Outcome: Delay condoned. No interference was called for in the impugned order. The special leave petition was dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether donations made to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and the Maharashtra Chief Minister's Relief Fund, though incurred in discharge of corporate social responsibility, were eligible for deduction under section 80G; (ii) Whether the assessment issue relating to computation of income under the intimation process required restoration for verification.

Issue (i): Whether donations made to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and the Maharashtra Chief Minister's Relief Fund, though incurred in discharge of corporate social responsibility, were eligible for deduction under section 80G.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of section 80G permits deduction for specified donations and contains express prohibitions only where the Legislature has so provided. The prohibition inserted for certain CSR-linked contributions to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund showed that CSR-linked donations are not universally barred under section 80G. Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act disentitles CSR expenditure as business expenditure, but does not create a wider embargo against deduction under other provisions such as section 80G. The contribution was treated as a donation to approved funds, and the absence of any express bar under section 80G for these funds was .

Conclusion: The claim for deduction under section 80G was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment issue relating to computation of income under the intimation process required restoration for verification.

Analysis: The grievance was confined to verification of the return income and the computation reflected in the intimation. Since the limited prayer was for factual verification and the Revenue raised no objection, the matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for examination in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for verification and consequential fresh decision, in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the principal deduction issue and the remaining income-computation issue was sent back for verification, leaving the assessee with only partial substantive relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A donation made in discharge of CSR obligation remains eligible for deduction under section 80G unless the statute expressly excludes that category of contribution.

Issues: (i) Whether the order dated 30.09.2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act confirming demand for wrongful availment of input tax credit is amenable to writ jurisdiction; (ii) Whether pre-deposit mandated for preferring the statutory appeal can be waived and the petitioner permitted to file appeal without the mandatory pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned demand order under Section 74 (wrongful availment of input tax credit) is liable to be quashed in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The impugned order records reasons including findings of misstatement and suppression connected with submission of fake invoices and absence of e-way bills. In exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, adequacy and sufficiency of reasons are not to be re-examined unless reasons are perverse or tainted by mala fides. No such perversity or mala fide is shown on the record.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order dated 30.09.2025 under Section 74 is rejected; the writ does not succeed on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory pre-deposit for filing the appeal may be dispensed with and the appeal be entertained without the mandatory pre-deposit.

Analysis: The requirement of pre-deposit is statutory. No extraordinary circumstance has been demonstrated that would justify dispensing with the statutory pre-deposit obligation or directing reduced deposit/security. The petitioner's interim offer to furnish security does not suffice to override the statutory requirement in the absence of exceptional justification.

Conclusion: Prayer to waive or dispense with the mandatory pre-deposit is refused; the petitioner is not permitted to file the statutory appeal without complying with the pre-deposit requirement.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed; the impugned tax demand remains subject to the statutory appellate remedy which requires compliance with the pre-deposit condition.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory pre-deposit requirement for preferring an appeal under the CGST framework cannot be waived in writ jurisdiction absent demonstration of extraordinary circumstances, and certiorari will not be granted to reappraise reasoned tax orders unless shown to be perverse or mala fide.

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming additions without considering the appellant's oral and written submissions and material documents; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming additions in absence of corroborative evidence and by ignoring the appellant's submissions; (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in relying solely on replies of two customers without allowing the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine them.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition without considering the appellant's oral and written submissions and material documents.

Analysis: Notices were issued to the customers and their responses or non-traceability were on record. The ledger entries were predominantly cash and explanations regarding demand drafts were unconvincing. The Revenue discharged initial burden and concurrent authorities recorded findings of fact. The appellate scope under Section 260-A is limited to substantial questions of law, not reappreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified; the matter involves appreciation of evidence and does not raise a substantial question of law against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition in absence of corroborative evidence and by ignoring the appellant's submissions.

