Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 may remain available despite an appeal against an interlocutory injunction where the challenge is confined to the trial court's foundational lack of jurisdiction, rather than disputed facts or injunctive merits. After a liquidation order, Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code restricts suits or legal proceedings by or against a corporate debtor, subject to the liquidator's approved proceedings. Section 63 further excludes civil-court jurisdiction over matters assigned to NCLT or NCLAT. Where the statutory bar is apparent, Order VII Rule 11 may be applied suo motu; any interim injunction issued without jurisdiction is a nullity.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on material and integral facts forming the cause of action, assessed consistently with the cause-of-action principle under the Code of Civil Procedure. The issuing authority's location, issuance of a circular, or electronic rejection from Delhi does not alone create jurisdiction. Where no-objection certificates concern import activity and detained goods at Chennai or Kolkata, the operative facts and alleged consequences arise there rather than in Delhi. Delhi therefore lacks territorial jurisdiction over the writ challenge.

Cash-deposit additions as unexplained money require a reasonable opportunity for the taxpayer to substantiate an asserted business-sales source. Where assessment treated deposits as unexplained despite retail-trading receipts being asserted, and the record did not show an opportunity to furnish supporting material or pursue presumptive assessment, principles of natural justice precluded sustaining the additions. The additions were directed for fresh adjudication, allowing fresh documentary material on the source of the deposits in renewed assessment proceedings.

Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. A mismatch between professional fees recorded in the accounts and payments reported for tax deduction under Section 194J did not establish unexplained or out-of-books expenditure. The tax audit report was based on regular books, while the tax-deducted payments related to operational costs of engaging professionals in the consulting business; separately disclosed legal and professional charges covered audit and other professional fees. The jurisdictional requirements for revision were therefore not met, rendering the revisionary order unsustainable.

Revision under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Where scrutiny records show that the Assessing Officer sought and considered detailed information on sales, purchases, TCS, rebates, discounts and rent payments, revision cannot rest merely on a preference for further or different verification. A factually plausible view, not contrary to law, does not render the assessment erroneous. The assessment was therefore not subject to revision, and the original assessment remained restored.

Cash deposits made by an authorised fair-price-shop dealer during demonetisation were directly linked to public distribution system sales. Goods were purchased from the State Civil Supplies Corporation, sold to eligible customers, and the sale proceeds were deposited in the bank account for further purchases. The deposits therefore constituted business receipts rather than unexplained money. Taxable business income was to be estimated on a presumptive basis at 8% of the deposits, after reducing income already offered.

Interest paid to government-owned corporations or government departments was exempt from tax deduction at source under the exemption for corporations established by Central, State or Provincial legislation. Notification No. 3489 applied without requiring a separate notification for each payee. The relevant payees were wholly government-owned corporations or government departments, and the same treatment had been accepted in other assessment years. Consequently, no liability for failure to deduct tax or consequential interest arose, and the demand was deleted.

Interest expenditure on borrowings used to advance funds on interest is deductible where banking records and confirmed accounts establish a direct nexus between the borrowings, onward advances and corresponding interest transactions. Consistent allowance of the deduction in preceding and succeeding assessment years, including a scrutiny assessment, supports application of the principle of consistency. On these facts, interest paid on the borrowings qualifies for deduction under Section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) allows a co-operative society to deduct the whole of profits and gains attributable to banking business or providing credit facilities to its members. A co-operative society providing member credit facilities under parent-body and NABARD guidelines remains eligible where it does not undertake banking business within the Banking Regulation Act definition. Providing credit facilities alone does not make such a society a co-operative bank, so the statutory deduction applies to qualifying profits from member credit facilities.

Unrecovered advances arising from construction and real-estate operations are allowable as a general business deduction under Section 37(1) when they become irrecoverable in the ordinary course of business. Failure to satisfy the condition under Section 36(2) for a bad-debt deduction does not preclude relief where the write-off represents a genuine loss incurred during normal business activity. The unrecovered advances are therefore deductible as a business loss under the general provision.

Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Where scrutiny addresses cash deposits, the taxpayer supplies cash-flow details, and the Assessing Officer treats deposits as business turnover while estimating income, a legally permissible and factually plausible view is not rendered erroneous merely because the revisional authority prefers another view or seeks further verification. The principle confines revision to demonstrable assessment error causing prejudice, rather than substitution of the revisional authority's judgment.

Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. In limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer had sought and received expense particulars, ledger extracts, vouchers and non-resident remittance details before accepting the returned income. No lack of enquiry or legal error was established. Further verification, or verification by a different method, cannot justify revision where the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view; such action amounts to an impermissible fishing or roving enquiry. The revision was therefore unsustainable and the original assessment was restored.

Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 requires reasoned, independent satisfaction that an assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Mere issuance of a show-cause notice followed by directions for a fresh assessment does not establish these statutory conditions. Without independent findings concerning the interest rate on loans and omission of an income-tax refund from the balance sheet, the exercise amounted to a fishing and roving enquiry. The revisionary order was invalid, quashed, and the original assessment order restored.

Bank credits arising in a contract business, where the return showing contract receipts was rejected without sound reasons but the business explanation for deposits remained unsubstantiated, require income estimation rather than full taxation as unexplained money under special-rate provisions. Ten per cent of the bank credits is assessable as normal business income; the entire credits cannot be assessed as unexplained money.

Share-sale proceeds cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits where the taxpayer provides a credible documentary trail establishing a genuine transaction. Purchase through banking channels, share allotment on amalgamation, dematerialisation, exchange-based sale contract notes, securities transaction tax, bank receipt of consideration and the required holding period support the long-term capital gains exemption. These materials discharge the initial burden under section 68 and support the section 10(38) claim. General investigation material or an unusual increase in scrip price, without evidence linking the taxpayer to price manipulation or unaccounted-money routing, does not rebut the documented transaction.

Comparable Uncontrolled Price benchmarking requires an uncontrolled royalty transaction; associated-enterprise agreements cannot serve as comparables. Advertisement, marketing and promotion spend does not alone establish an international transaction, and the Bright Line Test cannot presume brand-building services. Annual telecom licence fees are capital and amortised over the unexpired licence period, whereas 3G spectrum rights are depreciable intangible assets. Automated roaming and prepaid-distributor discounts do not trigger withholding as technical-service fees or commission. Recurring telecom royalties, contractual licence-breach payments, business-promotion costs and subscriber-fraud losses are deductible where applicable. Cell-site sharing and ordinary miscellaneous receipts may qualify as eligible telecom-business income, unlike export incentives; crystallisation and certain income exclusions require verification.

Competition Commission of India approved GRT Jewellers (India) Private Limited's proposed acquisition of a majority stake in Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri Limited. The transaction concerns entities operating in the Indian gems and jewellery market, including a private limited acquirer and a publicly listed target engaged in manufacturing and sale of gems and jewellery.

Competition Commission of India clearance authorises NuageLux BidCo S.a r.l. to acquire approximately 23% of the fully diluted shareholding in Kids Clinic India Ltd. The transaction constitutes an acquisition of a minority equity interest in a healthcare provider operating under the Cloudnine brand. NuageLux BidCo is a Luxembourg-incorporated private limited special purpose vehicle, ultimately controlled by Permira Holdings Ltd.

Competition clearance has been granted for the acquisition of certain equity shareholding in FarMart Service Private Limited by Impact Fund Denmark, Belgian Investment Company for Developing Countries SA/NV, and Orios Fund IIIa. FarMart conducts business-to-business trading, purchasing and selling of agricultural products and commodities in India and international markets. The acquiring investors include development finance institutions and a sub-fund of a SEBI-registered Category II alternative investment fund.

Allowability of expenditure linked to unverified sundry creditors requires examination under Section 37(1) where that provision is invoked. Section 69C is inapplicable when the source of the expenditure is undisputed. The absence of an express statutory reference in the assessment order does not by itself invalidate an addition. Deletion without a specific determination of the claimed expenditure's allowability under Section 37(1) is unsustainable and requires fresh consideration.