Scientific Research approval for the Indian Institute of Health Management Research, Jaipur, applies for tax years 2026-2027 to 2030-2031, subject to continued Scientific and Industrial Research Organization approval. The institution must comply with rule 34, file an annual Form No. 15 donation statement by 31 May following the tax year in which donations are received, and provide donors with Form No. 16 certificates stating the donation amount.

Scientific research approval is granted to Bhartiya Sanskriti Darshan Trust, Pune, subject to continued Scientific and Industrial Research Organization recognition during each effective tax year. The Trust must comply with rule 34, file an annual donation statement in Form No. 15 by 31 May following the tax year of receipt, and issue donors Form No. 16 certificates specifying the donation amount. The approval applies for tax years 2026-2027 to 2030-2031.

External development charges levied by a State Government for external development works, with the development authority acting only as executing agency, do not constitute payments for carrying out work on behalf of the payer under the tax-deduction-at-source framework. Such charges therefore do not attract tax deduction at source under Section 194C. Non-deduction does not render the payer an assessee in default under Section 201(1) or liable for consequential interest under Section 201(1A); demands raised on that basis are unsustainable.

Approval designates The Voluntary Health Services, Chennai as an other institution for scientific research for the specified tax years. Its continued operation depends on retaining Scientific and Industrial Research Organization approval and complying with rule 34. For each tax year, the institution must prepare a Form 15 statement and deliver it to the Director General of Income-tax (Systems), or an authorised person, by 31 May following the tax year in which donations are received. Each donor must receive a Form 16 certificate specifying the donation amount.

Approval grants Zandu Foundation for Health Care, Mumbai, recognition for Scientific Research as a Research Association for the purposes of section 45(3)(a)(i). Its effectiveness for tax years 2026-2027 through 2030-2031 depends on continued SIRO approval, compliance with rule 33, annual filing of Form No. 15 by 31 May following the tax year in which donations are received, and issuance of Form No. 16 certificates to donors stating the donation amount.

Continued effectiveness requires retention of Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (SIRO) approval in every relevant tax year. The institution must comply with rule 34 conditions, prepare an annual donation statement in Form 15, deliver it by 31 May following the tax year in which donations are received, and issue each donor a Form 16 certificate stating the donation amount.

Scientific Research approval is granted to Schizophrenia Research Foundation (I), Chennai, as an other institution for the tax years 2026-2027 to 2030-2031. Continued eligibility requires retention of Scientific and Industrial Research Organization approval and compliance with prescribed conditions. The institution must file an annual donation statement in Form No. 15 by 31 May following the relevant tax year and furnish each donor a Form No. 16 certificate stating the donation amount.

For Assessment Year 2026-27, the due date for furnishing the return of income by persons covered by serial number 2 of the table below Explanation 2 to section 139(1) is extended to 21 November 2026. Consequentially, the specified date for furnishing the tax audit report is extended to 21 October 2026 under clause (ii) of the Explanation to section 44AB.

Section 140 permits an eligible start-up to claim a full deduction of profits derived from eligible business for any chosen three consecutive tax years within ten years of incorporation. Eligibility requires a qualifying company or limited liability partnership engaged in innovation-oriented or scalable business, compliance with incorporation, turnover and certification conditions, and restrictions on reconstruction and use of previously used machinery. The deduction requires audited accounts and timely audit reporting, with eligible-business profits computed independently and internal transfers valued at market value or an arm's length basis where applicable.

Indian Customs Waters extend to the Exclusive Economic Zone and give Customs law a maritime enforcement reach beyond ports and the shoreline. Customs officers may, where statutory conditions are met, stop and search vessels, search persons, arrest persons, and act against prohibited or undeclared goods intended for unlawful importation. Geographical presence within Indian Customs Waters does not make Customs the regulator of all maritime activities; fishing, offshore resources, security and environmental matters remain subject to their specialised statutory regimes.

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal is presented as a specialised appellate forum requiring stronger infrastructure, permanent premises and adequate supporting personnel for effective GST adjudication. Its freely accessible E-Journal consolidates significant orders and emerging GST jurisprudence, including issues concerning personal hearing and proper notice, e-way bill penalties, tax-head classification, section 74 proceedings, GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch, pre-deposit, and waiver of interest and penalty. First appellate authorities are expected to decide appeals consistently with applicable legal requirements.

