Statutory disqualification under Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule extends to a named arbitrator's power to nominate an arbitrator, rendering an incompatible contractual appointment mechanism inoperative. The underlying arbitration agreement nevertheless remains enforceable, permitting appointment of an impartial arbitrator under Section 11(6) and referral to institutional arbitration. Limitation for an arbitrator-appointment application runs from when the final bill becomes due, subject to mandatory exclusion of the COVID-19 period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. Applying that exclusion, an application filed on 15 March 2022 was within time.

Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 confines correction of village maps and field books to genuine errors, omissions, or subsequent recorded changes; it cannot be used to reopen a final map dispute or relocate a plot for a more advantageous position. Where an identical map-correction claim has attained finality and no record error is established, fresh consideration is not warranted. Although remand orders are ordinarily interlocutory, a remand based on an incorrect interpretation of Section 30 may be challenged where it unnecessarily revives conclusively settled litigation.

Building-workers welfare cess becomes leviable and collectible only after constitution of the relevant Welfare Board and operationalisation of statutory machinery for levy, collection, deposit and utilisation. Contractors could not factor an unenforceable cess into bid prices, so later implementation may qualify as subsequent legislation under the contract. Retrospective cess adjustment from an arbitral award was impermissible where the contract ended before the regime became operative and the issue was not raised in arbitration. Under the foreign-currency price-adjustment formula, only 85% of the Euro component was adjustable; a further 85% adjustment would create an impermissible compounded adjustment. Plausible arbitral interpretations remain protected under limited arbitral review.

Bail in the alleged money-laundering offence was considered appropriate because the investigation had concluded, the complaint had been filed, and trial had not commenced. The applicant had remained in custody since April 2024, had secured bail in the scheduled-offence and connected matters, and co-accused had received bail in the money-laundering proceedings. Release was warranted without any determination on the merits of the allegations.

A departmental objection that refund required prior challenge to self-assessed Bills of Entry cannot be revived after the finding permitting the refund claim has attained finality between the parties. On unjust enrichment, a Chartered Accountant certificate materially identical to certificates accepted in comparable contemporaneous import proceedings may establish that additional customs duty was not passed on to customers, particularly where related determinations have become final. The refund claims remain maintainable, and refund is available where the importer proves that it retained the duty incidence.

Charitable-purpose status of a statutory urban development authority remains intact where its planned development, housing, infrastructure and public-amenity functions serve public purposes; receipts or surplus alone do not make those activities commercial under the proviso to Section 2(15), preserving exemption under Sections 11 and 12. Amounts earmarked for Infrastructure and FAR Funds under State Government directions are not taxable income where the authority acts only as a nodal agency without beneficial control and must deploy them for specified purposes. Contributions to AwasBandhu qualify as charitable application of income once the authority is eligible for exemption.

Reassessment of an alleged agent of a non-resident requires prior determination of representative-assessee status after the prescribed opportunity to contest that status. This determination is a jurisdictional prerequisite because it preserves the proposed agent's statutory right to challenge liability in that capacity; reassessment initiated before it is invalid. Protective assessment is permissible only where there is genuine doubt about the person taxable on particular income. Reopening solely for a protective assessment cannot be sustained where no substantive assessment has been made in any taxpayer's hands. The reassessment was therefore invalid for both lack of prior representative-assessee determination and absence of a substantive assessment.

Payments for the property were treated as explained because the assessee's NRE account showed payments exceeding the amount added, Form 26AS supported corresponding tax-deducted-at-source records, and the aggregate property investment had been accepted in reassessment for the succeeding year. The impugned amount formed part of documented payments and could not be characterised as unexplained investment. The addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act for unexplained investment was therefore deleted.

Revision on an issue outside the scope of reassessment must be initiated within the limitation period reckoned from the original assessment order, not the reassessment order. Reassessment was confined to verifying alleged fictitious losses from equity and derivative trading, while revision addressed a discrepancy in professional or consultancy fees. Since that fee issue did not form part of reassessment, the revision limitation ran from the original assessment. The revision was initiated beyond the prescribed period and was therefore time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Reassessment cannot be validly initiated against a company that had been struck off under the Companies Act before the reasons were recorded and notice was issued. Where the Assessing Officer was informed of the company's non-existence and departmental material showed that restoration proceedings were initiated only after issuance of notice, the company lacked legal existence at the relevant time. The reassessment proceedings and notice were therefore void ab initio and were quashed.

