Section 14A(2) requires the Assessing Officer to record objective satisfaction, after examining the assessee's accounts, that the assessee's own disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income is incorrect before applying Rule 8D. General observations about mixed funds, insufficient details, or the amount of exempt income do not establish the required account-based dissatisfaction. Without recorded satisfaction meeting this statutory standard, Rule 8D cannot support a further disallowance and the assessee's suo motu disallowance must be accepted.

Central Government de-notifies 141.8714 hectares from the sector-specific Special Economic Zone for Multi-product at Gopalpur, District Ganjam, Odisha, leaving a resultant SEZ area of 164.0449 hectares. The action follows State Government approval, Development Commissioner recommendation, and satisfaction of requirements under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and Rules, 2006. The listed parcels are proposed for new industrial units in the DTA.

Jharkhand GST administration extends the time for specified registered persons to furnish outward-supply details in FORM GSTR-1. Monthly return filers for December 2024 may file until 13 January 2025, while persons filing for the October-December 2024 period under the applicable proviso may file until 15 January 2025. The amendment is deemed effective from 10 January 2025.

Custodian and Customs Cargo Service Provider approval for M/s JSW JNPT Liquid Terminal Private Limited extends to export liquid cargo at Liquid Berths LB-03 and LB-04 until the cargo is loaded onto the vessel. The approval remains valid up to 23 October 2031. Existing custodial conditions apply equally to export cargo, and the approved entity must comply with customs provisions governing exports, the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, and other applicable directions.

Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation concern protection of accrued or vested benefits under a policy against retrospective amendment. Retrospective policy changes may be limited where they impair vested rights or operate discriminatorily or arbitrarily under Article 14. Administrative policy affecting such rights remains subject to judicial review, with prospective application identified as a relevant safeguard. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court order and dismissed the special leave petitions.

Approval under Section 8(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 permits Liquid Berths LB-03 and LB-04 at the Additional Liquid Cargo Jetty to load export liquid cargo, in addition to their existing approval for unloading liquid cargo. Operations remain subject to the Customs Act, related rules and regulations, and applicable instructions. Existing Boarding Station and Customs Area specifications continue unchanged.

The time limit for furnishing FORM GSTR-3B electronically is extended for monthly return filers for December 2024, with the revised due date fixed as 22 January 2025. Quarterly return filers for October to December 2024 whose principal place of business is in Jharkhand may furnish the return by 26 January 2025. The extension is deemed effective from 10 January 2025.

Renewal of appointment as Custodian and Customs Cargo Service Provider covers custody and handling of imported liquid cargo at Additional Liquid Cargo Berths LB-03 and LB-04 until delivery through approved pipelines to authorised tank farms. The appointments require continuous compliance with customs and cargo-handling requirements, valid insurance, security arrangements and statutory permissions. Approval remains limited to the specified cargo and berths, does not authorise new pipelines, tank farms or altered handling arrangements without prior permission, and is subject to review and continuation of the valid operational concession.

State GST service-rate revisions apply concessional 2.5% treatment to containerised rail transport and non-air multimodal transport only where specified input tax credit restrictions are met; a 9% alternative applies in stated cases. Multimodal operators may take credit for transport-input services only within the 2.5% cap where the supplier charged a higher rate, and both multimodal alternatives are limited to domestic goods transportation. Renting of goods carriages with fuel included follows a comparable concessional-rate and limited-credit structure.

Rule 281A requires an assessee claiming Schedule IV exemption for interest and capital gains from Government securities to furnish Form No. 173A. The form requires identification, residence, tax-year, contact, and specified tax or registration details, with certain details optional for the Bank for International Settlements. For each security, the claimant must report the ISIN, security type, tenor, opening and closing values, purchases, sale consideration, gross interest, and capital gains. A principal officer must certify the information.

Section 400 specification removes deduction of tax at source from qualifying interest payments made by the New Development Bank to resident or Foreign Institutional Investor holders of Maharajah INR Bonds issued during tax year 2026-27 and subsequent tax years. The Bank must furnish required information under the specified reporting schedule and the Income-tax Rules, 2026. The withholding exclusion takes effect upon publication in the Official Gazette.

