MEIS duty credit scrips received under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015 are treated as revenue receipts taxable as income from assessment year 2016-17. Applying the purpose test, the rewards offset export-related costs and infrastructure inefficiencies and enable more profitable conduct of export business. Their computation by reference to completed exports, recurring nature, transferability and unrestricted usability support their revenue character; they are not linked to capital investment, establishment or expansion, nor earmarked for a capital purpose. Government assistance "by whatever name called" covers MEIS rewards, including grants or cash incentives, without limitation by ejusdem generis.

Rule 37BA(2) declaration requirements are procedural where a trust has offered interest income to tax and tax was deducted on that income under the trustee's PAN. The absence of the declaration or a corresponding Form 26AS entry in the trust's PAN does not, by itself, defeat substantive entitlement to TDS credit. Credit should be granted where the trust establishes that the income was included in its taxable return and the deducted tax relates to that income.

Reassessment founded solely on investigation material and statements already available during prior search assessment and revision proceedings constitutes reliance on stale material and a change of opinion. Repackaging existing information does not create fresh jurisdiction to reopen assessment. Where lender-company confirmations are obtained before issuing the reassessment notice but their responses are not addressed, the reopening lacks an adequate basis. Approval based on the same pre-existing material is mechanical and does not cure the jurisdictional defect. The reassessment proceedings and consequential additions were therefore deleted.

For a non-searched person, the block period for assessment under section 153C is computed from the date seized material is handed over to, or satisfaction is recorded by, the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over that person, rather than from the search date. Applying that rule, the relevant assessment years fell outside the permissible period, making the assessments time-barred and depriving the Assessing Officer of valid jurisdiction. ITAT upheld the relief granted to the non-searched person and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, following Supreme Court and High Court precedent.

Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause founded on bona fide diligence and circumstances beyond the litigant's control. Voluntarily offering a receipt to tax, accepting the intimation, and remaining inactive for more than a decade did not meet that standard; awaiting litigation concerning another entity's registration, mistaken belief about registration, later legal developments, difficulty locating records, and professional consultation were insufficient. The inordinate delay in filing the first appeal was therefore not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed without considering the claimed exemption. The taxability of the one-time benefit remained open.

Section 153(5) applies where effect can be given without making a fresh assessment or reassessment. Where a Tribunal remand requires the Assessing Officer to undertake fresh consideration, the limitation period for fresh assessment under section 153(3) applies; the proviso to section 153(5) also covers matters requiring verification or an opportunity of hearing. Foreign currency may be treated as unexplained money where the taxpayer provides inconsistent explanations and fails to prove its source through satisfactory evidence, including acquisition from authorised dealers. FEMA confiscation for excess possession does not by itself establish the currency's source for income-tax purposes. The addition as deemed income and the associated tax treatment were sustained.

Section 115BBI applies only to income having the statutory character of specified income; an electronic-return reporting or computational mismatch does not create that character. Income validly accumulated for charitable purposes in an earlier year and applied during the relevant year remains outside that provision unless conditions governing the accumulation were breached or the income otherwise became specified income. Where return schedules and a revised audit report disclose the available accumulation and its application, section 143(1) processing cannot selectively rely on an omitted Schedule A entry while disregarding corresponding disclosures. The adjustment treating the applied accumulation as specified income was deleted.

Cost of improvement of a residential flat requires capital expenditure that adds to or alters the capital asset. Routine repairs and removable articles, including furnishings and de cor not embedded in the property, merely remain associated with the flat and do not qualify; their disallowance was sustained. The description assigned to an item is not conclusive for alleged permanent installations. Their eligibility depends on whether each item is capital in nature and forms an integral addition or alteration to the flat. As the installation and nature of the remaining items had not been examined item-wise, the claim was restored for verification of supporting material and a reasoned determination after hearing the taxpayer.

Where purchases are obtained through accommodation-entry providers but corresponding sales remain undisputed, taxation is confined to the profit element embedded in those purchases rather than the entire purchase value. In comparable bogus-purchase transactions, an addition of 15% of the impugned purchases was sustained. Reassessment based on accommodation-entry information is valid where the Assessing Officer supplies recorded reasons, disposes of objections, and possesses prima facie material with a live link to the belief that income escaped assessment. At the reopening stage, the material need not be conclusive; its sufficiency is not examined.

Section 80G(5)(i) treats non-inclusion of income under sections 11 and 12, or under section 10(23C), as alternative conditions for approval. An educational institution claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) need not also hold registration under section 12AB solely to satisfy the approval requirement. The competent authority must examine whether the institution is covered by section 10(23C)(iiiad) and cannot reject its section 80G application only because section 12AB registration is absent. Approval remains subject to verification of the claimed statutory coverage.

