Interest earned by a co-operative housing society on fixed deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), provided the investment is with another co-operative society. A co-operative bank registered under applicable co-operative societies law remains a co-operative society for that purpose. Section 80P(4) restricts deductions claimed by co-operative banks themselves and does not limit the deduction available to an investing co-operative society. This interpretation is consistent with the liberal construction of beneficial provisions and Tribunal decisions applying the principle. The disallowance of the claimed deduction was deleted.

Penalty for under-reporting under section 270A was inapplicable where lease-rental disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source arose from a bona fide, debatable interpretation of GNOIDA's status as a Government body. The taxpayer had disclosed the material facts, and neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) found the explanation to lack bona fides. Confirmation of the underlying disallowance alone did not establish under-reporting for penalty purposes. The penalty was therefore deleted, applying the principle that an unsuccessful claim does not by itself justify penalty where the explanation is bona fide and fully disclosed.

Corpus donations received by a charitable trust with a specific direction to form part of its corpus are treated as exempt capital receipts. A harmonious reading of the provisions on voluntary contributions, charitable-trust exemptions and the relevant CBDT circular supports exclusion of such receipts from taxable income. Where the trust is registered under the applicable charitable registration provisions and its income, excluding exempt corpus receipts, remains below the taxable limit, the audit requirement and filing of Form No. 10B are not attracted. Non-furnishing of Form No. 10B therefore does not defeat the exemption for qualifying corpus contributions.

Enhanced taxation of unexplained income under the amended Section 115BBE was treated as prospective, applying from Assessment Year 2018-19 rather than Assessment Year 2017-18. Where High Court decisions conflict and no binding jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court ruling exists, the interpretation favourable to the assessee applies; tax for the earlier year is therefore computed under the unamended provision. Cash deposits used to repay a bank loan may be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A when their source lacks documentary support, but the entire deposit need not be added if reasonable cash-in-hand is available for ordinary requirements. The unexplained-money addition was consequently restricted.

Judicial review of Settlement Commission orders is limited to jurisdictional or statutory infirmity, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice and cannot operate as an appellate reassessment of the underlying adjudication. Where parties voluntarily settle proceedings arising from a show cause notice without pursuing the statutory appeal, they cannot reopen the notice's validity on limitation or reasonable-period grounds by challenging a consequential interest direction. Statutory interest remains a consequence of customs duty liability despite settlement of the duty quantum. Verification and quantification of further interest by the jurisdictional Commissioner may therefore be directed, subject to any independently maintainable challenge to the statutory computation.

Unauthorised lending of a Customs Broker licence and dongle to a G-card holder for consideration constitutes an impermissible transfer because the prohibition applies to the substance of the arrangement, not merely proprietary title. Filing a Shipping Bill in an exporter's name without that exporter's authority, while failing to verify the client's identity and functioning, independently breaches Customs Broker obligations; verification of IEC and GST particulars alone is insufficient, and knowledge of prohibited goods is unnecessary. No separate breach arose from information imparted to a client where no incorrect information was identified. Revocation, security forfeiture and penalty remained proportionate to the cumulative misconduct.

Writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily permit resolution of disputed facts concerning the presence of a Customs Broker during sampling of seized imported industrial oil. The objection to the first sample depended on a factual dispute: the importer denied the representative's presence, while the respondents and sampling report recorded it. The representative's presence during subsequent sampling was admitted. The relevant test report also indicated that the declared industrial oil failed applicable parameters, an issue addressed in an earlier decision. The challenge to seizure was therefore rejected, with no interference warranted on the disputed sampling objection.

Reliable and corroborative evidence is required to support allegations that duty-free imports under a DEEC licence were diverted and that fraudulent exports were made. Official export documentation, manufacturing confirmation, export-proceeds realisation and a criminal-court-accepted closure report were treated as material circumstances; suspicion, unreconciled gaps and uncorroborated assertions could not establish diversion. A duty demand cannot be confirmed on classification, product-description or licence-amendment grounds absent from the show cause notice. Retracted or inconsistent Customs Act statements require independent corroboration and compliance with statutory safeguards. Where the alleged fraud lacks evidentiary support, penalties for abetment or connivance lack an independent foundation. The duty demand, interest and penalties were set aside.

Country-of-origin misdeclaration was established for brass-scrap imports declared as originating in the UAE. Matching container and seal details, together with evidence that the goods were loaded at Karachi and remained in the same containers through Jebel Ali, supported Pakistan as the true origin. Applying the reasoning adopted for a connected live consignment with the same modus operandi and evidence, the Tribunal classified Pakistan-origin goods under CTH 98060000 pursuant to Notification No. 05/2019-Customs, rather than the claimed brass-scrap heading. The resulting differential duty, interest and penalties were sustained, and the appeals were dismissed.

