Issues: Whether, upon failure to satisfy the conditions for the concessional rate under Section 115BAA, a company whose turnover in the relevant preceding financial year did not exceed Rs. 400 crore must be taxed at the normal rate of 25% rather than 30%.

Analysis: The assessee accepted its ineligibility for the concessional 22% rate because the prescribed conditions were not fulfilled. Its turnover for FY 2017-18 was below Rs. 400 crore. The applicable normal rate therefore depended on that turnover threshold. The Tribunal applied the principle that tax liability must be computed at the rate applicable under law after denial of the concessional regime.

Conclusion: The assessee's income is chargeable at the normal rate of 25%, and not at 30%.

Issues: Whether a customs-clearance facilitator could be fastened with differential customs duty, interest and penalties without proof that he was the owner, beneficial owner, duly authorised agent, or had knowledge of the concealed goods and false documentation.

Analysis: Handling import documents, instructing the Customs Broker, paying assessed duty, and arranging examination, clearance and transportation may establish involvement in clearance, but do not by themselves establish beneficial ownership, agency under Section 147(3), or knowing participation in misdeclaration and attempted smuggling. The foundational facts showing express or implied authorisation by the actual owner or importer were absent. The adjudicating authority also failed to make the specifically required finding that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the undeclared goods or knowingly facilitated their concealment. Penalty under Section 114A required prior establishment of duty liability arising from collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression, while penalty under Section 114AA required proof that the petitioner knowingly or intentionally used or caused the use of a materially false document. Those statutory ingredients were not established.

Conclusion: The differential-duty liability, consequential interest, and penalties could not be imposed upon the petitioner.

Issues: Whether redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation can be included while estimating the amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis: Redemption fine levied under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in lieu of confiscation, forms part of the recoverable amount in arrears along with excise duty for purposes of the Scheme. The Scheme's eligibility provisions do not make a declarant ineligible merely because redemption fine remains unpaid. The departmental clarification requiring prior payment of redemption fine is inconsistent with the Scheme.

Conclusion: Redemption fine cannot be included in the estimated amount payable under the Scheme; its inclusion was quashed and the payable amount must be recalculated after excluding the redemption fine. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant is a governmental authority for service-tax purposes; (ii) Whether the one-time lease premium and transfer-related receipts from long-term development leases constitute taxable renting of immovable property or service; (iii) Whether service tax on construction of residential complex activity is payable after the available abatement; (iv) Whether interest for delayed payments and receipts for water supply are taxable consideration; and (v) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation is valid.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant is a governmental authority for service-tax purposes.

Analysis: The appellant was constituted by a State notification under the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, for urban and town-planning functions. The amended definition in Notification No. 25/2012-ST covers an authority set up by a State Legislature or established by Government with the prescribed governmental participation for municipal functions under Article 243W.

Conclusion: The appellant qualifies as a governmental authority, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the one-time lease premium and transfer-related receipts from long-term development leases constitute taxable renting of immovable property or service.

Analysis: The long-term arrangement transferred possession, control, development rights and the benefit arising from land to the developer against a one-time premium. Development rights are benefits arising from land and therefore immovable property. Their transfer is excluded from the definition of service under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. For the pre-negative-list period also, the arrangement, being substantially akin to a transfer of property for a prolonged term rather than ordinary renting, did not answer the description of renting of immovable property.

Conclusion: The receipts from the long-term development lease are not liable to service tax, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether service tax on construction of residential complex activity is payable after the available abatement.

Analysis: Construction of residential complex activity remains taxable. However, the appellant included the land and superstructure values in the gross amount and had reversed the CENVAT credit. No material established breach of the conditions for abatement under Notification No. 29/2010.

Conclusion: Service tax is payable on construction of residential complex activity only after allowing the abatement under Notification No. 29/2010, partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest for delayed payments and receipts for water supply are taxable consideration.

Analysis: Interest received because purchasers deferred payment was penal in character and analogous to liquidated damages, rather than consideration for a taxable service. Water supplied by the governmental authority in discharge of its public function was treated as supply of goods and not as a taxable service.

Conclusion: Delayed-payment interest and water-supply receipts are not liable to service tax, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation is valid.

Analysis: The appellant had already been put to notice of the service-tax liability on the surviving taxable activity through earlier proceedings, but did not discharge tax in subsequent years. This supported the finding of intentional evasion for the limited liability that survives.

Conclusion: The extended period was validly invoked, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax liability is confined to construction of residential complex activity after admissible abatement; the remaining disputed service-tax demands do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer of development rights conferring a benefit arising from land is a transfer of immovable property and falls outside the statutory definition of service.