Approval under section 80G for a religious-cum-charitable trust cannot be denied merely because it conducts satsang or disseminates spiritual knowledge. Expenditure on those activities remained below the five per cent ceiling for religious expenditure under Explanation (3) to section 80G. Meetings intended to spread spiritual knowledge across communities are not, by themselves, religious activities; satsang is similarly not religious unless expenditure concerns a particular deity or related activity. Where registration under section 12AB has been granted after examining the same objects, section 80G approval must follow absent breach of its specific statutory conditions. Approval was directed to be granted.

Reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 issued on or after 1 April 2021 were required to be dropped because the extended period did not preserve the power to issue fresh notices after limitation expired. Reassessment is also without jurisdiction where a return filed in response to a reassessment notice before completion is treated as non-existent solely because it was belated and no notice under section 143(2) is issued. For reopening beyond three years, prior approval from the higher specified authority is mandatory; TOLA's time extension does not alter the statutory hierarchy, making approval by the Principal Commissioner insufficient.

Appellate authorities must decide appeals on their merits and address the grounds raised, even where the assessee does not participate after notice. Ex parte disposal may rest on the material on record, but summary dismissal for non-prosecution without a reasoned, speaking adjudication is impermissible. Appellate orders concerning assessment and penalty matters for three assessment years were set aside for fresh disposal after reasonable hearing opportunity. A filing delay caused by failure to serve an appellate order through the physical mode requested by the assessee warranted condonation under a justice-oriented, liberal approach.

Return-processing adjustments to a charitable accumulation claim require compliance with the first proviso to section 143(1A), including an opportunity before the adjustment is made. Non-compliance vitiated the adjustment. Where an assessee's accumulated amount was incorrectly reported through an inadvertent return-form error, supported by an indemnity bond and a revised Form 10B, rectification required substantive consideration rather than rejection solely on a technical basis. The processing and rectification orders were set aside and remanded for consideration of the revised audit report, determination of correct income, and grant of admissible relief.

Customs exemption under Serial No. 404 read with List 33 covers goods described as equipment or units for specialised offshore and onshore petroleum-operation services, provided they also fall within the specified tariff chapters, headings, sub-headings or tariff items in the main notification table. Conformity with the tariff heading stated in List 33 is not required. A Mono Ethylene Glycol Reclamation Plant falling under Chapter 84 qualified because it was imported by a specified person for petroleum operations and matched the goods description. Regulatory certification and TRU clarification supported coverage. A later specific entry did not displace earlier eligibility under the general entry, and the exemption was treated as beneficial rather than ambiguous.

Post-clearance amendment of Bills of Entry may support preferential tariff claims under the India-Japan CEPA where a Certificate of Origin is issued retrospectively. Appendix-A to Annexure-2 of the CEPA Rules permits an importer lacking the certificate at importation to seek refund of excess duty after producing the certificate and supporting documents. Section 149 of the Customs Act must be applied harmoniously with those Rules, allowing later submission of the Certificate of Origin from the date of clearance. Reassessment and concessional duty under the relevant exemption notification remain subject to admissibility of the certificate and claim.

Director disqualification under section 164 concerns eligibility for appointment as a director and does not itself provide for deactivation of a Director Identification Number (DIN). DIN deactivation is governed separately by Rule 11 of the Companies (Appointment of Directors) Rules, 2014, requiring compliance with its prescribed grounds. Where a website records disqualification under one statutory clause but authorities rely on an undisclosed internal communication invoking another clause, procedural fairness is compromised. Notice and an opportunity of hearing are required before adverse DIN-disqualification action, and undisclosed grounds cannot substitute those requirements.

Closure of CIRP may be ordered where withdrawal under section 12A read with Regulation 30A is infeasible because CIRP costs remain uncrystallised and Form FA and a bank guarantee cannot be furnished. Where all creditor claims are settled or covered by accepted full-and-final settlements, no resolution plan exists, and the appellant undertakes to pay CIRP costs as determined, continuing CIRP serves no insolvency-resolution purpose and only increases costs. CIRP was closed subject to payment of the operational creditor's agreed settlement and CIRP costs following determination by the Adjudicating Authority.

Personal guarantor insolvency resolution applications must pursue a genuine repayment plan and cannot use the interim moratorium to obstruct secured-creditor enforcement of security interests. Failure to attempt repayment after a demand notice, coupled with filings made immediately after possession notices, indicates that the process is being used to stall recovery rather than achieve resolution. Section 94 is intended for personal guarantors genuinely seeking a repayment-based insolvency resolution process; use of Section 96 as a shield against SARFAESI possession proceedings constitutes misuse. On these facts, rejection of the second insolvency application and dismissal of the appeal were upheld.

Provisional attachment of mortgaged property requires recorded material showing that proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred, or otherwise dealt with to frustrate confiscation. An interim restraint on creating third-party rights, without an auction notice under secured-recovery proceedings or an executable arbitral sale order, does not establish that statutory apprehension. The provisional attachment and its confirmation were set aside for failure to meet this condition, while the question whether the properties were proceeds of crime remained for separate proceedings. The properties continued to be subject to the final outcome of pending insolvency proceedings.