Immediate suspension of a Customs Broker licence is an exceptional power subject to the mandatory safeguard of a post-decisional hearing within fifteen days. Administrative postponement cannot extend that statutory period. Where the licensing authority conducts the hearing after the prescribed period, continuation of the suspension lacks legal sanction and must be revoked. This does not determine the merits of the underlying allegations, which may be pursued through proceedings in accordance with law.

Leave to appeal was unnecessary because the appellants had applied for intervention and were parties to the order rejecting those applications; the rule requiring strangers to obtain leave did not apply. Their appeals were therefore maintainable without leave. Intervention in the already disposed writ petitions was nevertheless unavailable: erstwhile directors showed only apprehensions, not a tangible subsisting right making them necessary or proper parties in proceedings concerning defreezing of company bank accounts. Pending disputes did not justify intervention or recall, and final disposal rendered the writ court functus officio, precluding further revisiting of the writ petitions. The intervention rejections and dismissal of the intra-court appeals were sustained, without barring appropriate independent remedies against the final writ order.

Article 15 of the Articles of Association required a selling member to notify the Board in writing, enabled the Board to act as agent for sale to existing members, and required pricing at an agreed or auditor-certified fair value. Transfers by individual shareholders and a Trust to outsiders without following that procedure disregarded existing shareholders' pre-emptive rights and were treated as void. The same restrictions applied to both categories of shareholders, and acquiescence could not waive the mandatory process. The transfers were set aside, the company was required to rectify its registers and make consequential declarations, and any fresh sale had to comply with Article 15.

Default bail was unavailable because the supplementary complaint was filed within the prescribed period; its later return for compliance did not by itself create an indefeasible right to release. Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was also refused because the material prima facie linked the accused to activities connected with proceeds of crime, including alleged interference with the auction of attached properties. The statutory twin conditions were not met: there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty or unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The cited Supreme Court ruling was distinguished on facts, and the bail petition was dismissed.

Floating-rig services are classifiable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service, taxable only from 16 May 2008, rather than Mining Service. Service tax collected under the erroneous classification and borne by the service recipient lacked legal authority under Article 265, supporting refund even though the service provider had not challenged its assessment. Statutory refund limitation did not justify retention where payment arose from a mistake of law caused by misclassification. Certificates establishing that the recipient bore the tax burden supported the finding that refund would not result in unjust enrichment. Appellate authorities and the Tribunal could correct the classification error and grant refund without requiring a civil suit or writ petition.

DTA removal of identifiable goods taken over by an SEZ Developer after payment of applicable customs duty and IGST through a Bill of Entry for home consumption may not create a second customs-duty or customs-IGST incidence if the goods were not processed or transformed in the SEZ. Rule 49(4)(a) permits removal of already-duty-paid goods without duty where identity is established, and relevant Unit procedures apply to Developers. Depreciation need not apply if this relief is available. A later sale or supply may independently attract GST, and clearance requires permission, records and applicable DTA documentation.

Assam Cabinet approvals include first-phase funding for land acquisition and development of the Aerotropolis Satellite City Project and a lease deed for a hotel supporting the Jagiroad semiconductor ecosystem. Measures also provide Aadhaar enrolment relaxation for Moran and Matak communities, zero agricultural tax up to the prescribed net-income threshold, OBC Non-Creamy Layer certificates, and trainee and graduate-assistance funding. Government jobs will be provisionally held pending police verification, with automatic confirmation where no report is submitted within six months. Jail rules will be amended to promote non-discrimination, sanitation, security and fair work allocation.

Money-laundering investigation concerning an alleged liquor scam led to the Enforcement Directorate's arrest of Ramgopal Agrawal and seven days' custodial remand under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The agency alleged his connection with proceeds of crime, non-attendance despite multiple summonses, and evasiveness during questioning. Allegations concern purported control of the state excise department, illegal liquor sales, and sharing of commissions. The Congress has denied the allegations and described the investigation as politically motivated.

Precise charges are required in a show cause notice initiating disciplinary action against a Customs Broker. Mere reference to allegations in another notice and a list of allegedly contravened regulations, without factual allegations supporting each contravention, does not provide a valid foundation for licence revocation proceedings. The vague notice invalidated the disciplinary action; consequently, revocation of the Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of the security deposit, and penalty were set aside.

