Recognised stock exchanges fall within the definition of public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 where governmental control is deep and pervasive. Ownership, control and substantial financing in the inclusive limb operate disjunctively. Statutory recognition under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 is constitutive rather than merely regulatory because an entity cannot operate as a stock exchange without it. SEBI's recognition order, exercised through delegated Central Government power, is attributable to the Central Government. The National Stock Exchange is therefore amenable to the RTI Act under both the first and inclusive limbs of Section 2(h).

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to appeals under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. Under Section 29(2), provisions on limitation, including condonation of delay, apply to special or local laws prescribing distinct limitation periods unless expressly or necessarily excluded. The thirty-day appeal period contains no bar on extension, no outer limit for condonation, and no self-contained limitation scheme. Exclusion of time for obtaining a certified copy further indicates that general limitation principles are not wholly displaced. Delay may therefore be condoned upon sufficient cause, preserving the appellate remedy against externment orders.

Complete settlement of operational debt before pronouncement of a Section 9 admission order, coupled with a pending withdrawal application by the operational creditor, prevents the insolvency proceedings from validly resulting in admission to CIRP. The withdrawal request should be processed where payment and settlement occurred before admission. CIRP initiated despite the pre-admission settlement and pending withdrawal application is unsustainable and should be withdrawn.

Seized goods must be returned under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, if notice under Section 124(a) is not issued within six months of seizure. The period may be extended only once, for up to a further six months, by the competent authority for recorded reasons and after prior intimation to the person concerned. Expiry of the statutory period without notice renders continued detention of seized gold jewellery impermissible; a hearing notice issued after proceedings begin cannot cure the lapse. Release may be directed subject to payment of applicable customs duty and warehousing charges.

Interest on NRE/FCNR deposits retained by a returning non-resident until maturity remains exempt where retention is permitted under the foreign-exchange regime; the exemption is not confined to continuing non-residents. Presumptive interest on foreign investments cannot be taxed without evidence of actual receipt or accrual, and disputed foreign-currency bank credits require bank verification before being treated as unexplained income. Chapter VI-A deductions, along with consequential deduction and rebate claims, were allowable in the stated circumstances. Reassessment reopening based on information concerning foreign bank accounts remained valid, while the related income additions required correction or fresh factual determination.

Penalty for under-reporting is not automatic: a valid show-cause notice, reasonable opportunity, and identification of the applicable statutory clause are required before levy. Where no notice followed initiation in assessment orders and no penalty was imposed, appellate confirmation of initiation was premature. Intimation adjustments do not merge automatically into a later scrutiny assessment; they may be challenged in an appeal against that assessment only if the assessment considered and decided them. Otherwise, a separate statutory appeal against the intimation is required. Liability for delayed-return interest requires factual verification where timely filing of the original return is claimed.

Section 69A requires material establishing that money or specified valuable assets found in an assessee's possession are unexplained. Cash traced to prior bank withdrawals and supported by cash-book records cannot be treated as unexplained without evidence that it was used elsewhere or derived from an undisclosed source. An alleged excess sale consideration cannot rest solely on a self-incriminating statement without independent verification or corroborative evidence of receipt. Differences in sundry creditor balances, particularly where draft accounts are subsequently reconciled in audited financial statements, do not constitute unexplained money under Section 69A because creditor discrepancies fall outside the provision's specified subject matter.

Interest awarded under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is treated as an accretion to the land's value and forms part of enhanced compensation. It differs from interest under section 34, which compensates for delayed payment. Provisions governing taxation and timing of interest on compensation receipts do not alter the capital character of section 28 interest. Consequently, section 28 interest qualifying as enhanced compensation is eligible for exemption available for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and is not taxable as income from other sources.

Consolidated determinations of tax-deduction default and interest liabilities across multiple assessment years, instead of separate quarterly orders for each relevant year, are identified as procedurally invalid. Combining assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 into one order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) is treated as a defect invalidating the assessment proceedings from inception. The resulting consolidated order is regarded as void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

Employees' ESI/PF contributions paid after the due date under the relevant welfare legislation are not governed by the income-tax return filing deadline under Section 139(1). Determining the precise statutory due date requires verification of the actual dates on which salaries were paid. The disallowance applies in principle, but its computation requires fresh verification and recomputation by the Assessing Officer.

