Personal insolvency interim moratorium does not stay cheque-dishonour prosecutions against company directors and responsible persons where the dishonoured cheques represent the company's debt. Directors are prosecuted through statutory vicarious liability rather than as primary personal debtors, while the moratorium applies to civil debt-recovery actions concerning the individual debtor and does not bar criminal proceedings. Potential recovery of compensation does not justify staying the trial at that stage. A pending reference to a larger Bench does not weaken the binding effect of existing law unless altered; therefore, trials need not await determination of questions concerning compensation. Applications and writ petitions seeking to stay or defer the prosecutions were dismissed, and interim stays were vacated.

Inherent jurisdiction to quash cheque dishonour proceedings cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial where complaints prima facie disclose the offence and disputed issues, including security cheques, enforceable debt, service of notice and settlement, require evidence. The statutory presumption of legally enforceable debt under section 139 remains subject to trial. Separate complaints based on two consolidated demand notices for multiple dishonoured cheques from one transaction are maintainable. Non-reflection of the underlying transaction in income-tax returns does not by itself rebut the statutory presumptions or make the debt unenforceable; any income-tax breach may attract a prescribed penalty. The quashing petitions were dismissed and expeditious trial completion directed.

Alleged misuse of Ayushman health-scheme cards involved collecting identity and ration-card details by promising free treatment, then creating forged beneficiary cards with false particulars. The alleged scheme enabled treatment for ineligible persons and purported claims of government health-scheme funds. Police arrested five persons, recovered purported forged identity and beneficiary cards, and are investigating possible involvement of hospital and medical-office personnel, the scale of card forgery, and alleged diversion of public funds.

MSME development is identified as central to employment generation, exports, entrepreneurship, economic resilience and self-reliance. Key priorities include affordable credit, technology upgradation, supply-chain integration, market access, brand-building and reduced red tape. Formalisation of micro industries is emphasised to expand institutional credit access, while sustainable trade is promoted through green technologies and renewable energy. Export competitiveness is to be strengthened through regional production capabilities and the "One District, One Export Hub" initiative.

Monetary policy calibration remained on hold because food and fuel inflation had not yet produced broad-based or persistent price pressures. The policy pause was supported by limited pass-through of supply-side shocks, contained core inflation and no clear demand-driven overheating. Recalibration depends on incoming evidence of persistent inflation, entrenched supply-side pressures, de-anchored expectations and the evolving growth-inflation dynamic. Geopolitical disruption, volatile oil prices, monsoon conditions and El Nin o-related agricultural risks remain material inflation risks.

Compassionate-appointment applications arising from an employee's death before the 2020 Rehabilitation Assistance Rules commenced must be assessed under the rules in force on the date of death where the application was timely under the 1990 Rules. Administrative delay in processing a pending application cannot subject the applicant to the later regime. Substituted Rule 6(9), introduced by the 2025 Amendment Rules, expressly preserves the earlier rules for pending claims concerning pre-2020 deaths. The prior judicial declaration regarding the former Rule 6(9) continues to operate absent a stay. Accordingly, the application must be considered under the 1990 Rules.

Supreme Court considered whether the High Court could entertain a challenge relating to proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal under the insolvency framework. The jurisdictional objection required consideration, and notice was issued. The impugned order and further proceedings were stayed pending further consideration, suspending the challenged action during the interim period.

Revocation of a customs broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty cannot be sustained where the Regulation 17 enquiry substantially exceeds the prescribed timeline without recorded justification or a finding that the customs broker caused the delay. Although the timeline is directory, a delay of more than nine months between the show-cause notice and enquiry report required reasons showing that it was reasonable, unavoidable or attributable to the broker. Procedural fairness was also impaired because the enquiry officer investigated the underlying offence. The revocation, forfeiture and penalty were therefore set aside.

Interest-free or inadequately remunerated loans to a concern connected with a person specified under Section 13(3) constitute a benefit attracting Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d). Under Section 164(2), the applicable CBDT circular and judicial position, the breach taxes only income attributable to the prohibited benefit at the maximum marginal rate, rather than withdrawing Section 11 exemption from the trust's entire income. Accordingly, notional interest on the connected-party loan is taxable, while the trust retains exemption for its remaining income. The Finance Act 2022 amendment to Section 13 is consistent with this limited-denial approach.

A penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be sustained where the notice under section 274 retains both statutory limbs without identifying the specific charge. Failure to strike off the inapplicable limb leaves the allegation ambiguous, denies the assessee clear notice and an effective opportunity to defend, and vitiates the penalty proceedings. The penalty was therefore treated as invalid and deleted.

Cash deposits assessed as unexplained income under Section 68 were supported by a cash-flow statement, prior income records, loan documents, bank records, household and education expense evidence, and the spouse's returns. The available material established an opening cash balance, while the balance of the deposits was explained through the assessee's, spouse's and agricultural income. An opening cash balance brought forward from an earlier year cannot be taxed in the relevant year. Where supporting evidence is not specifically rebutted, the entire cash deposit cannot be treated as unexplained on surmises and conjectures; the addition was therefore deleted.

Counsel-related communication failure, supported by affidavit and untainted by deliberate delay, constituted sufficient cause for condoning a 285-day delay in filing an appeal. An ex parte appellate decision made when the assessee lacked representation required fresh adjudication to ensure a meaningful opportunity to submit factual material and explanations. The additions and disallowance remained open for independent determination on merits, and the matter was restored for fresh appellate consideration after due hearing.

Disclosed commodity-trading profit accepted as business income cannot be treated as unexplained money where seized cash is explained by that profit and no contrary material disproves the explanation. The amount formed part of the return under profits and gains of business or profession, and the returned income had been accepted. As the income was not characterised as non-business income and its stated source was not rejected on evidence, the conditions for applying the special-rate provision for unexplained money were not satisfied. The profit is therefore assessable as disclosed business income rather than unexplained money.

Disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income cannot exceed the exempt income earned, even where the prescribed computation method produces a higher figure. For both assessment years, the computed disallowance exceeded the respective exempt income and must therefore be restricted to that exempt-income amount. This limits the disallowance to the actual tax-exempt income earned, in favour of the assessee.

Reassessment cannot be validly initiated on the premise that stock-option transaction profit escaped assessment where substantially corresponding commodity-dealing profit was already disclosed in the profit and loss account, computation of income and return. The alleged escaped income had therefore already been offered to tax and assessed on the basis of the return. The reopening and consequential reassessment order were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Employees' PF/ESI contribution disallowance may be adjusted while processing a return under Section 143(1) where the return material itself establishes a prima facie disallowance. The statutory adjustment therefore remains valid. TDS credit relating to an amalgamating company requires factual verification of whether tax was deducted on that company's behalf. Upon such verification, the amalgamated company is entitled to the corresponding TDS credit.

Recorded cash sales supported by purchase invoices, stock records, payment details, VAT disclosures and supplier confirmations explain demonetisation-period bank deposits; absent proof that the underlying purchases or sales were bogus, the deposits cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. General investigation material alleging that suppliers provide accommodation entries does not disprove transaction-specific purchases where contemporaneous records, corresponding sales and supplier confirmations remain unrebutted. Adverse third-party statements cannot support additions when requested cross-examination is denied. Once purchases are accepted as genuine, estimating a profit element on those purchases lacks a legal basis. The business transactions and resulting cash balance therefore eliminate both additions.

Employees' provident fund contribution deposited one day after the prescribed date remained deductible where the delay resulted from technical glitches on the provident fund portal. Material on record established the portal-related cause, identical decisions on such delays supported deduction, and no contrary material was produced. The disallowance was therefore required to be deleted.

Internal inconsistency in return entries can constitute an incorrect claim apparent from information in the return, permitting adjustment during processing under section 143(1). Where interest sub-fields were shown as nil but the aggregate interest column disclosed an amount, the interest claim was capable of adjustment. Interest expenditure recorded in audited accounts but entered in an incorrect return column remains subject to verification of applicable tax-deduction compliance and any resulting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Following verification, the expenditure may be allowed or disallowed accordingly.

Transfer-pricing benchmarking of captive software development service providers requires turnover-based and functional comparability. Entities with turnover exceeding ten times that of the tested party, diversified operations, product activities, or materially different functional profiles should be excluded, while suitable comparables should be included for fresh arm's-length computation. A separate adjustment for interest on delayed trade receivables requires verification and should not be made where the delay is already reflected in a working-capital adjustment, as this would duplicate the adjustment. Penalty proceedings require consequential reconsideration after recomputation of the underlying transfer-pricing adjustment.