Revisionary jurisdiction requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. Allowance of bad debts was not amenable to revision where the Assessing Officer had examined supporting particulars and ledger material, and the debts were written off as irrecoverable in the accounts; actual proof of irrecoverability was unnecessary. Allowance of employees' PF/ESI contributions paid after statutory due dates was likewise not revisable where it followed binding jurisdictional precedent prevailing at assessment. A subsequent Supreme Court ruling taking a different view does not retrospectively make that assessment erroneous. Neither ground satisfied the conditions for revision.

Revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because a subsequent Supreme Court ruling adopts a view different from the jurisdictional High Court precedent governing when the assessment was made. Where the Assessing Officer allowed deduction of belated employees' provident fund and ESI contributions in accordance with the then-binding jurisdictional High Court ruling on materially identical facts, the assessment was not erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. The later Supreme Court interpretation did not retrospectively invalidate that assessment for revision purposes, and the revisionary orders were set aside.

Compensation paid to an existing tenant for surrendering tenancy rights may be deducted as business expenditure where property letting forms part of the taxpayer's business and rental receipts are taxed as business income. Securing vacant possession to let the premises to a new tenant at higher rent can arise from business necessity and commercial expediency. Where the payment does not acquire the property or create an enduring capital advantage, it is allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Annual membership and subscription expenditure could not be disallowed during return processing merely because of an inadvertent mismatch in the tax audit report. The expenditure was certified as wholly and exclusively incurred for business, not capital or personal, and was supported by expense-wise particulars, invoices and bills. Determining its nature and business nexus required examination of evidence, which the limited processing mechanism under section 143(1) could not mechanically replace. The disallowance was therefore unjustified and deleted.

Deduction under Section 80-IAC should not be denied solely because Form 10CCB was not filed with the return where the audit report was furnished before processing and issuance of intimation under Section 143(1). The requirement to furnish the report with the return was treated as directory, as the report remained available before completion of processing. Pandemic-related staff absence and technical issues explained the delayed filing. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider Form 10CCB and allow the otherwise eligible deduction.

Interest earned by a co-operative society from investments with co-operative societies or banks registered under Kerala co-operative societies law qualifies for the statutory deduction, even though it is assessable as income from other sources. Accordingly, interest received from a District Co-operative Bank is eligible for deduction in favour of the co-operative society.

Life-insurance policy surrender or maturity proceeds are taxable under section 10(10D) only where the premium payable in any policy year exceeds 20% of the sum assured. Assessment of such proceeds requires verification of the policy terms and the applicable premium-to-sum-assured ratio. Where the assessment does not establish that the statutory threshold was crossed, the receipt's nature and taxability require fresh factual determination. The assessment was set aside for reconsideration by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law.

Interest earned by a co-operative society from investments with a District Co-operative Bank registered as a co-operative society under Kerala co-operative law falls within the deduction for interest or dividend derived from investments with another co-operative society. The interest is not deductible under the business-income clause, but qualifies under the specific deduction provision for investments with co-operative societies. Accordingly, the interest is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Rental income from property settled in favour of family transferees is not assessable in the settlor's hands merely because the settlor holds a power of attorney for property management. The transferees held ownership and offered the rental income to tax, while no clubbing provision applied. A management-focused power of attorney does not transfer title or alter ownership. Consequently, rental income from the settled portions falls outside the settlor's assessment under income from house property, and the related addition is deleted.

Deduction available to a cottage industry was denied to a co-operative society operating a printing press because no material established that it satisfied the applicable cottage-industry criteria. The determination denying the claimed deduction therefore remained undisturbed, and the society was not entitled to the deduction.

Deduction under Section 80P requires a claim in a valid return of income under Section 80A(5). Filing a valid return is a mandatory statutory precondition for Chapter VI-A relief, and deductions or exemptions under taxing statutes are strictly construed. Where no return is filed under Section 139 or in response to a notice under Section 142(1), the statutory condition remains unmet and deduction under Section 80P is unavailable.