Analysis: The record contains customers' denials and instances of non-service/non-traceability. The appellant failed to produce creditworthy documents or to call customers as witnesses to discharge the onus shifted to it. Concurrent findings by three authorities addressed the submissions and found the appellant's explanations inadequate.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified; absence of corroboration and failure by the appellant to discharge onus sustain the additions and do not constitute substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in relying solely on replies of two customers without allowing the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine them.

Analysis: There is no record of a request for cross-examination having been made and refused. The appellant could have produced the customers if transactions were genuine. Reliance on customer responses and circumstances of non-traceability formed part of factual findings examined by concurrent authorities.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified; no substantial question of law arises from the reliance on customer replies and no procedural lapse mandating interference is established.

Final Conclusion: The questions framed do not amount to substantial questions of law under Section 260-A and do not justify entertaining the appeal; concurrent findings of fact are not susceptible to reappreciation in this appellate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is maintainable only on substantial questions of law; concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence and free from perversity do not give rise to such questions and cannot be reappreciated in that appeal.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 under section 68 and consequential addition of interest under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as accommodation entries from M/s. Khusboo Complex Pvt. Ltd. was correctly disallowed by the Assessing Officer or rightly deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and whether the Revenue's appeal against deletion is maintainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the impugned loan transaction under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by documentary evidence including bank statements, lender's audited financials, ITR acknowledgements, ledger confirmations and proof of repayment. The Tribunal considered the legal framework governing section 68 and related provisions, the relevance of investigation wing reports, and precedents on the evidentiary value of repayment and banking channel transactions. The Tribunal evaluated whether the Assessing Officer conducted any independent inquiry beyond relying on the investigation report and whether repayment prior to reopening affected the ability to treat the amount as unexplained credit. The Tribunal also considered whether the CIT(A)'s factual findings on documentary proof and repayment sufficiently discharged the assessee's burden under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and that the Assessing Officer's addition based primarily on the investigation report without independent inquiry was unsustainable; accordingly the additions under section 68 and section 69C are deleted and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed; decision is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the provision for warranty of Rs. 34,48,532/- created by the assessee is required to be added back while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 under Explanation 1(c) as an amount set aside as provision for liabilities, or whether it is an ascertained liability not liable to be added back.

Analysis: Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB mandates addition of amounts set aside as provisions other than for unascertained liabilities. A provisioning for warranty based on past experience and a reasonable scientific method, relating to products sold in the year, constitutes a present obligation arising from past events and is capable of reasonable estimation. Established precedents hold that a liability crystallized during the accounting year and reasonably estimable is not an unascertained or contingent liability merely because payment may occur in a subsequent year. The facts show the provision was created in respect of warranties on products sold during the year and is based on historical data and estimation methodology. Applying the statutory provision to these facts leads to the conclusion that the warranty provision does not fall within the mischief of Explanation 1(c) to section 115JB.

Conclusion: The provision for warranty of Rs. 34,48,532/- is an ascertained liability and is not required to be added back in computing book profit under section 115JB. The assessee's appeal is allowed on this issue; the Revenue's appeal challenging deletion under normal provisions is dismissed.

Issues: (i) Whether the deposits in the bank account could be treated as unexplained credits and taxed under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the assessee's purchase and sales evidence and confirmations warranted set off of purchases against the deposits and admission of additional evidence; (iii) If deposits are taxable, what is the appropriate method/quantum for estimating taxable income arising from the transactions.

Issue (i): Whether the deposits in the bank account could be treated as unexplained credits and taxed under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the transactions routed through the bank account were reflected in books or adequately explained. The Assessing Officer treated entire deposits as unexplained credits; the appellate authority sustained that view. The Tribunal considered prior proceedings, additional evidence submitted, confirmations and bank payment records and assessed whether the deposits were supported by verifiable transaction documents.

