Under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, prior Reserve Bank sanction concerning an insured co-operative bank does not replace the Registrar's duty to satisfy the statutory conditions for winding up. A Section 99 winding-up process requires a valid Section 92 inspection, communication of the inspection report or summary to affected stakeholders, an independent recorded opinion, and a meaningful opportunity to be heard where grave civil consequences arise. A member may appeal a winding-up order under Entry 13 of the Third Schedule despite liquidation; requiring recourse through a liquidator whose appointment is contested would undermine that right and conflict with the rule against self-judging.

Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to an error apparent on the face of the record or other recognised grounds. Section 125(2)(h) of the Companies Act applies to unclaimed and unpaid application money received for allotment of securities that is due for refund after the prescribed period. Refunds payable to former shareholders following a court-approved reduction of share capital do not constitute such application money. As the prior directions had considered the relevant material and submissions, no apparent error justified review or transfer of those amounts to the Investor Education and Protection Fund.

Rejection of a plaint must be assessed solely from its averments. Civil-court jurisdiction remains available for declaration and partition claims relating to property held by a company unless company-law fora are empowered to determine that specific dispute; jurisdiction is not excluded merely because assets are company-held. Allegations that property was acquired by a Hindu undivided family Karta from known HUF sources and held for family benefit may fall within the benami-property exception. Where applicability of that exception requires evidence, the benami prohibition cannot conclusively defeat the claim at the pleading stage. Declaration and partition claims may therefore proceed when statutory bars are not apparent from the plaint.

Customs revaluation and differential-duty recovery require corroborated valuation evidence, transparent expert methodology, and a meaningful opportunity to challenge adverse material. Unverified overseas information and unexplained technical reports cannot establish undervaluation where Customs had examined and assessed the imports. Confiscation requires the separate statutory notice and procedure; a duty-recovery notice cannot substitute for it, and goods already cleared and unavailable cannot be confiscated. The extended recovery period cannot apply without proof of deliberate suppression, particularly where import declarations and Customs assessments disclosed the relevant facts. Consequently, the valuation-based duty demands, confiscation, redemption fines, and penalties lack legal foundation.

Release of cargo containers was not directed because the containers still held cargo requiring de-stuffing upon payment of charges. Neither private party agreed to pay those charges, and the importer, whose tribunal appeal remained pending, had not been impleaded. The writ appeal was closed, with liberty to seek appropriate orders from the authorities after notice to the importer.

Paragraph 2.20A of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 prohibits direct or indirect import or transit of goods originating in or exported from Pakistan, including transhipped goods entering India; home-consumption clearance is unnecessary. Conflicting origin documents require determination under statutory procedures and applicable rules of origin rather than writ review. DRI's all-India jurisdiction permits inspection and seizure at the consignment's first Indian arrival point despite onward transhipment. Domestic customs law governs prohibited imports and transit and prevails in any conflict with transit-treaty obligations, subject to treaty exceptions for prohibited goods and security interests. A single, inseparable consignment may be seized in full where origin discrepancies prevent segregation of labelled bags.

Recovery of erroneously or excessively paid drawback under Rule 16 is subject to a reasonable-period requirement where no statutory limitation period is prescribed. Reasonableness depends on the circumstances, including whether fraud, suppression of material facts, or another justification explains delay. In the absence of allegations of fraudulent availment or suppression, and without a satisfactory explanation for commencing recovery more than seven years after payment, the delayed proceedings were unsustainable. The recovery order was set aside and refund of the drawback amount was directed.

Provisional release of seized imported nut pieces pending adjudication was confirmed on furnishing an indemnity. Test reports consistently found the goods unfit for human consumption and supported their declared use as cattle feed. A customs alert and an alleged difference between the declared value and the minimum price for cashew kernels intended for human consumption did not, at that stage, prima facie establish that the goods were prohibited. Statutory adjudication may therefore continue in accordance with law.

Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record. In proceedings concerning appeal maintainability and the monetary limit involved, the materials described disclosed no apparent error warranting review. The legal focus is therefore the threshold for review rather than reconsideration of the underlying appeal.

Section 2(9)(A) covers transactions where the beneficial owner provides consideration and property stands in a benamidar's name for that owner's immediate or future benefit. Concealment of beneficial ownership, benefit to a third party, and use of illegitimate funds are not statutory requirements. Legitimate funds routed through banking channels may therefore constitute a benami transaction if the prescribed elements are met. Illustrative benami indicators cannot override the express conditions of the applicable statutory clause. Transfers of demonetised currency through benamidars and entity accounts, followed by return of acceptable currency for the applicants' benefit, supported the conclusion that no error apparent on the face of the record warranted review.