Issues: Whether refund of accumulated CENVAT credit for exported output services can be denied under Rule 5 on the ground of absence of nexus between input services and exported output services, or inadequate supporting documents, when availment of credit was never challenged under Rule 14.

Analysis: Rule 5 provides the prescribed mechanism and formula for determining refundable accumulated credit attributable to export of output services. The department had neither issued a show-cause notice nor invoked Rule 14 to dispute the appellants' original availment of CENVAT credit. The admissibility of such credit, including objections concerning nexus and documentation, could not consequently be re-examined in refund proceedings under Rule 5, particularly when non-compliance with the Rule 5 formula or procedure was not alleged.

Conclusion: Refund of the accumulated CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the stated nexus or documentation grounds.

Issues: Whether penalty for failure to obtain or furnish a tax-audit report was sustainable where the accounts had been audited within time and the audit report was produced during assessment proceedings.

Analysis: Section 44AB requires the prescribed assessee to obtain an audit report by the specified date, while section 271B permits, but does not mandate, imposition of penalty for non-compliance. Section 273B excludes penalty where reasonable cause is established. The audit report was available on record and had been furnished to the lower authorities during assessment proceedings. Since the audit had been completed within the prescribed period and the report was made available before completion of assessment, mere non-furnishing of the report with the return did not establish a failure to comply with section 44AB.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271B was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the section 143(1)(a) adjustment reducing business loss due to a GST refund mismatch should be reconsidered on additional evidence; (ii) Whether the deletion of addition under section 68 for trade payables was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the section 143(1)(a) adjustment reducing business loss due to a GST refund mismatch should be reconsidered on additional evidence.

Analysis: The additional documentary material was material to the correct accounting and tax treatment of the GST refund and went to the root of the dispute. Its admission under Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 required factual verification by the Assessing Officer, as it had not been examined by the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The adjustment was set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after admitting and verifying the additional evidence, in favour of the assessee procedurally.

Issue (ii): Whether the deletion of addition under section 68 for trade payables was sustainable.

Analysis: The outstanding balances represented trade liabilities arising from purchases. Reconciliations and supporting material established the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions; the Revenue produced no contrary material to displace those findings. Non-compliance with notices under section 133(6), without a finding that the underlying purchases were fictitious or non-genuine, did not justify treating the trade payables as unexplained cash credits under section 68.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition for trade payables was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The GST-refund mismatch remains open for fresh factual determination on the additional evidence, while the deletion of the trade-payable addition remains intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 68 cannot be invoked for trade payables where the identity of creditors and genuineness of purchase liabilities are established through reconciliations and supporting material; non-response to verification notices alone is insufficient.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment could validly be initiated when approval for the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 was obtained from the authority under section 151(i), although approval under section 151(ii) was required; (ii) Whether penalty under section 271B was sustainable on the basis of an unreconciled aggregate of share and alleged derivative transactions, and despite the assessee's reasonable cause under section 273B.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment could validly be initiated when approval for the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 was obtained from the authority under section 151(i), although approval under section 151(ii) was required.

Analysis: Approval under section 151 is a substantive jurisdictional safeguard for issuance of a notice under section 148. Under the substituted reassessment regime, where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval must be obtained from the higher specified authority under section 151(ii). TOLA extended the period during which the authority under section 151(i) could grant approval only until 30.06.2021; it did not continue that authority's competence in July 2022. Approval by the Principal Commissioner, instead of the authority specified in section 151(ii), was not curable under section 292B.

Conclusion: The approval was not granted by the competent specified authority. The order under section 148A(d), notice under section 148, reassessment order, and consequential addition were invalid and quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under section 271B was sustainable on the basis of an unreconciled aggregate of share and alleged derivative transactions, and despite the assessee's reasonable cause under section 273B.

Analysis: Section 44AB applies only where the Revenue establishes that the assessee carried on a business and that its sales, turnover or gross receipts exceeded the prescribed threshold. The aggregate relied upon combined purchases, delivery-based share sales and an unverified alleged derivative figure; purchases alone could not constitute turnover. No primary material established intraday or derivative transactions, systematic share-trading activity, or the legally relevant turnover. The Revenue could not reverse the burden by requiring the assessee to prove absence of day trading. The consistent disclosure of shares as investments and income as capital gains, without assessment of the transactions as business income, also constituted reasonable cause under section 273B.