Conclusion: Decision partly in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the entire deposits could not be taxed as unexplained credits without permitting set off where corroborative evidence of trading transactions and bank routing exists.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's purchase and sales evidence and confirmations warranted set off of purchases against the deposits and admission of additional evidence.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed invoices, party confirmations, PAN copies and bank payment details placed before the authority and observed that the assessee filed charted details of purchases and sales and confirmations evidencing date wise bills, quantities, rates and payments through banking channels. The Tribunal also considered that similar set aside proceedings in a related assessment resulted in acceptance of such material. The quality and relevance of additional evidence were evaluated and found to go to the root of the matter.

Conclusion: Decision in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the additional evidence and confirmations supported set off of purchases against deposits and that the Assessing Officer should not treat the entire deposits as unexplained without accounting for verifiable purchases.

Issue (iii): If deposits are taxable, what is the appropriate method/quantum for estimating taxable income arising from the transactions.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that in the original assessment profit was estimated at 9% of turnover and that the Assessing Officer in the set aside proceedings taxed the entire deposits. Considering the nature of the transactions, available evidence, and the need for a reasonable estimate in the interest of justice, the Tribunal determined an appropriate profit percentage to be applied to the established sales figure to arrive at taxable income.

Conclusion: Decision partly in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal directed that profit be adopted at 10% of the relevant sales/deposits, restricting the addition to a specified reduced amount in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed by reducing the addition made on account of unexplained deposits and directing the Assessing Officer to adopt profit at 10% of the relevant sales/deposits, thereby lessening the taxable addition while remanding necessary computation to the Assessing Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where bank deposits relate to trading transactions that are supported by invoices, party confirmations and bank payment evidence, the assessing authority must permit set off of verifiable purchases and, if an estimate is required, apply a reasonable profit percentage rather than taxing entire deposits as unexplained credits.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 23,60,000 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for unexplained unsecured loans received by the assessee-company is justified.

Analysis: The identity of the seven lenders (female family members of promoters/directors/shareholders) is established by furnished PANs. The genuineness of transactions is supported by receipt of funds through banking channels and confirmations/affidavits from the lenders. Creditworthiness requires proof of source of funds; bank statements show cash deposits into the lenders' accounts immediately prior to issuance of cheques to the company. For A.Y. 2016-17 the basic exemption limit is Rs. 2,50,000 and individuals with income up to that threshold may legitimately rely on accumulated savings and non-taxable receipts. Applying these principles, the Tribunal accepts, as source, accumulated past savings and income up to Rs. 2,50,000 per lender and treats amounts up to that limit as explained. The remaining amounts above Rs. 2,50,000 where no sufficient source is shown remain unexplained.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 68 is deleted to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000 for each lender and sustained to the extent of the remaining unexplained amount aggregating Rs. 7,30,000; the assessee's appeal is partly allowed (in favour of the assessee to the extent indicated and against the assessee for the balance).

Issues: Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of commission income received from MSEDCL for A.Y. 2020-21.

Analysis: The claim concerns commission income from MSEDCL amounting to Rs.41,873/-. The Tribunal considered prior Tribunal authority applying the principle that activities of collecting bills/dues and earning related commission for and on behalf of government or public utilities are akin to banking activity and therefore fall within the scope of deduction available to cooperative societies. On facts the commission income arises from deposits and activities incident to the society's main objects and is not interest earned from surplus funds with scheduled banks. The Tribunal applied that precedent to conclude the commission income is eligible as incidental to banking-like activity and thus allowable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the commission income from MSEDCL of Rs.41,873/- is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 75,16,570/- made under Section 68 by treating long term capital gains on sale of SRK Industries Ltd. as unexplained income and denial of exemption under Section 10(38) is sustainable.

Analysis: The appeal concerns sale transactions of listed shares executed through recognised stock exchange brokers with STT paid and consideration routed through banking channels; documentary evidence including broker contract notes, demat statements and bank receipts were placed on record and were not controverted by Revenue. Coordinate decisions of the Tribunal and binding decisions of the Bombay High Court on identical or similar facts hold that where purchase and sale occur on the stock exchange platform, deliveries are taken in demat accounts, payments are through banking channels and contract notes and STT are available, mere reliance on an investigation report without cogent corroborative material is insufficient to treat capital gains as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Assessing Officer did not point out defects in the documentation nor bring material establishing participation of the assessee in price rigging or accommodation entries; notices under Section 133(6) did not produce identification or linkage that would rebut the recorded documentary trail.