Fraudulent import documents prevent limitation from running until the fraud is discovered: forged Bills of Entry are legally non-existent, and confiscation action may proceed when the fraudulent import is unearthed. Goods imported without payment of customs duty are liable to confiscation where statutory conditions are met. Under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, a person exercising the option to redeem confiscated goods must pay the applicable customs duty, interest and charges as an incident of redemption, irrespective of bona fide belief or lack of knowledge of the fraud. Bona fide purchase may nevertheless be relevant to moderating redemption fine, even though it does not remove duty and interest liability.

The BD Viper LT System, an automated PCR-based platform for detecting high-risk HPV DNA, is classified as an optical checking instrument under tariff item 9031 49 00 rather than as an instrument for chemical analysis under heading 9027. The system processes specimens, generates and compares fluorescence signals against prescribed criteria, and reports positive or negative results; this constitutes checking rather than examination or measurement of the specimen's chemical properties. Classification follows Rule 1 because heading 9031 describes the goods, making Rule 3 inapplicable. The applicable basic customs duty is 7.5% ad valorem, and import IGST is 18%.

Status quo over the company's assets continues pending valuation and determination of the proposed buyout of the appellant's shareholding. As the remaining dispute concerned alternative buyout relief, and the parties had proposed valuers but no appointment or valuation report had been made, the Tribunal was to appoint a valuer, obtain the report, and independently decide the buyout offer expeditiously. The company appeal was disposed of subject to continuation of the existing status quo until that process is completed.

Writ jurisdiction over regulatory ODR arbitration is confined to cases of demonstrable lack of authority, breach of the governing framework, or a patent jurisdictional defect; allocation to an ODR institution empanelled by a particular stock exchange does not alone establish invalidity. Allocation depends on the participant's listing status, relevant exchanges, the grievance, and portal-based allocation. Mandatory participation after unsuccessful conciliation does not create jurisdiction where the framework excludes the dispute, nor does it waive sustainable objections. Limitation, locus, maintainability, prior proceedings, res judicata, abuse of process, arbitrability and substantive entitlement remain for the arbitral forum. The petition was dismissed, requiring participation and applicable fees without prejudice to objections.

For periods before 14 May 2015, Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 confined the taxable value of Customs House Agent services to consideration charged for the taxable service. Rule 5 could not expand that value to include genuine reimbursements of third-party payments, including port, steamer-agent, container freight station, terminal-handling, demurrage and related charges incurred for clients. Recovery of those amounts from clients did not convert them into consideration for CHA services. The later inclusion of reimbursable expenditure in the valuation provision operated prospectively; related service-tax, interest and penalty demands therefore could not stand.

Challenges to disclosed parameter-wise technical evaluations remain maintainable where an earlier challenge was premature and the disclosure creates a fresh cause of action; res judicata and constructive res judicata do not apply to issues that could not then be adjudicated. In public procurement, comparative technical assessment requires disclosed objective standards, recorded reasons for deductions, consistent marking of materially similar proposals, and meaningful communication of reasons. Numerical scores and oral presentations cannot replace contemporaneous reasons or cure undisclosed benchmarks. Failure to meet these requirements makes the evaluation arbitrary, opaque and contrary to equality, natural justice and fair administrative action. The technical evaluations and consequential awards were set aside, with fresh RFPs directed and existing services continued pending completion.

Customs enforcement against undeclared gold importation involved interception of a passenger arriving from Sharjah at Ahmedabad airport following passenger profiling. A gold chain concealed inside clothing was recovered after it was not declared for customs purposes. The chain was seized and the passenger was arrested under the Customs Act, 1962, before being released on bail, with further investigation continuing.

Digital arrest cyber fraud allegedly used impersonation of law-enforcement and central banking officials, fabricated notices, threats of arrest and continuous video communications to coerce a retired railway employee into disclosing financial details and transferring funds for purported verification. The alleged proceeds were routed through mule and shell accounts. Banking records, KYC details, digital evidence and transaction trails allegedly connected a recipient account with suspicious transactions and multiple cyber-fraud cases; part of the cheated amount was recovered or refunded.

CPI(M) alleges that enforcement action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in the CMRL matter is politically motivated targeting of Pinarayi Vijayan, family members and party associates. It contends that searches, questioning and public communications during the investigation were used to create suspicion without incriminating evidence, and characterises references to hawala as a new investigative narrative. The party also alleges selective anti-money-laundering enforcement against opposition leaders and states that the company will address the CMRL-related matter.

Money-laundering proceedings concerning alleged financial irregularities in liquor transport led to the arrest of former Andhra Pradesh minister Karumuri Nageswara Rao under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The inquiry concerns alleged wrongful loss to the government exchequer arising from liquor-transport operations. Investigative measures included raids and the arrest of Rao's son, along with arrests of a former state beverages corporation managing director and the person described as the principal accused.

Alleged forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy concern purported unauthorised changes to LLP statutory records filed with the Registrar of Companies. The allegations include use of false documents to remove a nominated partner, substitute another person as partner and transfer a partner's interest in the LLP. The matter also draws attention to separate land-collaboration allegations and delayed possession claims by homebuyers in a halted housing project.