Kolkata, Sep 15 (PTI) Odisha is set to get a major semiconductor manufacturing facility with an investment of Rs 3,406.25 crore, following approval from the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) of Falta SEZ, located near the city. According to a statement issued on Tuesday, the approval was granted at the 217th meeting of the UAC to a proposal submitted by SiCSem Private Limited, a Tamil Nadu-based company. The proposed unit will come up at IDCO Infovalley-II in Khordha district and will operate ... ... ...

Merchandise exports increased by 26.12 per cent year-on-year to USD 43.81 billion in August, led by electronics, engineering goods and petroleum products. Merchandise imports rose 14.1 per cent to USD 70.76 billion, driven by crude oil, project goods, electronic items, silver, coal and coke. Gold imports declined substantially, contributing to a five-month low merchandise trade deficit. During April-August 2026-27, higher imports reflected domestic economic expansion, energy requirements and manufacturing-sector input needs.

Foreign exchange market pressures led to a sixth consecutive session of rupee depreciation against the US dollar. Higher Brent crude prices, dollar demand from oil importers, risk aversion, a stronger dollar and elevated global Treasury yields heightened concerns over inflation and India's external trade balance. Potential RBI intervention was viewed as a factor that could support the rupee at lower levels.

Mandatory pre-deposit under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 is required to maintain a customs appeal. The Commissioner and CESTAT cannot admit an appeal without compliance with that requirement. Financial inability alone does not constitute an exceptional basis for exempting or reducing the pre-deposit. Consequently, lack of funds does not by itself relieve an appellant from the statutory pre-deposit obligation.

Merchant discount rate framework introduces a 0.4 per cent charge on direct person-to-merchant UPI payments exceeding Rs 2,000, effective from 15 October 2026. The charge is capped at Rs 300 for higher-value payments and is payable by merchants to acquiring banks. Person-to-person transfers remain free regardless of value, and P2M payments up to Rs 2,000 remain outside the charge. App providers may not impose platform fees or hidden charges, and banks must prevent merchants from passing MDR costs to customers.

Enforcement priorities target suspected insolvency-resolution frauds involving collusive large haircuts, promoter reacquisition of assets, related-party claim inflation, creditor-process manipulation, asset stripping, and circumvention of resolution-applicant ineligibility. Coordination with police and other agencies is emphasised for predicate offences, including joint investigation teams and committal applications to enable combined trials of predicate and money-laundering offences. Asset restoration for legitimate victims is to be pursued early, especially in investor and homebuyer frauds.

JCB India targets 15-20 per cent export growth during the current financial year and plans a similar increase in annual production. Its export operations cover approximately 135 countries, including Southeast Asia, Africa and developed markets. The company's construction and earthmoving equipment portfolio is designed, engineered and manufactured in India for domestic and international customers, with product development focused on fuel efficiency, operator ergonomics, comfort and productivity.

Roasted areca nuts, whether whole, split or cut, fall under Tariff Item 2008 19 20 as other roasted nuts and seeds. Roasting causes chemical and physical changes and is distinct from drying, dehydration, moderate heat treatment, and permitted preservation or appearance treatments for dried nuts under Chapter 8. Chapter 20 is not excluded because roasting is not a process specified in Chapters 7, 8 or 11. HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 2008 expressly cover dry-roasted, oil-roasted and fat-roasted areca or betel nuts; the specific entry for roasted nuts and seeds prevails over the general Chapter 8 description.

Alternative appellate remedies do not absolutely preclude writ review under Article 226, as the exhaustion rule is based on policy, convenience and discretion. Writ jurisdiction is available where the decision-making process fails to consider material evidence relevant to the seizure's foundational basis. In customs proceedings, an expert report indicating that seized areca nuts resembled Indian goods required consideration alongside a food laboratory report on human-consumption fitness. An undertaking against human consumption addressed the food-safety concern, making continued detention and refusal of provisional release unsustainable. Provisional release should be granted through the statutory mechanism where material expert evidence has been disregarded.