Analysis: Coordinate Bench precedents dealing with the same scrip and jurisdictional High Court authorities demonstrate that, on similar facts, documentary evidence shifts the evidential burden to Revenue to establish sham nature of transactions; absent such evidence or SEBI/BSE findings impugning the transactions, additions based on conjecture and investigation reports unsupported by particulars cannot be sustained. The Tribunal therefore directed deletion of the addition made under Section 68 and directed grant of exemption under Section 10(38); consequential estimate additions were also deleted.

Conclusion: Issue (i) decided in favour of the assessee - the addition of Rs. 75,16,570/- under Section 68 is deleted and exemption under Section 10(38) is to be granted; consequential additions are deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where purchase and sale of listed shares are executed on a recognised stock exchange through SEBI-registered brokers with contract notes, demat deliveries, STT payment and banking channel receipts, and documentary evidence is not controverted, an addition under Section 68 treating resultant capital gains as unexplained income cannot be sustained absent cogent corroborative material showing sham transactions or participation in price rigging.

Issues: (i) Whether additions of unexplained advances and consequential interest based on entries in the seized Neelgagan Diary (Annexure A-3) are sustainable; (ii) Whether additions of unexplained investment on account of alleged land plotting projects based on loose sheets (Annexure A-1) are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the assessing authority and the first appellate authority were justified in treating diary entries as deficient by two zeros, treating them as unexplained advances and estimating consequential interest.

Analysis: The diary was seized from the assessee's premises and attracts the presumption under the provisions relating to seized material; however the presumption is rebuttable. The assessee produced affidavits and recorded statements of the parties mentioned in the diary confirming that amounts were in thousands, and filed cash flow statements and other material quantifying unexplained investment at a much lower figure. The authorities had applied an assumption of adding two zeros to diary entries without independent corroborative evidence or forensic verification; several judicial precedents require independent corroboration and hold that suspicion alone cannot sustain additions. The Tribunal examined the record and found that the assumption of deficient zeros was hypothetical and contradicted by confirmations and material on record; consequently the additions based on that assumption lacked requisite corroboration.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee. The additions of unexplained advances and consequential interest based on the diary entries are deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether additions of unexplained investment on the basis of loose project sheets (Annexure A-1) can be sustained as income of the assessee.

Analysis: The loose sheets were undated, unsigned, not in the assessee's handwriting and were not supported by agreements, deeds, payments or other corroborative material linking the assessee to the alleged investments. Field enquiries did not establish necessary fund flows or direct linkage; the seized papers were thus treated as dumb documents. Judicial authority requires independent corroboration of entries in seized material or books before fastening liability. The Tribunal applied these principles and found the material insufficient to sustain the additions in the assessee's hands.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee. The additions of unexplained investment based on loose sheets are deleted.

Final Conclusion: The substantive additions based on the seized diary and loose sheets are not sustainable for lack of independent corroboration and having been made on mere suspicion; accordingly the appeals are allowed in part by deleting the contested additions while any ancillary or procedural pleas rendered academic are not examined.