Recall of an appellate order was sought because it incorrectly treated the entire appeal as withdrawn. The withdrawal request was limited to grounds resolved through the Mutual Agreement Procedure, while a remaining ground was intended to be contested. Rectification under section 254(2) addressed the incorrect recording, resulting in recall of the earlier order and restoration of the appeal for a fresh hearing on the unresolved ground.

Rule 17A provides alternative documentary requirements: an institution created under an instrument supplies that instrument, while one created otherwise may establish its creation through cogent contemporaneous statutory records. An application recording objects, management, assets, income and expenditure, together with a registration certificate issued after statutory inquiry, may constitute such evidence. Neither a formal trust deed, memorandum, nor management scheme is an invariable registration condition. Section 12AB review concerns objects, genuineness, and material legal compliance; actual income application and annual exemption eligibility under sections 11 to 13 ordinarily arise in assessment proceedings. Renewal remains subject to verification of other statutory conditions.

Section 50 applies where sale consideration exceeds the aggregate written-down value of the relevant depreciable block and additions, or where all assets in the block are transferred and it ceases to exist. Once a flat enters a block of assets, its separate identity merges into that block for depreciation computation. Sale proceeds from a flat in a continuing commercial block, where opening written-down value exceeds the consideration, reduce that block's written-down value. Reconstructing a separate block and applying notional depreciation is incompatible with block-wise computation. No deemed short-term capital gain arose, and the related addition was deleted.

Reassessment initiated after the prescribed period was invalid because the recorded reasons wrongly assumed that only return processing had occurred, although a scrutiny assessment had been completed. The reasons showed no application of mind to that completed assessment and did not identify any material fact that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly. Since such failure is a jurisdictional condition for reopening beyond the stipulated period, reassessment jurisdiction was not validly assumed. The reassessment and consequential assessment order were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Reassessment requires issuance and service of a notice under section 143(2) where an assessee elects to treat its original return as the return filed in response to a section 148 notice. That election makes the earlier return operative for reassessment from the date of communication. Complete absence of the mandatory scrutiny notice invalidates the reassessment and leaves additions unnecessary for merits adjudication. An unsigned or improperly verified election is a curable defect under section 292B; without an opportunity to rectify it, the defect neither renders the return non est nor cures the jurisdictional failure.

Reassessment notice under Section 148 for assessment year 2015-16, issued on 29 July 2022, fell outside the applicable limitation period. Under the governing Supreme Court position, notices for that assessment year issued on or after 1 April 2021 could not be completed within the period preserved by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The notice was consequently time-barred, requiring its quashing and the setting aside of consequential reassessment proceedings.

Deduction for eligible infrastructure projects under section 80-IA(4) remains available where tender terms, rights and obligations are materially identical to those previously accepted. Exempt-income disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D may be computed using the prescribed monthly-average investment method even where investments are acquired and redeemed within the year and are absent at both year-end balance-sheet dates. That disallowance increases book profit under section 115JB. CSR-related donations qualify under section 80G only after verifying the donee fund and all statutory conditions; donations to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund are excluded.

Concessional-rate interest remains taxable income, so related expenditure is not disallowable merely because tax applies at a lower rate. Mutual receipts between an Indian PE and its Head Office or overseas branches are not income, preventing disallowance of connected expenditure. Year-end foreign-exchange forward-contract losses consistently recognised under mercantile accounting are deductible where an existing obligation is reasonably measurable. For exempt-income investments funded from mixed funds, interest-free funds may be presumed used absent a proven borrowing nexus. Broken-period interest and voluntary-retirement payments incurred in ongoing banking business are revenue deductions. Head Office and global-system charges require prior characterisation as qualifying overseas executive or general-administration expenditure before tax treatment is determined.

Broken-period interest on securities held as stock-in-trade is revenue expenditure, while interest disallowance for exempt income requires a proven borrowing-investment nexus. Overseas training of Indian-branch staff falls outside the specified head-office expenditure restriction, and unrealised gains on executory forward contracts lack real-income accrual. Payments between an Indian branch and its head office or overseas branches do not trigger withholding where they are not taxable to the same enterprise. Additional Commissioners are included within the expression Joint Commissioner absent proof of missing Board authorisation. Transfer-pricing analysis may cover permanent-establishment dealings, aggregate closely linked placements, but cannot determine the year of income taxability. Integrated correspondent banking and incidental oversight are not separately remunerable without a distinct transaction or benefit; profit-split analysis requires allocation by relative functions, assets and risks.

Income tax or TDS cannot be deducted from compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of land. This extends to the component forming part of enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No lawful basis exists for withholding any portion of such compensation on account of income tax or TDS, requiring the compensation to be paid to landowners without those deductions.