Conclusion: The prerequisites for section 44AB were not established and, independently, reasonable cause was proved. Penalty under section 271B was unsustainable and deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment lacked the mandatory jurisdictional sanction, and the alleged audit default was unsupported by proof of a taxable share-trading business or legally computed turnover.

Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory statutory preconditions must be strictly fulfilled: sanction from the authority specified under section 151 is indispensable for reassessment jurisdiction, and audit-default penalty requires proof of business activity and legally determinable turnover, subject to reasonable cause.

Issues: (i) Whether additional evidence supporting commission paid to daily deposit agents should be admitted and the related disallowance reconsidered; (ii) Whether estimated interest on loans classified as non-performing assets was sustainable; (iii) Whether interest income could be estimated uniformly at 15% on different categories of loans.

Issue (i): Whether additional evidence supporting commission paid to daily deposit agents should be admitted and the related disallowance reconsidered.

Analysis: The evidence comprising party-wise commission details, identity particulars and tax-deduction details was relevant to the claim of business expenditure. Its non-admission at the first appellate stage was unjustified, as the evidence had not been examined by the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The additional evidence was admitted and the commission-disallowance issue was restored for fresh determination, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether estimated interest on loans classified as non-performing assets was sustainable.

Analysis: Interest derived from credit facilities provided to members was accepted as eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Any estimated interest addition would correspondingly enhance the eligible deduction, rendering the adjustment revenue neutral.

Conclusion: The estimated interest addition on non-performing asset loans was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest income could be estimated uniformly at 15% on different categories of loans.

Analysis: Housing, mortgage, personal, deposit-backed and overdraft facilities carried different interest rates. A uniform ad hoc rate of 15% disregarded those differences; moreover, any resultant enhancement of eligible business income would qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Conclusion: The estimated interest addition based on a uniform 15% rate was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The commission claim requires fresh verification on the admitted material, while both estimated-interest adjustments are unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An estimated addition that merely enhances business income otherwise fully eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is revenue neutral; interest cannot be estimated uniformly where loan categories carry different rates.

Issues: (i) Whether unsecured loans supported by confirmations, tax particulars, audited financial statements, ledger accounts and banking records could be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68; (ii) Whether an ad hoc disallowance of 30% of business expenditure was sustainable merely because no business receipts were shown during the year; (iii) Whether interest on the impugned borrowings was disallowable solely because the underlying loans had been treated as non-genuine; (iv) Whether the current-year business loss could be set off against income assessed under the head "Capital Gains".

Issue (i): Whether unsecured loans supported by confirmations, tax particulars, audited financial statements, ledger accounts and banking records could be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68.

Analysis: Section 68 requires credible evidence of the creditor's identity, financial capacity and the genuineness of the particular transaction. The lender-wise material established the identified creditors, their audited financial position and the banking trail of the loans, with subsequent repayments and interest also supporting the transactions. General Investigation Wing information could warrant deeper enquiry but, absent lender-specific adverse findings, a contrary fund trail, repudiation by creditors, or evidence disproving the documents, it could not displace the primary evidence. Material proposed to be relied upon against the assessee also required effective confrontation.

Conclusion: The addition of unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits under section 68 was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an ad hoc disallowance of 30% of business expenditure was sustainable merely because no business receipts were shown during the year.

Analysis: Absence of receipts in a particular year does not by itself establish closure or abandonment of business. Expenditure incurred to maintain a continuing business establishment may retain its business character during commercial inactivity. The assessment identified no particular expense as fictitious, personal, inflated or unrelated to business, rejected no books, vouchers or ledger entries, and disclosed no rational basis for selecting 30% of the aggregate expenditure.

Conclusion: The estimated disallowance of business expenditure was arbitrary and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest on the impugned borrowings was disallowable solely because the underlying loans had been treated as non-genuine.

Analysis: The interest disallowance rested exclusively on the earlier treatment of the underlying loans as non-genuine. There was no independent finding that the interest was not paid, was excessive or fictitious, or that the borrowings were used for non-business purposes. Deletion of the section 68 addition removed the sole foundation of the interest disallowance.

Conclusion: The disallowance of interest on the borrowings was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the current-year business loss could be set off against income assessed under the head "Capital Gains".

Analysis: The gain on sale of the property was accepted as assessable under the head "Capital Gains". The loss claimed was a current-year business loss, rather than a brought-forward loss governed by the separate regime under section 72. Following recomputation after deletion of the business-expense and interest disallowances, the correct current-year business loss was required to be determined and considered for inter-head adjustment under section 71(2).