Ratio Decidendi: Additions based on entries found in seized documents require independent and cogent corroborative evidence; mere suspicion or hypothetical modification of recorded figures (such as adding zeros) without concrete supporting material cannot sustain an assessment addition.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 5,49,98,884/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of amounts withdrawn from bank accounts opened by introduction should be deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Analysis: The Assessing Officer recorded evidence that 9,165 accounts were opened by introduction, withdrawal vouchers showed signatures and withdrawals were received by the introducers, a sample of supposed account-holders were not traceable or denied any knowledge of the accounts, and the bank manager confirmed withdrawals were effected on behalf of the introducer by signature on withdrawal slips. The Assessing Officer applied Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where unexplained money found in the possession of the assessee and not recorded in books may be treated as deemed income if the assessee does not offer a satisfactory explanation. The assessee claimed a legitimate business of cheque discounting and that amounts were passed on to genuine workers for a commission. The appellate authority accepted the cheque-discounting explanation without adequately confronting the AO's evidence that the account-holders were not genuine and that the introducer operated the accounts and received the amounts. The evidence before the Assessing Officer established ownership of the withdrawn sums by the introducer and absence of documentary proof from the assessee to show the money belonged to others. Where the assessee fails to discharge the burden to explain the nature and source of the money found in his possession, Section 69A permits treating such amounts as deemed income.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 5,49,98,884/- is upheld. This is against the assessee (in favour of Revenue).

Issues: Whether the petition should be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Tribunal within a specified period and for such appeal to be decided on merits without objection as to limitation.

Analysis: The question concerns procedural relief permitting withdrawal of the writ petition and conferring a time-limited right to pursue the appellate remedy before the appropriate Tribunal. The Court examined the effect of a Supreme Court remittal and the surrounding procedural context, including prior orders and bona fide pursuit of proceedings, and considered whether equitable relief in the nature of permitting an appeal out of time (by removing limitation objection) should be granted to enable adjudication on merits. The Court balanced the petitioners' intent to prosecute the statutory appellate remedy against the need to preserve procedural regularity, noting the parties' submissions and precedents addressing remittal and appellate limitation in comparable matters.

Conclusion: Liberty to withdraw the petition is granted and the petitioners are permitted to file an appeal before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of the order; if so filed, the appeal shall be decided on its merits and in accordance with law without an objection as to limitation. (In favour of petitioner)

Issues: Whether the imported "Alesea Reel Tracking Device" is classifiable under Heading 8526 (radio navigational aid apparatus) or under Heading 8517 (apparatus for transmission/reception of data) or any other heading, having regard to its composite components and principal function.

Analysis: The Authority applied the General Rules of Interpretation and Note 3 to Section XVI to determine classification of a composite device by its principal function or component imparting essential character. The device incorporates GPS receiver, gyroscope, accelerometer, digital compass, internal thermometer and a modem. Examination of the product literature and technical architecture showed that the device's commercial identity and primary purpose are location tracking, geo-fencing and proof-of-delivery, functions that depend fundamentally on satellite radio-based determination of geographic position. The modem and sensors were found to be ancillary or supportive: transmission and supporting metrics facilitate but do not define the device's essential character. International administrative rulings and settled judicial principles concerning essential character and dominant use were applied to conclude which component imparts the principal function.

Conclusion: The principal function of the "Alesea Reel Tracking Device" is radio-based determination and tracking of geographic position; the device is classifiable under Tariff Heading 8526, specifically under tariff item 8526 91 90 as other radio navigational aid apparatus.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's arrest under section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was illegal for want of statutory compliance and absence of material linking him to money laundering; and whether the remand orders deserved to be quashed.

Analysis: The statutory standard for judicial review of arrest under special enactments is limited to cases of manifest arbitrariness or gross non-compliance with the safeguards prescribed by law. The record showed recording of statements, search and seizure operations, communication of grounds of arrest and reasons to believe, production before the designated court, and successive remand orders. The material relied upon by the enforcement authority included unaccounted cash, diamond-studded jewellery, digital material, statements under section 50, and an explanation that the alleged bribe-related receipts constituted proceeds of crime. The Court held that the definition of proceeds of crime is broad, that money laundering is an independent offence connected with the process or activity involving such proceeds, and that the existence of prima facie material at the stage of arrest is sufficient. The challenge based on lack of prior arraignment in the earlier FIRs, alleged absence of quantification at the time of arrest, and reliance on cooperation with investigation did not establish patent illegality.

