Subsequent board resolutions concerning a company's authorization or ratification of acts connected with a suit may be produced without prejudging whether the suit was validly instituted. Authority to institute a suit is distinct from authority to sign and verify pleadings. An officer's signing of pleadings may be expressly or impliedly ratified, and curable procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights. The resolution's admissibility and effect on authorization and maintainability remain for determination at trial, based on the evidence and circumstances.

Natural justice in import valuation requires meaningful access to relevant import records and an opportunity to cross-examine material departmental witnesses. Cross-examination cannot be denied merely on the assumption that it would serve no purpose in light of the importer's statements. Before fresh adjudication, the importer must receive a copy of the original import file and an opportunity to cross-examine the department's chartered engineer. Relevant CBIC circulars must be considered during fresh adjudication; the valuation merits remain undecided.

Where a customs duty refund is payable to the importer rather than credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, statutory interest on the delayed refund is also payable to the importer in accordance with law. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 governs refunds and credit to the Fund. Where the determination that the refund is payable to the importer has been upheld, unjust enrichment no longer provides a basis for withholding payment.

Benami determinations examine the transaction and the relationship between property and its alleged beneficial owner, including fund flows, accommodation entries, invoices and evidence of delivery. Natural justice requires an opportunity to know and rebut relied-upon material, but does not confer an automatic right to cross-examine every witness. Income-tax assessment and benami identification serve different statutory purposes. Benami legislation has overriding effect, and an income-tax finding that a transaction is genuine does not by itself prevent a separate benami determination.

Provisional attachment under the amended Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and related Tribunal orders concerned transactions that predated 10 August 2016. Both sides accepted that an earlier decision applied to the transactions. In light of that decision, the provisional attachment and related Tribunal orders were set aside in the proceedings.

Review jurisdiction and condonation of delay raise the question whether an Appellate Tribunal may grant relief solely on the basis of liberty granted by the Supreme Court without determining whether the bar in the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies. Related issues include the binding effect of earlier coordinate and larger Bench decisions and the prospective application of substantive amendments to penal or confiscatory provisions.

Interest on funds borrowed exclusively to apply for shares in an initial public offering forms part of the cost of acquisition when it has a direct nexus with the shares acquired. Section 48 permits that acquisition cost to be deducted in computing capital gains. Under Circular No. 09/2024, a Revenue appeal falling within the low-tax-effect category is not maintainable where no exception to the circular applies.

Reassessment under sections 147 and 148 requires objections to the recorded reasons for reopening to be disposed of by a separate speaking order before reassessment proceeds. This jurisdictional safeguard preserves the opportunity to challenge rejection of the objections before reassessment is completed. Considering objections in the final assessment order, participation in proceedings, or substantial compliance cannot replace that sequence. Reassessments completed without the separate order lack jurisdiction and cannot be restored solely to cure the defect; consequential additions do not survive.

Late filing fees under section 234E cannot be levied for assessment years before 1 June 2015. Judicial precedents address the retrospective application of the fee. Where judicial views differ on retrospective application, the approach favouring the assessee applies to fees for the assessment years in question under section 234E.

Uncontroverted income-tax returns and balance sheets recorded jewellery disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, although no disclosure certificate was produced. Wedding photographs supported a separate quantity of jewellery, part of which was accepted under CBDT instructions. No evidence substantiated the source of purchase of the remaining jewellery. The evidentiary distinction concerns records of prior disclosure and proof of the source of jewellery beyond the quantity accepted under those instructions.

Bona fide claims for deductions on fixed assets written off do not attract penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars merely because the deductions are disallowed under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Where all relevant facts are disclosed, treating the expenditure as capital in nature and disallowing the claim does not, by itself, establish concealment or inaccurate particulars.

An unexplained-stock addition is not justified solely by the absence of a stock register where financial statements without identified infirmities sufficiently substantiate the stock. Maintaining a stock register is not mandated by law, and its absence alone does not undermine a supported explanation. Stock found during a survey was attributed partly to the assessee's firm and partly to a related firm. Both firms' financial statements reflected their transactions and stock up to the survey date, with no material infirmity identified.

