Cash bonus paid to identified regular employees is not disallowable merely because it was paid in cash where the employees' identities and the genuineness of payment are undisputed. Section 40A(3), read with Rule 6DD, targets tax evasion and the use of unaccounted money rather than genuine, bona fide business expenditure. Bonus paid within the statutory payment period is deductible on actual payment under Section 43B. Accordingly, genuine cash bonus payments satisfying these conditions remain allowable business deductions.

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) cannot stand where notices under Section 274 invoke both concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars without identifying the precise charge. Specific notice is necessary to give the taxpayer a meaningful opportunity to respond. An objection raised in the penalty appeal was distinguishable from a substantially delayed challenge. Failure to specify the applicable statutory limb invalidated the notices and resulted in quashing of the penalty.

Estimated additions for undisclosed trading receipts require a proportionate basis where incomplete cold-storage withdrawal records do not justify treating a substantial share of withdrawals as the assessee's own trading activity. The estimated addition was restricted to Rs. 10 lakh, with the balance deleted. Loading and unloading expenses and interest on advances to farmers, initially disallowed on the same estimated trading basis, required corresponding reduction. The disallowance was recomputed at 5%, resulting in consequential recomputation of income.

Section 80P deduction cannot be denied merely because a return was filed after the original due date where it was filed within the extended due date. Return processing under section 143(1) is confined to prima facie adjustments; after the stated basis for an adjustment fails, the deduction's substantive merits cannot be examined through that process. Interest derived from members qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). Income must therefore be recomputed after giving effect to the section 80P claim without the delayed-filing denial.

Extrapolation of annual business receipts and profit from survey material covering only three months requires supporting material for the remaining period. Without such material, taxable income must reflect real income rather than presumptive annualisation, making the extrapolation-based addition unsustainable. Bank credits already included in business receipts used to compute business income cannot be separately added, as this duplicates the same income. Business income must therefore be confined to the supported computation without a duplicative bank-credit addition.

Share capital and share premium received from a shareholder were subjected to an addition as unexplained cash credit under the Income-tax Act. The shareholder's bank-account transactions had been accepted by another person in the assessee group and settled before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. As the shareholder's own assessment contained no corresponding addition, the addition relating to the share capital and premium was treated as unsustainable and deleted.

Interest earned by a co-operative credit society on term deposits with a State co-operative bank falls within the deduction for income from investments with another co-operative society where both entities qualify as co-operative societies under the Income-tax Act. The exclusion for co-operative banks applies where the claimant itself is a co-operative bank under the Banking Regulation Act; it does not deny the deduction merely because the payer is a co-operative bank. Qualifying interest on such deposits is therefore deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

Long-term capital gains from listed-share transactions cannot be treated as bogus penny-stock gains merely on general investigation material or suspicion where purchase records, contract notes, demat statements, banking evidence, securities transaction tax proof, and sale proceeds remain unrebutted. A jurisdictional High Court precedent on materially identical facts must be followed unless distinguished; contrary non-jurisdictional decisions cannot displace it. In the absence of evidence that records were false, transactions manipulated, or unaccounted cash exchanged, the declared gains remain genuine and the addition is unsustainable.

Penalty for misreporting under section 270A requires material showing that the taxpayer falls within a specified category of misreporting; withdrawal of a previously disclosed section 80GGC deduction after reassessment does not alone establish misreporting. A banking-channel donation, full disclosure in the original return, and the absence of taxpayer-specific evidence of false entries, suppressed receipts, false evidence, or cash-back supported a bona fide explanation and the protection under section 270A(6)(a). An unintentional omission of bond-interest income was likewise not shown to be deliberate misreporting. The section 270A penalty was therefore deleted.

Interim relief against Serial No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), together with the consequential challenge to the order in original, was declined because the validity challenge involved diverse factual issues and an appellate remedy was available. No interim order was granted, and affidavits were directed for further proceedings.