ITAT appellate jurisdiction is determined by the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. Where the assessment order originated from Mumbai, the appropriate appellate forum was the Mumbai Benches rather than the Delhi Bench. An appeal filed before the Delhi Bench was therefore not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The higher tax rate introduced from 1 April 2017 applies prospectively and does not govern undisclosed-income cash deposits made during financial year 2016-17. Tax treatment of those deposits remains governed by the law then in force. Where additional evidence concerning the source and taxability of disputed cash deposits is admitted, the addition and enhancement require fresh adjudication after examination of that evidence and an effective opportunity of hearing. The Assessing Officer must redetermine the cash-deposit issues on the expanded evidentiary record.

Valid tax jurisdiction is a necessary condition for an Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment and complete an assessment. Where the assessee had shifted to Delhi, notified the address change, filed returns from that address, and departmental records reflected transfer of jurisdiction to the Delhi Assessing Officer, the Faridabad Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction. The reassessment notice and consequential assessment order were therefore void and quashed. An assessment or reassessment made by an officer without jurisdiction over the assessee cannot be sustained.

Cash-deposit additions may not be sustained where documentary evidence establishes that deposits arose from registered sale proceeds and withdrawals from the taxpayer's individual and joint bank accounts. The supporting records substantiated the explanation for the sources of cash and rendered the addition unsustainable, resulting in its deletion.

Interest on loans used to acquire residential flats for temporary accommodation of consultants and staff was treated as allowable because the Revenue had accepted the same expenditure in earlier assessments completed on identical facts. In the absence of any demonstrated factual distinction for the relevant year, consistent treatment of the accepted claim was required. The loan's commercial expediency could not be rejected without a factual basis for departure, and the interest disallowance was therefore unsustainable and deleted.

Under the India-Singapore DTAA, an Indian associated enterprise performing sales support, installation, warranty, distribution and marketing support does not create a fixed place or dependent agency permanent establishment where it lacks authority to negotiate or conclude contracts, direct sales are made from Singapore, and its premises are not at the foreign enterprise's disposal. Principal-to-principal inventory arrangements do not establish a warehouse or sales outlet of the foreign enterprise. Nor can customer-employee statements establish a permanent establishment without cross-examination. On these facts, no business profits are taxable in India through permanent establishment attribution.

An intimation under section 143(1)(a) merges into a subsequent scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) and cannot independently sustain a tax demand; challenges to a deduction must therefore be adjudicated in the scrutiny-assessment appeal. Deduction under section 80IAB cannot be denied solely because Form 10CCB was filed after the return-filing due date where the audit report was furnished before completion of assessment. The requirement is satisfied by filing before assessment completion, while the rule concerning a declaration for deduction under section 10B(8) is distinguishable. The deduction claims were accepted for both assessment years.

Disallowance of related-party purchases under section 40A(2)(b) cannot rest on Form 3CD disclosures for a preceding assessment year. The relevant assessment year had no tax audit or Form 3CD, while the assessing authority relied on related-party purchase reporting from an earlier year. As the Revenue did not rebut this mismatch, the disallowance lacked a factual basis and was deleted.

Unexplained cash deposit addition required fresh verification where the assessee consistently claimed that the deposit was a redeposit of an earlier cash withdrawal. Assessment notices were returned unserved, affixture service indicated that she did not reside at the stated address, and the final notice was served on her daughter. Because the explanation had not been examined during assessment, the addition was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to substantiate the source of cash.

Audited and completed books supported by purchase bills, financial statements, tax audit reports, disclosed sales and recorded cash balances should not be rejected merely because survey-time records were incomplete or sales and cash balances increased compared with earlier years. A sales summary cannot be disregarded without defects in the underlying daily records, particularly where invoices are available and reported sales have been accepted in VAT returns. Cash deposited during demonetisation is explained where it arises from recorded cash sales, is supported by adequate stock, and no adverse material disproves the sales or cash balance. The additions for estimated business profit and unexplained cash deposits were deleted, and declared income was accepted.