For the section 80-IA deduction, captive power supplied to industrial units is valued at the rate charged to industrial consumers, rather than the generator's sale rate to a supplier. Common head-office expenses may be allocated by reference to fixed assets in a capital-intensive business, rather than profitability. An appellate authority may entertain a claim first raised during assessment even if it was not made in the return or a revised return. Merchandise export incentives are taxable as revenue receipts where their purpose is to offset export costs and improve competitiveness, and the rewards are freely usable rather than restricted to capital investment or expansion.

Before assessment year 2022-23, section 14A does not permit disallowance where no exempt income is earned; the Finance Act 2022 amendments do not apply retrospectively. Transfer-pricing comparability considers turnover, functional differences, segmental data and reliable margins. Direct expenses are attributed to the relevant segment, while common expenses may be allocated by segmental revenue. Foreign-currency receivables may be benchmarked using LIBOR plus 200 basis points after a 30-day credit period. Professional services expenditure is assessed for business purpose under section 37. Goodwill arising on amalgamation from consideration exceeding net assets acquired may qualify for depreciation where the Finance Act 2021 exclusion does not apply to the relevant assessment year.

Form 10-IC's reference to the following assessment year does not defeat a company's concessional tax option where the mismatch arises from portal difficulties, the option is exercised in a timely return, the form is filed within the period permitted by the applicable condonation circular, and other substantive conditions are met. Section 115BAA and Rule 21AE require the option to be exercised in Form 10-IC. Section 115JB excludes persons exercising the Section 115BAA option from minimum alternate tax, requiring its removal from the tax computation.

The claim for foreign tax credit on salary taxed in Norway remains subject to verification after Form No. 67 was not filed with the return. The taxpayer is to submit the form and credit details to the Assessing Officer, who must verify the claim and grant the credit if it is in order. Eligibility for the credit remains undetermined.

The doctrine of merger under section 263 bars revision only of matters actually considered and decided on appeal. An appellate direction on the head under which interest is taxable does not determine its quantum. Revision is permissible where interest figures remain unreconciled despite available bank statements, indicating a lack of enquiry. In a reassessment limited to bank deposits and interest, revision for lack of enquiry into hundi collections is unjustified where no material connects those collections to the reassessment and no specific error requiring enquiry is identified.

Distribution fees for access to media content and information products, without rights in intellectual property or the use of equipment, do not constitute royalty under the India-UK tax treaty. Under a principal-to-principal distribution arrangement, such fees are business receipts where there is no transfer of copyright or industrial know-how and no equipment is made available for use. The royalty provisions of the Income-tax Act are also relevant to the assessment.

Reassessment may proceed on relevant prima facie tangible material indicating escaped income; conclusive proof is not required at the reopening stage. Information linking transactions to a suspected provider of bogus invoices may be considered alongside the taxpayer's responses and financial details, with the requisite approval. Adverse investigation material cannot be used in an assessment without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to examine and rebut it. For depreciation claims, invoices, e-way bills, bank records and financial statements may support verification, while a supplier's failure to respond to verification notices and non-production may leave transaction genuineness unverified and the taxpayer's burden of proof undischarged.

Article 7 of the India-USA tax treaty subjects permanent establishment profit attribution to separate rules on specified intra-enterprise service charges, excluding the profit element above actual expense reimbursement. The banking exception for interest does not extend to service charges. Branch management salary is deductible when incurred wholly and exclusively for business; head office payment alone does not trigger section 44C. Transfer-pricing comparability depends on actual functions, assets and risks and contemporaneous data. Earlier-year data must reveal facts capable of influencing the transfer price, while depreciation adjustments require reliable quantification. Segment costs require a functional nexus, rational allocation and no duplication. Head office and centralised service expenditure require separate examination of attribution, arm's length pricing and deductibility. Banking securities held as stock-in-trade may be valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower, if consistently applied.