Interest on time deposits paid by a co-operative bank to a non-member co-operative society falls within the second limb of the TDS exemption for payments to co-operative societies. Although the member-payment limb specifically excludes co-operative banks, that exclusion does not extend to the separate limb for payments to another co-operative society. The bank retains its legal character as a co-operative society for this purpose. Accordingly, no tax deduction at source is required, and TDS-default and consequential interest liabilities do not arise.

Electronic evidence in income-tax assessments is not automatically inadmissible for lack of an Evidence Act certificate or non-compliance with the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual, although authenticity and probative value require factual scrutiny. Search statements are relevant but require corroboration where credibly disputed; necessary cross-examination safeguards against additions based solely on untested admissions. Student-wise reconciliation and contemporaneous books may rebut alleged unaccounted institutional fees, while refundable caution deposits remain liabilities rather than income. Site-imprest payments through authorised agents may fall within Rule 6DD(k). Charitable application depends on purpose and end-use, not vendor .....

Extended limitation for customs duty recovery under Section 28(4) requires material showing suppression, wilful misstatement, or another statutory basis. Where an importer supplied the SAFTA certificate of origin and other clearance documents, alleged defects in the certificate did not by themselves establish suppression. Proceedings initiated nearly five years after clearance lacked evidentiary support for invoking the extended period. The concurrent conclusion rejecting the extended limitation was maintained, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Cognizance for alleged non-cooperation with a Companies Act investigation is assessed solely from the complaint and supporting materials to determine whether they disclose a prima facie offence. Where those materials identify the alleged offence and demonstrate application of mind, explanations and documents relied on by company directors are defence matters for trial. Considering them at the cognizance stage would improperly conduct a mini-trial. Cognizance and process therefore remained operative, with defences reserved for trial.

Section 29 of the National Green Tribunal Act bars civil-court jurisdiction only for matters within the Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction under Schedule I enactments. Boundary fixation and lateral-support claims based on proprietary and easement rights, including rights under the Indian Easements Act, fall outside that framework and remain maintainable before civil courts under the general civil jurisdiction preserved by the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to secure rejection of such a plaint or bypass remedies available before the trial court when no complete statutory bar exists.

Conflicting coordinate Bench interpretations of the Customs Tariff Act govern whether breach of the pre-import condition under an advance authorisation exemption attracts IGST interest, fine and penalties. Neither view is treated as per incuriam because each independently construed the relevant provisions and legal position. The conflict creates uncertainty for identical future matters, requiring a uniform determination by a Larger Bench. The appeals are to be placed before the President for possible constitution of a Larger Bench; liability to interest, fine and penalty remains undecided.

Mandatory prior approval from the competent authority is required before issuing a reassessment notice. Where the required approval is absent, reassessment proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional defect and are void ab initio. A revision order cannot validly rest on an invalid reassessment, and any consequential assessment founded on that revision similarly lacks legal basis and is unsustainable.

Customer advances adjusted against subsequent recorded sales should not be separately treated as unexplained cash credits where sales turnover and quantitative stock records are undisputed, because this would duplicate income already offered to tax. Delayed inability to obtain customer confirmations does not change that result. Alleged sales suppression cannot rest solely on differences between average purchase and selling prices, particularly for perishable goods sold at negotiated lower prices. Without disputed stock records, concrete enquiry, corroborative material, or identified unrecorded sales, estimated additions for suppressed sales are unsustainable. The stated principle bars additions duplicating recorded trading results or based only on uncorroborated price averages.

Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c) cannot stand where it rests solely on a quantum disallowance that has been deleted in appellate proceedings. The penalty had been imposed consequentially upon disallowance of forward cover premium under Section 37(1). Deletion of that quantum addition removed the foundation for the penalty, resulting in deletion of the penalty in favour of the assessee.

Section 69 permits an addition for unexplained investment only where the taxpayer fails to establish the investment's source. Investment in agricultural land was satisfactorily explained through accepted contractual receipts and agricultural income, supported by the land agreement, cash book, cash-book summary, and contractual-receipt details. Treating the investment as unexplained despite this supporting material being on record was inconsistent with the factual record. The addition for unexplained investment was therefore unsustainable and required deletion.

Cash deposits were treated as explained where bank statements substantiated the mother-in-law's withdrawals, the preceding bank credit arose from a land-sale agreement, and the amount was returned by cheque on the same day. The remaining deposit was supported as a gift from the wife, a regular income-tax return filer. No material established that the repayment was undisclosed on-money for a later property purchase. Accordingly, the deposits' source and genuineness were established, and the addition for unexplained investment based on surmises and conjectures was deleted.