Validity of Serial No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), and the related original order challenged in the proceedings, remained unadjudicated. Diverse factual questions and the availability of a statutory appellate remedy did not support interim protection. No final determination addressed the notification's validity or the original order, no interim order was granted, and affidavits were directed to be exchanged for further consideration.

Invocation of Section 74 based on alleged suppression of facts was under scrutiny because the show-cause notice and adjudication order did not prima facie establish intent to evade tax. State flour-milling guidelines restricting private commercial milling by empanelled mills, together with the admitted prescribed price structure, required consideration in assessing whether the declared transaction value could be questioned absent a specific fraud allegation. Further recovery of the balance demand remained stayed pending the next hearing, with no final adjudication on the merits.

Section 67(2) of the CGST Act does not authorise seizure or retention of cash merely because it is alleged to be proceeds of unaccounted taxable supplies. Money is excluded from "goods", while "things", read ejusdem generis with documents and books, covers only articles with evidentiary or investigative utility; it does not confer unrestricted power over movable assets. A writ petition challenging this foundational absence of statutory power remains maintainable despite an appellate remedy. Cash seized without such authority must be released with applicable interest, subject to independently authorised statutory action.

Section 67(2) of the CGST Act is described as not authorising seizure of cash merely because it is suspected to represent unaccounted sale proceeds. Cash is excluded from "goods" and, under an ejusdem generis construction, "things" is confined to material with evidentiary relevance alongside documents and books. Seizure requires objectively supported reasons to believe satisfying statutory conditions; a later adjudicatory finding cannot cure absent authority at the time of seizure. A jurisdictional challenge to such seizure may proceed despite an alternative appellate remedy. Release remains subject to any independently lawful restraint or attachment, with applicable interest.

ITeS transfer-pricing benchmarking requires exclusion of functionally dissimilar companies from an external comparable set. Eclerx Services Limited, which outsourced its activities, and Mold-Tek Technologies Limited, which performed different functions, were unsuitable comparables. Accurate Data Converters Limited also failed the employee-cost filter because its employee cost fell below the stipulated revenue threshold. Internal TNMM should be preferred where associated-enterprise and non-associated-enterprise services are similar and the allocation basis is undisputed; where the associated-enterprise margin exceeds the non-associated-enterprise margin, the international transactions satisfy the arm's-length standard.

TNGST on accommodation is payable on the actual amount charged, with declared tariff determining the applicable rate slab. Casino entry, gambling and horse-racing bets are taxable on their respective transaction values, with gambling and horse racing assessed on total bet value. Hospital room rent for in-patients is exempt, while food or drink services may qualify for composition levy. Low-turnover accommodation suppliers using electronic commerce operators need not register where the operator bears tax liability. Books are goods where sold by their owner, and legal services to business entities are taxable under reverse charge.

RoDTEP scroll-out is suspended for specified IEC holders whose Annual RoDTEP Return for FY 2023-24 was not filed or reported within the prescribed timeline. ICES 1.5 alerts prevent generation of RoDTEP scrolls for linked Shipping Bills. Exporters must comply with the return requirement and approach DGFT for alert removal or revocation. Once the alert is removed or revoked and reflected in ICES 1.5, Shipping Bills will be processed for scroll generation subject to other applicable conditions and system requirements.

Corrigenda to the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 correct Gazette references, departmental terminology, and the phrase "given in such order". Further corrections separate "every body", rectify an enactment citation, replace specified punctuation, and revise the cross-reference range from clauses "(a) to (f)" to "(a) to (g)".

Preferential tariff treatment under the India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement is available only for originating goods that are wholly obtained or satisfy applicable product-specific origin requirements. Origin may be supported through bilateral cumulation, tariff-classification changes, qualifying value content, or prescribed production processes, while minimal operations do not confer origin. Importers must hold a valid Proof of Origin, comprising a Certificate of Origin or authorised Origin Declaration, and retain supporting records. Customs may verify origin through information requests and verification visits, and may deny preference where origin or compliance cannot be established.

Telangana Forensic Science Laboratory (TGFSL) is designated as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Its authorised scope covers computer media forensics, excluding floppy disk drives, and mobile device forensics.