainable where the taxpayer substantially complies with prescribed requirements and unavailable third-party information falls outside those obligations. The penalty applies to documents or information prescribed under Rule 10D and requisitioned under section 92D. Furnishing the valuation report, transfer pricing documentation and other available material may constitute substantial compliance. Additional information may be sought directly from the third party or valuer. Acceptance of the valuation in quantum proceedings further undermines the alleged basis for non-furnishing.

Transfer pricing characterisation and comparability depend on the actual functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed by the relevant business segment. Ancillary dry blending to customer-provided formulations, without substantial product transformation, does not by itself justify treating an entire distribution business as manufacturing or applying manufacturing comparables to it. Accounting classifications and machinery alone do not determine the functional profile. The functions and risks of a separate marketing support services segment cannot automatically be attributed to the distribution segment. Benchmarking under the transactional net margin method must reflect the relevant segment's functional profile.

Limited recall of an appellate order permits adjudication of a ground left undecided without disturbing findings on other grounds. A challenge to the exclusion of comparables used in a transfer-pricing study is distinct from challenges concerning comparables included by the transfer-pricing officer. The omitted ground remains pending for adjudication, while the findings on other grounds remain unchanged.

Only investments that actually yield exempt income during the relevant previous year are included in the average investment value used to compute expenditure disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D. Investments that do not yield exempt income in that year are excluded from the calculation, even if they form part of the broader investment portfolio.

Pure questions of law arising from facts already on record may be raised before the Tribunal even if not specifically raised before the first appellate authority. Income tax adjustments under Section 143(1) are confined to those enumerated in that provision. Consideration of a disputed disallowance requires examination of the permissible scope of adjustment and the effect of a relevant subsequent Supreme Court decision, with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Fresh transfer-pricing references made after the omission of clause (i) of section 92BA cannot sustain adjustments for domestic transactions falling solely within that omitted category, where no surviving category is invoked. Section 92CA authorises references to determine the arm's-length price of specified domestic transactions. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act may preserve accrued obligations and proceedings following an omission unless a different intention appears; omission does not automatically extinguish earlier liabilities. A pre-omission transfer-pricing determination is distinct from a fresh post-omission reference.

Transfer pricing adjustments to the mark-up on associated enterprise support services require application of a prescribed arm's length pricing method under section 92C and Rule 10B. Characterising the services as coordination or pass-through activities alone does not support an adjustment without applying such a method. Section 43B permits deduction of specified liabilities on actual payment. IGST liability disallowed in an earlier year is deductible when paid during the relevant assessment year.