Conclusion: The eligible current-year business loss was directed to be set off against capital gains in accordance with section 71(2), in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment computations require revision by excluding the deleted cash-credit addition and consequential interest and business-expenditure disallowances, and by granting the statutory adjustment of the recomputed current-year business loss against capital gains.

Issues: (i) Whether payment for a restricted end-user software licence constituted royalty under Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA, attracting withholding tax; (ii) Whether the entire payment for supply, installation and training of a video-conferencing system constituted fees for technical services under the India-Germany DTAA.

Issue (i): Whether payment for a restricted end-user software licence constituted royalty under Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA, attracting withholding tax.

Analysis: Article 12(3) distinguishes consideration for use of, or the right to use, copyright from consideration for use of a copyrighted product. The licence was non-exclusive, non-transferable and non-sublicensable; ownership, copyright and all intellectual-property rights remained with the supplier. The licensee was prohibited from commercial exploitation, modification, sublicensing, reverse engineering, creation of derivative works and unauthorised copying. The arrangement therefore granted only a limited facility to use software internally and did not transfer any right comprised in the copyright.

Conclusion: The software payment was not royalty under Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA; no withholding-tax obligation or consequential default liability arose in respect of that payment, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the entire payment for supply, installation and training of a video-conferencing system constituted fees for technical services under the India-Germany DTAA.

Analysis: The contemporaneous order confirmation established that the predominant consideration was for identified video-conferencing equipment and allied products, rather than for clinical research or independent technical services. Installation, setup and training were separately priced at 890. The record did not sufficiently establish that this separately identified service component was confined to routine installation or operational demonstration. In view of the limited amount and the assessee's acceptance of treaty-rate withholding on that component, the service element was confined to 890 without deciding whether such services would generally constitute fees for technical services.

Conclusion: Treatment of the entire payment as fees for technical services was unsustainable. Consideration for equipment and non-service components must be excluded, and withholding tax may be restricted to 890 for installation, setup and training at the applicable treaty rate, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The software licence remains outside the royalty provision, while the German transaction is taxable only to the limited extent of the separately identified service consideration; consequential default liability requires recomputation.

Issues: (i) Whether an addition under Section 68 for differential share-sale proceeds could be sustained where the long-term capital gain had been declared under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016, and the assessment was unabated without incriminating material found in the assessee's search; (ii) Whether disallowance of short-term capital loss and an estimated commission addition could be made under Section 153A in an unabated assessment on the basis of a third-party search statement.

Issue (i): Whether an addition under Section 68 for differential share-sale proceeds could be sustained where the long-term capital gain had been declared under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016, and the assessment was unabated without incriminating material found in the assessee's search.

Analysis: The long-term capital gain from the share sale had been declared under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016, and the tax thereon had been paid. The impugned addition was founded on investigation material concerning the company whose shares were sold, rather than on material found during the search of the assessee. For an unabated assessment under Section 153A, an addition requires incriminating material unearthed in the assessee's search.

Conclusion: The Section 68 addition was impermissible, and its deletion was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance of short-term capital loss and an estimated commission addition could be made under Section 153A in an unabated assessment on the basis of a third-party search statement.

Analysis: The disallowance and commission addition were based on a statement recorded during a search of a third party, not on incriminating material found in the assessee's search. As the assessment had not abated, such extraneous material could not support additions under Section 153A.

Conclusion: The disallowance of short-term capital loss and the estimated commission addition were unsustainable, and their deletion was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletions of all impugned additions for both assessment years remain effective.

Ratio Decidendi: In an unabated assessment under Section 153A, additions can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the search of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued for AY 2017-18 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The extended period for issuing a reassessment notice, computed under the applicable reassessment framework and the binding principles governing surviving limitation, expired on 11.06.2022. The notice issued on 27.07.2022 was therefore beyond the available period of limitation.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was time-barred, and the reassessment order was quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment was valid where it was initiated on the basis of investigation-wing information without independent verification; (ii) Whether the additions for unexplained cash credit and alleged commission expenditure were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment was valid where it was initiated on the basis of investigation-wing information without independent verification.

Analysis: The recorded reasons merely reproduced investigation-wing information and the annexure did not identify the assessee's actual transactions with the named entities. The material showed that the assessee had obtained only one loan of Rs. 20 lakh through banking channels. There was no independent enquiry, verification, or analysis by the Assessing Officer before reopening.

