Motor vehicle tax arises only where a vehicle is used or kept for use in a public place. A public place requires a right of public access; a steel plant's guarded central dispatch yard, inaccessible without authorisation, does not meet that requirement. Rule 12A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules cannot expand the charging provision by imposing tax on vehicles confined to non-public premises merely because no stoppage intimation was filed. Accordingly, vehicles exclusively used or kept within such restricted premises are not liable to motor vehicle tax for that period.

Order XLI Rule 5 CPC requires a reasoned stay of execution based on sufficient cause, substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security for due performance. In money-decree appeals, deposit is ordinarily prudent but is not an inflexible condition because security may be provided through property, a bond, or an appropriate undertaking. An unconditional stay may be justified only exceptionally, including where the decree appears perverse, patently illegal, or facially untenable. Relevant circumstances may include defective service, ex parte proceedings, unsupported infringement findings, and damages awarded without pleadings or notice. The Section 36 Arbitration Act analogy does not govern appellate stay powers under the CPC.

The Supreme Court dismissed the miscellaneous applications and clarified that its prior order is confined to the peculiar facts of the matter. The clarification ensures that the prior order does not affect other matters arising under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 or the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Pre-cognizance hearing is mandatory before cognizance of a money-laundering prosecution complaint filed after the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 commenced. The absence of that hearing renders cognizance unsustainable and requires the process to recommence after the accused receives an opportunity to be heard. Inherent and supervisory jurisdiction may remain available despite a revisional remedy where personal liberty or fundamental rights are exceptionally affected. Arrest and pre-cognizance remands remain valid where the prescribed production and arrest procedure was followed. Remand beyond the statutory limit does not by itself require immediate release without demonstrated prejudice; bail must be considered under the applicable money-laundering framework.

A scrutiny notice remains valid despite non-compliance with the prescribed CBDT format where it is authenticated, substantially conforms to the Income-tax Act, the assessee received it, participated without timely objection, and suffered no prejudice or confusion. Technical defects are therefore curable under the provisions governing notice authentication and procedural irregularities. Cash deposits made during demonetisation require verification under applicable CBDT instructions, including comparison of sales and deposits, stock and debtor records, banking patterns, possible fictitious or back-dated sales, and the reliability of books. The assessee must establish the source and genuineness of deposits, with adequate opportunity to be heard.

Borrowed service charges received from an Indian group entity are examined under the India-Singapore tax treaty's provisions on fees for technical or included services, royalty and business profits. Article 12(4)(b) requires technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to be made available so that the recipient can apply the technology. As the services did not make technical knowledge or skill available to the Indian entity, the charges are not fees for technical or included services or royalty. They are characterised as business income under Article 7, consistently with earlier decisions and an accepted mutual-agreement resolution where the services remained unchanged.

Foreign tax credit for German taxes could not be denied where the return for assessment year 2020-21 was filed within the extended due date and Form 67 was furnished before processing under section 143(1). Section 90 read with Article 23 of the India-Germany Double Tax Avoidance Agreement entitled the taxpayer to credit for German taxes paid on income also taxed in India. In these circumstances, the procedural filing requirement under Rule 128 did not justify denial of the claimed foreign tax credit.

Late fee under section 234E could not be levied through processing of a quarterly TDS statement under section 200A for financial year 2012-13, because the enabling amendment authorising such computation took effect only from 1 June 2015. For pre-amendment periods, an intimation under section 200A lacked statutory authority to impose the fee. Applying the coordinate-bench approach for identical periods, the levy was invalid and the issue was resolved in favour of the assessee.

Interest paid to members on interest-bearing maintenance security deposits is deductible under Section 57(iii) against bank interest earned from deploying those deposits. The deposits were placed in bank fixed deposits while the association was contractually required to pay interest to members, establishing a direct nexus between the interest income and expenditure. The expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred to earn the bank interest. Section 40(ba) did not apply to a registered society and concerns computation of business income rather than income from other sources. Accordingly, the interest expenditure may be set off against the bank interest income and the addition is deleted.

Section 153D prior approval for a search assessment must reflect the Joint or Additional Commissioner's independent and meaningful consideration of assessment records, seized material and proposed additions. Consolidated approval for multiple assessment years, inconsistent dates, failure to consider subsequent assessee replies, and a bare endorsement of "Approved" indicate mechanical approval without due application of mind. Such defective approval vitiates the statutory safeguard and invalidates the resulting search assessment.