Trading by an insider while in possession of unpublished price-sensitive information gives rise to a presumption that the trade was motivated by that information. Commercial necessity, financial distress, subsequent use of sale proceeds, absence of personal enrichment, and lack of immediate share-price movement do not rebut that presumption. Permitted defences are confined to structured, transparent, or regulated transactions that negate misuse of UPSI. Liability does not require proof of profit, and loss avoided may support remedial disgorgement.

Tax audit reporting deadlines are said to be unworkable where Form 3CD requires payment and TDS/TCS particulars up to the income-tax return filing deadline, although the Tax Audit Report must be uploaded earlier. Deductions may depend on payments or deposits made before the return deadline, but final-day information may be unavailable for accurate reporting. Earlier audit-report filing can therefore result in incomplete or qualified reports, revisions, and penalty exposure for delayed filing.

Refund authorities may verify entitlement, computation and formula-based exclusions under Section 54 and Rule 89(5), but cannot determine that already availed input tax credit is substantively ineligible through refund adjudication. Allegedly wrongly availed credit requires separate determination under Sections 73 or 74. A notice proposing rejection must identify disputed transactions, statutory grounds and computation; a vague allegation of "wrong ITC" is insufficient. Appellate examination cannot introduce a new factual basis absent from the original notice.

Recurring trademark fees paid under licences are characterised as revenue expenditure when the user receives only contractual use and no ownership, proprietary interest, or enduring asset. Payments for trademarks or technical know-how are similarly treated as revenue where ownership remains with the licensor. The same criterion distinguishes capital receipts from taxable income: incentives or subsidies directed to capital purposes are capital receipts. Trademark licensing costs may qualify for business-expenditure deduction where incurred for business without transfer of proprietary rights.

Refunds of accumulated Compensation Cess credit on zero-rated exports must be calculated from Net ITC actually availed during the relevant period. A reversal recorded in Form GSTR-3B within that period affects the formula only where the reversed credit was availed and included in that period's Net ITC. Historical credit reversed during the period, but never included in the current computation, cannot be deducted merely because of the timing of the entry. Administrative clarification and income-tax accounting cannot add conditions absent from the statutory formula.

Statutory conciliation initiated by a Council notice under the MSMED Act does not create an adjudicatory lis, because the dispute becomes adversarial only if conciliation fails. Article 227 review of a notice requiring participation in mediation is therefore premature. A fresh mediation notice issued after withdrawal of an earlier challenge, where the Council indicated it would entertain a fresh claim, does not constitute an impermissible review. A registered supplier's statutory remedy before the Council remains independent of parallel commercial civil proceedings, which do not legally bar consideration of the supplier's claim. The mediation process may therefore continue.

Admission of a cheque's signature and issuance activates presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt. A blank-cheque defence must be supported by material capable of establishing a probable defence; missing transaction records alone do not displace those presumptions. Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of concurrent findings without perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest injustice. Actual receipt of a statutory demand notice, evidenced by signed acknowledgement, establishes service without resort to deemed-service rules. Cheque-dishonour sentencing may combine deterrent imprisonment with compensatory and restitutive monetary relief, assessed for proportionality.

Amendments expanding agricultural produce and adding vegetable oils do not require prior Presidential assent because a fiscal levy affecting profitability does not directly impede trade under Article 301, and the State retains legislative competence over markets and fees. The statutory definition of sale, including transfers between market areas, serves to prevent fee evasion and operates separately from general contractual sales law. However, executive schedule amendments cannot treat rice bran oil, rice oil or de-oiled rice bran as agricultural produce where solvent extraction and refining create commercially distinct manufactured products; related inclusions and fee demands are invalid. Market fees need no individual quid pro quo, and marketing regulation does not conflict with industrial regulation.

Section 37(1)(b) vests appellate jurisdiction over refusal of Section 9 interim relief exclusively in the competent court under Section 2(1)(e). That jurisdiction is distinct from the Arbitral Tribunal's Section 17 power to grant interim measures and cannot be transferred by consent or by remitting an appeal for treatment as a Section 17 application. Once the Tribunal is constituted, a party may independently seek Section 17 interim measures, which must be assessed on subsequent events and the relief then sought. A direction converting or remitting the statutory appeal to the Tribunal is therefore impermissible.