Conclusion: The arrest was held to be valid and the challenge to the remand orders failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was found to be devoid of merit, with no ground made out for writ interference, while leaving the parties free to pursue their remedies in the appropriate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is warranted only on manifest illegality or non-compliance with statutory safeguards, and prima facie material showing involvement with proceeds of crime is sufficient to sustain the arrest at the investigation stage.

Issues: (i) whether a claim of reverse passing off is maintainable in trade mark law and whether the facts disclosed passing off or reverse passing off; (ii) whether the respondents' sale and import of end-of-life HDDs amounted to infringement, and whether Sections 30(3) and 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 were attracted.

Issue (i): whether a claim of reverse passing off is maintainable in trade mark law and whether the facts disclosed passing off or reverse passing off.

Analysis: The statutory saving for passing off protects only an action against a person passing off his own goods or services as those of another. The concept of reverse passing off, namely misrepresenting another's goods as one's own, does not fit within that framework. Even assuming such a claim were available, the appellants failed to show at the initial point of sale that consumers would identify the refurbished HDDs as theirs despite the respondents' rebranding. There was no prima facie material of misappropriation of goodwill or of damage caused to that goodwill. Mere assertions that technical tools might later reveal the original manufacturer were insufficient at the interlocutory stage.

Conclusion: No maintainable claim of reverse passing off was made out, and no prima facie case of passing off was established.

Issue (ii): whether the respondents' sale and import of end-of-life HDDs amounted to infringement, and whether Sections 30(3) and 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 were attracted.

Analysis: Infringement under Section 29 requires use of the registered mark or a deceptively similar mark in the course of trade. Once the appellants' marks were effaced before resale, the respondents were not using the appellants' marks in the impugned sale. Section 30(3) is not a separate source of infringement but an exception that preserves lawful resale of goods bearing a registered mark when lawfully acquired. The goods had been lawfully acquired, there was no shown prohibition on resale by the OEMs after end-of-life, and the import was not shown to be unlawful. Section 30(4) also did not apply, because the alteration undertaken by the respondents did not amount, on the material before the Court, to a change or impairment giving the appellants a legitimate reason to oppose further dealings. The expression "changed" was construed noscitur a sociis with "impaired", and no prima facie prejudice to the appellants' goodwill was shown.

Conclusion: No prima facie infringement was established, and the respondents were entitled to the protection of Section 30(3) while Section 30(4) was inapplicable.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed because the respondents' conduct did not disclose a prima facie cause of action for passing off, reverse passing off, or trademark infringement on the materials placed before the Court, and the interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge was not disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For refurbished second-hand goods, trademark infringement is not made out merely because the original mark is removed and the goods are resold under a different brand; the plaintiff must still establish use of its mark within Section 29, and Sections 30(3) and 30(4) operate only within that framework, with Section 30(4) requiring a legitimate reason based on change or impairment that prejudices the proprietor's goodwill.

Issues: Whether the processing under summary assessment ignored the cost of acquisition leading to incorrect computation of long term capital gains and whether the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer to consider the cost of acquisition and recompute LTCG.

Analysis: The return declared long term capital gains on sale of equity oriented mutual funds adopting cost of acquisition as per broker statement; in processing the return the entire sale proceeds were treated as capital gain without allowing cost of acquisition. The proposed adjustment notice was limited to deductions under Chapter VI-A and did not relate to capital gains, rectification under the rectification provision was rejected, and remand proceedings recorded no adverse difference with the broker statement. Having regard to the statutory scheme for computation of long term capital gains and the absence of a valid opportunity or substantive adverse finding on cost of acquisition, the appropriate course is to direct the Assessing Officer to consider the cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee and to recompute the long term capital gain in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee is to be considered and the long term capital gain is to be recomputed by the Assessing Officer; decision is in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where summary processing treats gross sale proceeds as capital gain without allowing claimed cost of acquisition and no valid notice or adverse finding on cost exists, the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer to consider and allow cost of acquisition and recompute long term capital gains in accordance with the Income-tax Act.