Conclusion: The reassessment founded on borrowed satisfaction was void ab initio, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the additions for unexplained cash credit and alleged commission expenditure were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee produced lender confirmation, ledger accounts, bank statements evidencing receipt and repayment, and evidence of interest payment with tax deduction. The material established that only Rs. 20 lakh was received as loan, while the other Rs. 20 lakh represented reversal of a payment to another creditor. The additions also relied on third-party statements without granting the requested cross-examination. No independent adverse material rebutted the documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 68 and the consequential addition for alleged commission under Section 69C were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment and the consequential impugned additions could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot rest solely on unverified investigation-wing information without independent application of mind, and an unexplained-credit addition cannot survive where reliable banking and lender evidence remains unrebutted and adverse third-party statements are used without cross-examination.

Issues: Whether renewal approval under Section 80G could be denied solely because the society's objects referred to maintaining places of worship, despite the absence of actual religious expenditure or exclusionary religious activity.

Analysis: For renewal of approval, the actual activities and financial records for the immediately preceding years must be examined; long-term objects in the governing document, by themselves, do not establish that the institution conducts prohibited religious activity. Section 80G(5B) recognises the relevance of the extent of religious expenditure. The financial records disclosed no expenditure on religious activities, while the objects and activities principally concerned education, medical facilities, public welfare and cohesion among communities. Maintenance of places of worship of different faiths, without discrimination, exclusion, propagation of a particular faith, or proselytisation, does not by itself make the activity religious for this purpose. The Essential Religious Practices test may broadly assist in identifying genuinely religious activity; the predominant object and proportionality of expenditure remain material.

Conclusion: The society was not shown to be engaged in prohibited religious activity, and approval under Section 80G could not be refused on the basis of its stated objects alone.

Issues: Whether the addition of a credit under Section 68, based solely on the creditor's comparatively low declared income despite documentary evidence and without independent verification, was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee produced the sale agreement, banking records, ledger account, and the creditor's PAN and address, thereby furnishing basic material supporting the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. A low declared income, without further enquiry or contrary material, was insufficient to conclusively negate creditworthiness. The requested verification through statutory powers was not undertaken. The requirement to explain the source of the creditor's funds under the later proviso to Section 68 was not applicable to the assessment year in question.

Conclusion: The Section 68 addition was unsustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the ex parte first-appellate order was sustainable where the assessee was allowed less than fifteen days under each of the hearing notices to respond and substantiate the claims.

Analysis: Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires a reasoned appellate determination. Although several notices were issued, each afforded less than fifteen days for compliance. An opportunity of hearing must be real, reasonable and effective, rather than a formal opportunity created merely by issuance of notices. The inadequate time prevented effective representation and production of supporting evidence.

Conclusion: The ex parte appellate adjudication was vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity and was required to be set aside for fresh de novo consideration through a speaking order under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether reassessment jurisdiction was validly assumed where approval for issuing notice was granted through a common approval covering 111 cases.

Analysis: The statutory safeguard requiring satisfaction of the competent authority was not met by a general approval that did not disclose consideration of the assessee's case or the material supporting reopening. The approval had already been found to be mechanical in relation to the same group of cases. The retrospective provision relied upon by Revenue was inapplicable because the approval was granted before its effective date.

Conclusion: The approval for reopening was mechanical and invalid, rendering the assumption of reassessment jurisdiction and the consequential reassessment unsustainable.

Issues: Whether delayed electronic filing of Form 10-IC disentitled the assessee from the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA.

Analysis: Filing Form 10-IC online by the due date for filing the return was treated as a curable and directory requirement. The CBDT had extended the deadline for filing Form 10-IC for the relevant assessment year until 31 January 2024, and the form was uploaded on 10 November 2023 within that extended period. Denial of the concessional regime despite timely compliance with the extended deadline was therefore unjustified.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA.

Issues: Whether sale proceeds of a trust's capital asset retained in a savings-bank account and placed in fixed deposits, including deposits made after the close of the financial year, qualify as acquisition of another capital asset for exemption under section 11(1A).

Analysis: Section 11(1A) deems capital gains to have been applied to charitable purposes where the net consideration from transfer of a capital asset held under trust is utilised to acquire another capital asset. Deposits in an account with a scheduled bank are recognised as permissible investments under section 11(5)(iii). A bank deposit creates a distinct debtor-creditor asset and is not equivalent to cash retained by the depositor. Accordingly, neither the duration of a fixed deposit nor the fact that it was made after the financial year-end detracts from its character as a new capital asset. A savings-bank account with a scheduled bank is likewise a qualifying deposit.

Conclusion: The fixed deposits and the amount retained in the scheduled bank savings account qualified for exemption under section 11(1A), in favour of the assessee.