Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits post-export amendment of shipping bills on the basis of contemporaneous documentary evidence, including conversion from the Advance Authorisation Scheme to the Drawback Scheme. The provision contains no three-month limitation, and an administrative circular cannot introduce a statutory time bar absent from it. Where conversion approval and subsequent brand-rate fixation remain unchallenged, the approval cannot be reopened at the drawback-sanction stage without being dealt with in accordance with law. In those circumstances, failure to seek conversion before the jurisdictional authority within the circular's three-month period does not justify rejecting drawback; the claim must be processed in accordance with law.

Penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 require evidence that an act or omission knowingly caused, abetted or facilitated conduct rendering export goods liable to confiscation. Failure by a customs house agent to verify exporters' credentials, signatures or authorisations may breach licensing obligations, but does not by itself establish conscious abetment of misdeclaration, overvaluation or wrongful drawback claims. Without evidence of knowing involvement or intentional facilitation, penalties against the agent and its partner are unsustainable.

Personal penalty for dealing with smuggled goods under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires cogent evidence of a culpable connection with the goods. Where alleged tenancy or control lacks objective support, statements are uncorroborated and the panchnama does not identify the person as owner or occupier, proximity of separate business premises does not establish possession or conscious knowledge. Suspicion or an inferred association with the premises cannot replace the proof required for personal penal liability.

Customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be recovered jointly and severally from several persons without identifying the statutory importer. Directorship of entities involved in high-seas sales does not by itself establish importer status. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA require proof of their statutory ingredients. Relevant considerations include whether the person dealt with the goods, filed bills of entry or supplied documents for them, or used an advance licence for clearance, and whether the licences were valid at import and the alleged licence transaction was linked to the imports.

The Settlement Commission rejected the importer's proposed value for imported goods in a dispute over differential duty, the settlement amount and a penalty. The disputed issues included whether the importer intended to avoid duty. The challenge to the settlement amount and penalty was dismissed because no good reason was found to interfere with the High Court's order.

Revision of an assessment under Section 263 requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Where employee stock option expenditure is allowed after the Assessing Officer obtains explanations and supporting material, the absence of detailed discussion in the assessment order does not itself establish a lack of enquiry. Revision cannot rest merely on substituting a different view for a legally permissible view adopted after enquiry. Allowance of the expenditure under Section 37(1) is a permissible view supported by High Court authority; admission of a special leave petition without a stay or reversal does not displace that authority.

Group support services covering supply chain, human resources, strategic planning, marketing, finance and information systems are treated as managerial services outside the definition of fees for included services under the India-US tax treaty. Business-wide support under a separate agreement is neither product-specific nor ancillary and subsidiary to the limited trademark licence. Recurring services under a one-year arrangement do not meet the make-available requirement when they do not impart enduring technical knowledge, skills, know-how or capability enabling the recipient to perform the functions independently. The consideration is not taxable as fees for included services under the treaty or as fees for technical services under the Income-tax Act.

Discounted cash flow valuations under Rule 11UA(2) may be scrutinised for share premium assessments under section 56(2)(viib), but valuation assumptions cannot be replaced without cogent evidence of material error. In transfer pricing, the tested party and method must reflect functions, assets, risks and reliable comparable data. Comparables must be functionally similar, and profit indicators must treat operating items consistently. Adjustments must be confined to relevant international transactions, and safe-harbour definitions cannot be applied mechanically. Employee stock option discounts are allowable business expenditure under section 37(1) when incurred and recognised over the vesting period, even without cash outflow. The same expenditure cannot be disallowed twice.

An insolvency moratorium bars the institution or continuation of proceedings against a corporate debtor. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides inconsistent laws. Binding jurisdictional precedent treats income-tax assessment proceedings themselves as impermissible during the moratorium. Reassessment proceedings initiated and completed while the moratorium remains operative are void from inception. A departmental technical opinion cannot prevail over binding precedent.

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires the searched person's Assessing Officer to record satisfaction and then transfer the relevant material to the other person's Assessing Officer before proceedings are initiated. The latter must independently record satisfaction that the material pertains to the other person and bears on determination of that person's total income. Proceedings initiated before satisfaction and transfer, without the required finding on total income, are void, as are consequential assessments. A subsequent note on income escapement cannot validate the earlier initiation.

Income of universities and educational institutions existing solely for education and not for profit is exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab) if they are wholly or substantially financed by the Government. Under Rule 2BBB, the substantial financing test is met where Government grants exceed 50% of total receipts in the relevant previous year. UGC grants sourced from Central Government allocations and Government land grants in kind are included in that calculation. A penalty for under-reporting or misreporting has no surviving basis where it rests solely on an addition that has been deleted.