Third-party diary notings lacking dates, the taxpayer's name, and corroboration do not substantiate unexplained-expenditure or election-expenditure additions. Deleting an alleged payment entry while introducing a separate stamp-paper-purchase addition without an enhancement notice raises a distinct procedural defect. Where the taxpayer neither admits election expenditure nor independent material supports it, the addition lacks an evidentiary basis. On these facts, the combined additions were treated as unsustainable and deleted.

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires satisfaction on concealment or inaccurate particulars to be recorded during the original assessment proceedings. Where no satisfaction was recorded for particular disallowances, a later endorsement in a giving-effect order cannot validate penalty; penalties on those additions were therefore unsustainable. Foreign-exchange loss accounted for under Accounting Standard-11 need not form part of inventory cost under Accounting Standard-2 where a recognised contrary view exists. As the resulting closing-stock valuation issue was debatable, the treatment did not establish inaccurate particulars, making the related penalty unsustainable.

Supplier confirmations and account copies supplied in remand proceedings can cure an addition based on non-response to verification notices. Under mercantile accounting, expenses accrued during the year and constituting ascertained liabilities remain deductible although paid later. Sales tax already taxed cannot be added again, VAT not debited to the profit and loss account does not support disallowance, and contractual commission is not a statutory payment subject to Section 43B. Salary additions require comparable market-price material rather than estimates based only on prior-year payments. Disallowance of expenditure related to exempt income cannot exceed the exempt income earned.

Section 68 applies only to a sum credited in the assessee's books; a documented share-trading loss recorded as a debit cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit. Exchange-traded transactions supported by broker records, demat entries and banking channels remain eligible for set-off against long-term capital gain unless evidence establishes non-genuineness, including price rigging. An estimated brokerage-commission addition lacks basis where share dealings occurred directly through brokers and the purchase and sale transactions are substantiated.

Section 153C jurisdiction requires the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the searched person to record satisfaction before proceedings may be initiated against another person. A common satisfaction note is insufficient where it neither identifies seized material relating to that person nor establishes that the searched person's Assessing Officer recorded the required satisfaction. Assessment for AY 2010-11 also falls outside the applicable ten-year block period under either relevant trigger date, leaving the assessment without valid jurisdiction.

Section 80IB(10)'s post-1 April 2005 requirements for timely completion of a housing project and a local-authority completion certificate apply prospectively. Conditions inseparably connected with project approval cannot impose a later completion-certificate requirement on projects approved before the amendment took effect. Housing projects approved before 1 April 2005 remain governed by the deduction conditions applicable on their approval date and are not disqualified solely for lacking the subsequently introduced completion certificate.

Cash deposits during the demonetisation period arising from recorded cash sales of disclosed stock are not unexplained cash credits where the underlying records remain unchallenged. An addition under Sections 68 and 115BBE requires a sustainable basis to reject the stated source. Audited books, stock tallies, purchase and sales registers, cash books and VAT returns supported the availability and sale of stock, while no defects or manipulation were established and the books were not rejected under Section 145(3). Mere variation in cash-sale percentages does not prove bogus sales. Treating the cash realisation as unexplained after accepting the recorded sales would result in double taxation.

Rule 46A permits additional evidence before the first appellate authority where the Assessing Officer receives an opportunity to examine it and comment; continued non-response after repeated reminders does not indefinitely prevent disposal of the appeal. Deemed-dividend treatment requires the recipient to be a beneficial shareholder holding at least 10% voting power, and a 0.23% holding, coupled with no supporting evidence of a loan or advance, precludes that treatment. Reassessment may be based on fresh material obtained in proceedings concerning a group concern; where reopening does not reappraise material examined originally, it is not a change of opinion and the reason-to-believe condition is met. The deemed-dividend deletion remains effective, while reassessment is valid.

Section 115O levies additional income tax on an Indian domestic company when it declares, distributes or pays dividends. The tax is charged at the rate prescribed for the company under that provision, rather than at the rate applicable to a German resident shareholder under the India-Germany DTAA. Article 10, governing dividend taxation, does not displace Section 115O because treaty protection for this company-level levy applies only where the contracting states expressly extend it. Accordingly, distributed profits remain subject to the Section 115O rate.