Non-adjudication of a reassessment challenge does not warrant remand where neither the Revenue's appeal nor the assessee's cross-objection challenges that omission. The first appellate authority had deleted the addition on merits, and the Revenue's appeal was confined to that deletion. The Third Member concluded that the unchallenged reassessment ground could not be separately revived to set aside the appellate order. The deletion of the addition therefore remained undisturbed, and no fresh adjudication or remand on the reassessment challenge was required.

Profits from the sale of plots carved from long-held ancestral land are characterised as capital gains where the facts do not show an intention or organised course of conduct to trade. Conversion to non-agricultural use, plotting, infrastructure development and piecemeal sales may facilitate realisation of enhanced value but do not alone establish a trading venture. The analysis distinguishes capital investment realisation from business activity by noting the absence of purchase activity, organised trading operations and active marketing. It also states that computation should account for opening-stock value and plot costs. The resulting capital-gains treatment supports acceptance of the claimed deduction for investment in specified bonds.

Search assessments under section 153C require seized money, assets, books or documents relating to the other person, bearing on total income, followed by recorded satisfaction and transmission to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. For completed assessments, additions for unexplained investment under section 69B must be supported by incriminating material connected with the search. Where no seized document or loose paper evidences unaccounted construction expenditure and the required satisfaction procedure is not disclosed, a Departmental Valuation Officer's report alone cannot substitute for incriminating material. Additions founded solely on such a valuation report are therefore unsustainable.

Cash deposits established as sale proceeds from milk-product distribution should be treated as business turnover rather than wholly as unexplained money. Where milk-sale prices are fixed by the principal and normal trading margins range from 1% to 3%, an 8% profit estimate is excessive. A 3% net-profit rate on total bank deposits is considered reasonable, resulting in profit being estimated at that rate in favour of the assessee.

Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is characterised as an accretion to the value of compulsorily acquired land and forms part of enhanced compensation, unlike Section 34 interest, which compensates for delayed payment. Provisions governing taxation of interest on compensation address the timing of taxation and do not change the character of Section 28 interest. Accordingly, Section 28 interest on enhanced compensation for compulsorily acquired agricultural land is not assessable as income from other sources and qualifies for the consequential exemption applicable to such acquisition.

Uncorroborated third-party statements, loose sheets and unsupported valuation assumptions could not establish undisclosed property consideration or unaccounted bad debts. Additions relating to alleged cash payments for several properties were deleted where sellers were not examined, statements were unavailable for cross-examination, or documentary and valuation evidence supported the recorded consideration. For one property, the addition was restricted to the differential consideration proportionate to the land actually conveyed. A documented sale agreement showing cash paid beyond the registered deed supported retention of that cash component. Protective additions in the spouse's assessment could not continue once corresponding substantive additions were addressed in the other assessment.

Under Section 153A, completed or unabated assessments may be disturbed only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search; additions founded solely on regular records are unsustainable. Where assessment proceedings are pending and abate on the search date, the Assessing Officer may determine total income using all material on record and is not confined to seized material. Additional evidence concerning expenditure, tax deduction and loan creditors may be admitted where necessary for a complete determination of income and reasonable opportunity, with the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.

Reassessment proceedings against a non-resident must be initiated by the officer with jurisdiction over non-resident taxpayers. Bank information, tax deduction records and the underlying agreement established the taxpayer's non-resident status and overseas address, yet a resident-jurisdiction officer issued notice at an outdated Indian address instead of transferring the matter to the International Taxation Division. The consequential assessment also proceeded on an incorrect residential-status basis. The non-jurisdictional reassessment notice and assessment founded on it were invalid, resulting in the assessment being quashed.

Jurisdiction to impose post-assessment penalties under the Black Money Act remained with the regular Assessing Officer where prior Joint Commissioner or Joint Director approval was required. Although a concurrent-jurisdiction order empowered the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation) to perform Assessing Officer functions, CBDT guidelines confined investigation officers' penalty powers to matters not requiring such approval. A jurisdictional challenge could be raised as a pure legal issue despite participation in penalty proceedings. Because the penalty required approval under the Act, the Deputy Director lacked authority to impose it, and the penalty orders for the relevant assessment years were set aside.

Taxability of business profits under the India-UK treaty depended on whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India during the relevant year. Although the receipt was characterised as business profits rather than fees for technical services, the relevant facts had not been specifically addressed because the consolidated hearing primarily concerned group entities governed by a different treaty. A fresh opportunity was warranted to address the applicable treaty provisions and all relevant permanent-establishment issues, requiring recall of the earlier order for rehearing.