Reassessment notice limitation for assessment year 2014-15 expired under the pre-amendment six-year period on 31 March 2021. Under the Supreme Court framework governing the amended reassessment regime, TOLA and the deemed-notice procedure, only the balance period up to 30 June 2021 remained available after completion of the section 148A process. A notice issued on 27 July 2022 therefore fell outside the surviving limitation period, rendering it time-barred and void from inception. Reassessment proceedings founded on that notice were invalid.

House-property loss claimed for a multiplex requires examination of completion and occupancy certificates and related evidence before determining whether the building remained under construction. The issue requires fresh adjudication after reasonable opportunity of hearing. Belated employees' provident fund contributions are not allowable under the Supreme Court principle applied in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.; the related disallowance remains undisturbed. Completion and occupancy evidence therefore governs reconsideration of the house-property loss, while delayed employee provident fund payments continue to be disallowed.

Demonetised currency received by a recognised LIC premium collection agent from clients for payment of LIC premiums could not be assessed as the agent's unexplained income. Where premium payments in demonetised notes were permitted during the relevant period and the agent handled the collections solely on LIC's behalf, with no finding of personal use, the receipts retained their agency character. The addition treating those collections as unexplained income was deleted.

Section 153D requires separate approval for each assessee and each assessment year in search assessments. A consolidated, mechanical approval covering multiple assessees and assessment years does not meet this statutory requirement and is invalid. Consequently, search assessment proceedings founded on such approval are liable to be quashed, favouring the assessee.

Unexplained cash-credit addition was sustained because bank credits claimed as rental income were unsupported by a rental agreement, tenant particulars, property details, or other evidence establishing their nature and source. Rental receipts disclosed from a different entity did not substantiate the separate credits under examination. The failure to produce documentary support at the appellate stage left the asserted rental-income explanation unproved, resulting in the credits being treated as unexplained.

Disclosed agricultural income accepted by the Revenue for the relevant and immediately preceding years can explain the source of cash deposited in a bank account. A deposit made during the demonetisation period does not, solely because of its timing, become unexplained money. Where accepted agricultural income supports the availability of cash, the deposit cannot be assessed as unexplained money and is treated as satisfactorily explained.

Reopening based solely on survey material already available to the Assessing Officer cannot be used to reappraise matters for which scrutiny could previously have been initiated. For Assessment Year 2012-13, reassessment initiated after four years without fresh tangible material constituted an impermissible review and was void. For Assessment Year 2013-14, reopening of a completed scrutiny assessment also required proof of income escapement and failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts. As the reasons merely revisited examined material and showed neither requirement, the reassessment was invalid as a change of opinion.

Material seized during a search of another person triggers the statutory framework for third-party search assessments under Section 153C. An ordinary assessment under Section 143(3), even where the assessee's case was centralised on the basis of such material, does not meet that framework and is invalid. Selling expenditure comprising commission and miscellaneous expenses cannot be wholly disallowed on the stated facts; the claim may be restricted where warranted. The selling-expense disallowance was limited to 10%, with the balance allowed.

Tax deduction at source under section 195 applied to a payment made to a non-resident because the payment, as confirmed in earlier appellate proceedings, was for non-technical value and did not fall within the specified category of payments not chargeable to tax. No contrary material displaced the findings supporting the payer's default. Consequently, tax was required to be deducted on the non-resident payment, and the finding of default against the assessee remained sustained.

Section 68 requires an assessee to establish investors' identity, financial capacity and the genuineness of share capital and share-premium transactions. The shareholders did not independently respond to notices, and the assessee did not provide adequate material on major investors' financial capacity or sources of investment. It also failed to explain the valuation and basis for the substantial share premium. One investor's disclosed income was disproportionate to the investment, while documentation for other investors was inadequate. Consequently, the assessee did not discharge its evidentiary onus, and the addition for unexplained share capital and share premium remained sustained.

Event-management budgets recorded as matching revenue and expenditure entries do not create taxable income or deductible expenditure where the assessee neither received nor paid the budgeted amounts. Where actual income is limited to a management fee and bank records show no movement of the gross budgeted sums, taxation must be based on real income. Disallowing the corresponding notional expenditure while retaining the matching notional revenue would misread the accounting disclosure and tax unreal income. The budgetary entries therefore cannot support a disallowance.