Time limit for furnishing FORM GSTR-5 by a non-resident taxable person for December 2024 is extended until 15 January 2025. The extension concerns the return required under section 39(5) and rule 63, is exercised under section 39(6) read with section 168 on the Council's recommendations, and is deemed effective from 10 January 2025.

GST confiscation procedure requires a real and reasonable hearing. Where Form GST MOV-10 allows seven days to reply, an authority cannot issue Form GST MOV-11 on the service date and rely on the absence of an immediate objection. Missing invoice or e-way bill for onward supply may warrant inquiry but does not remove statutory hearing protections. Later issuance of Form GST DRC-07 does not cure a prematurely made confiscation decision. Payment through Form GST DRC-03 to release detained goods and vehicle does not itself constitute admission, acquiescence, or waiver of the right to contest.

GST adjudication must apply the same statutory framework to officials and taxpayers, with lawful and reasoned orders. Sale of land is treated under Schedule III, subject to the stated building-sale qualification, as neither a supply of goods nor services; GST deduction from land-acquisition compensation by characterising it as a works contract service is criticised as contrary to that scheme. Proposed safeguards include personal hearings, reasonable adjournments, demand limits tied to the SCN, and effective notice where no portal response is filed.

Limitation for an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, commences upon pronouncement of the appellate order, not upon actual receipt of its certified copy. Section 12(2) permits exclusion of the day of pronouncement and the time genuinely required to obtain the copy, but not delay before applying for it or after receipt. The normal period is 45 days, with a further 15 days condonable only on sufficient cause; the maximum period cannot be enlarged.

GST challenges should, on the approach advanced, follow the statutory appellate hierarchy. An Order-in-Original should be challenged before the first appellate authority, and an Order-in-Appeal should be challenged through a second appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. Writ recourse before the jurisdictional High Court is proposed only after Tribunal adjudication where strong legal grounds remain. Pending GST writ petitions are proposed for transfer to the jurisdictional Tribunal, reflecting its specialised GST jurisdiction and capacity for reasoned appellate review.

Admission of cheque execution triggers presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, rebuttable only through a consistent probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Inconsistent claims that a cheque was lost or stolen do not meet that standard. A dishonour marked "refer to drawer" may support cheque-dishonour liability, and crediting the cheque to an account connected with the payee's business can satisfy payee and presentment requirements where the nexus is established. Cash-loan contraventions under income-tax law do not, by themselves, render the underlying debt unenforceable. Revisional jurisdiction does not permit fresh appraisal of evidence absent perversity in concurrent findings.

Admission of a cheque signature activates statutory presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt, placing the drawer under a reverse onus to establish a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. A lost-cheque account supported only by a General Diary entry and stop-payment instructions, without independent corroboration or prompt action, does not displace those presumptions. Absence of a written loan agreement or income-tax disclosure does not by itself negate a modest hand loan where the lender's financial capacity is not probably challenged. A proprietary concern has no legal identity separate from its sole proprietor. Revisional jurisdiction is limited to patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice.

Licensed surveyor assessments under the Insurance Act, 1938 are not conclusive but may determine insured loss unless displaced by cogent and reliable contrary material. Technical, expert, eyewitness, or documentary evidence may be required to challenge loss quantification, including depreciation, valuation, and underinsurance calculations. Where an insured cannot substantiate an error in the surveyor's assessment, enhanced insurance recovery is unavailable. Enhanced interest likewise requires an independent factual basis and cannot arise merely because the insured seeks a higher loss assessment. The principle permits reliance on licensed surveyor reports while allowing rebuttal through reliable evidence.

Retrospective withdrawal of net SGST reimbursement under IPR 2015 from cement manufacturing and grinding units is impermissible where an industrial unit acted on the policy, obtained approvals, invested and commenced production; financial implications alone do not establish overriding public interest to displace promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. Policy revisions may operate prospectively. Section 11 of the Orissa Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2004 and applicable guidelines provide deemed approval of provisional Priority Sector status where a covered application remains undecided within the prescribed period. The Negative List does not apply where the investment threshold is exceeded and cement is manufactured with clinker, subject to verification and remaining policy conditions.