Receipts from services inextricably connected with mineral oil prospecting, extraction or production, including field development consultancy and NDR preparation, fall within the mining or like projects exclusion and are taxable under the presumptive regime in section 44BB rather than as fees for technical services or royalty. Interest on an income-tax refund arising from taxes paid on core business conducted through an Indian permanent establishment is taxable as business profits under Article 7 at the maximum marginal rate, rather than at the Article 11 treaty rate, because the debt claim is effectively connected with that establishment. Offshore supply income is not taxable in India under section 44BB where cementing units and batch mixers are completed and inspected outside India and directly imported by the Indian purchaser, title and risk pass and payment is made outside India, and no related Indian business connection or permanent establishment is established.

Filing ITR-7 instead of the prescribed ITR-5 creates a defective return under section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Where processing does not show that the defect was identified or a rectification opportunity provided, the correct form must be accepted. Late filing of Form 10B is a technical defect that does not by itself defeat exemption. Returns covered by sections 139(4A) and 139(4C) must meet the section 139(1) due date; exemption for a late return can be restored only upon condonation under section 119(2)(b). Even without exemption, income computation under section 143(1) must consider expenditure and the declared deficit rather than tax gross receipts in full.

Best-judgment profit estimates following rejection of books under Section 145(3) must be reasonable and based on relevant material, such as past results or comparable cases, rather than arbitrary assumptions. Incomplete purchaser details can justify verification concerns and estimation of income, but do not support an arbitrary profit rate. Information about substantial cash deposits may provide a basis for reopening an assessment under Sections 147 and 148 to verify the nature and source of the deposits.

Contract cancellation charges for unfulfilled export supply contracts, where directly connected with ordinary business, qualify as business expenditure rather than speculative loss. Commission paid to non-resident agents for soliciting export customers outside India is not subject to tax deduction where the agents have no Indian business connection, the payment is not fees for technical services and the sum is not chargeable to tax in India; it is therefore not disallowable for non-deduction. Losses on forward foreign-exchange contracts used to hedge export receivables and incidental to export business are business losses, not speculative losses. Rule 8D requires recorded satisfaction on the correctness of the exempt-income expenditure claim; interest disallowance is unsustainable where neither satisfaction nor material connecting the interest to exempt income exists.

Cash sales already recorded and offered as income cannot be added again as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 solely because they occurred during demonetisation, where purchases and physical stock remain undisputed and the sales explanation is accepted. Reconciliation of physical and book stock, including previously omitted jewellery, reduced the excess-stock addition under Section 69B; the unaccounted-sale component was telescoped against the excess-stock investment. The survey cash difference was reconciled through cash purchases disallowed under Section 40A(3) and partners' withdrawals, both subsequently recorded in the books, leading to deletion of the cash addition. The concurrent factual findings were not shown to be perverse and raised no substantial question of law under Section 260A.

The fermented grape beverage with added sugar is distinguished from ordinary fruit juice by the use of yeast and fermentation and does not qualify as a fruit pulp or fruit juice based drink under HSN 2202 9920. A beverage is non-alcoholic only if its alcohol content does not exceed 0.5% by volume. An earlier test recorded 2% alcohol, while a later private laboratory report was not accepted as valid proof. The available evidence did not establish the precise classification or applicable tax rate.

Penalty under Section 129 is confined to undocumented excess goods when the remaining goods are covered by a valid tax invoice and e-way bill and there is no cogent evidence that the documents are false or the transaction fictitious. The discovery of excess goods does not by itself make the entire consignment undocumented. Section 129 permits detention and penalty for goods transported in contravention of statutory requirements, but the penalty must correspond to the nature and extent of the established contravention. Separate proof of dishonest intention is not indispensable, but deliberate tax evasion concerning documented goods cannot be presumed without an adequate factual foundation.

GST refund limitation excludes 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 under Notification 13/2022-Central Tax. Where the relevant tax payment date fell within that period, the full two-year limit ran from 1 March 2022 to 29 February 2024, making an application filed on the last day timely. An application rectified in good faith after a deficiency memo relates back to a timely original filing but cannot cure a late original claim. GST paid on a taxable advance remains subject to the refund framework even if the corresponding supply does not materialise; it cannot be reclassified as a deposit to avoid limitation. The statutory time limit is a substantive eligibility condition that procedural circulars cannot relax. Non-consideration of a show-cause reply vitiates rejection, but appellate authorities must decide disputed points with reasons. A challenge to limitation calculations on admitted facts introduces no new charge if limitation was raised in the notice.

When a deceased sole proprietor's business has discontinued, Section 93(1)(b) limits the legal representative's GST liability to the inherited estate and the extent to which it can meet the charge. Recovery requires notice to the legal representative and identification of the estate; proceedings without those steps lack jurisdiction. Input tax credit remains available despite a GSTR-2A mismatch caused by suppliers reporting business-to-business invoices as business-to-consumer transactions, where purchases are genuine, supplier tax payment is established by unrebutted certificates and the credit is otherwise valid.