Unexplained cash deposits were not fully reconciled, but a sale deed executed during the relevant financial year supported the inference that the deposits represented the cash component of that transaction. Given the specific facts, a restricted lump-sum addition was treated as appropriate rather than sustaining the entire addition for unexplained deposits. Relief was granted by limiting the addition accordingly.

Search-seized material relating to a person other than the searched person must be addressed through the special assessment procedure under Sections 153C and 153A, rather than regular reassessment under Sections 147 and 148. Sections 153A to 153D have overriding operation where the seized material belongs to or relates to that other person and is relevant to determining total income. Reassessment notices based on conclusions drawn from such material are therefore invalid; any action must proceed under Section 153C.

Approval under section 80G(5) requires satisfaction regarding genuine activities and compliance with statutory conditions. An object in the trust deed permitting receipt or application of funds outside India raised a compliance concern. Where the trust had initiated amendment of its objects to restrict operations to India, reconsideration after filing the amended trust deed was warranted. The rejection of approval was set aside, and the application was restored for fresh adjudication upon submission of amended objects or the amended trust deed.

Under the mercantile system, a provision for audit fees is deductible only when audit services have been rendered and the corresponding liability has accrued and crystallised during the relevant year. A statutory obligation to obtain an audit does not itself create an enforceable liability before the audit is undertaken; an uncrystallised provision remains contingent. Audit fees relating to an earlier period may be claimed in the payment year as prior-period expenditure after recasting the accounts. Delayed employees' EPF contributions require verification of the actual delayed amount, and any disallowance must be restricted to the amount so verified.

Reassessment initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year requires failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts where the original assessment was completed after scrutiny. Depreciation-related material, including the completion certificate and employee statements on whether the building, plant and machinery were put to use, had been disclosed, queried and considered in the original assessment. Reopening on the same material constituted a change of opinion rather than a failure of disclosure. The reassessment was therefore invalid, and the consequential orders were quashed.

Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be used to direct reassessment of share premium valuation under Section 56(2)(viib) where limited scrutiny was confined to verifying the genuineness and disclosed source of share application money. Verification of identity, genuineness and source is distinct from determining whether share premium exceeds fair market value. An Assessing Officer cannot expand a limited-scrutiny enquiry beyond its specified reasons unless it is converted into complete scrutiny. Without such conversion, the assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue on the share-premium valuation issue, and the revisionary order was quashed.

For assessment years preceding the amended reassessment regime, the first proviso to Section 149(1) preserves the former six-year limitation for issuing a Section 148 notice. That separate restriction is not extended by later provisos. Where the six-year period expired on 31 March 2022, a notice issued on 4 April 2022 was time-barred. The resulting reassessment and consequential addition were legally unsustainable and required deletion.

Interest and dividend income earned by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). A co-operative bank remains a co-operative society for this purpose. The exclusion applicable to co-operative banks under Section 80P(4) restricts a bank's own claim for deduction and does not prevent another co-operative society from claiming deduction on interest received from deposits with a co-operative bank. Accordingly, interest on such deposits is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

For cash deposits made during demonetisation and examined under Section 69A, cash-flow statements and income-tax returns supported the availability of rental income and cash after 1 April 2011. The opening cash balance on that date remained unsupported by documentary evidence, and the cash-flow statement did not sufficiently provide for household drawings and personal or incidental expenditure. Estimated personal expenditure of Rs. 2,50,000 was therefore treated as unexplained, while Rs. 11,00,000 of the disputed deposit was accepted as explained cash availability.

Additional documentary evidence supporting a Section 54F exemption claim may be admitted under Rule 29 where it is necessary for a just decision, substantial cause exists, or the taxpayer lacked adequate earlier opportunity to produce it. A purchase agreement and bank statements material to proving investment in a new residential property satisfied these conditions, particularly as the explanation for earlier non-production was accepted and the Revenue produced no material to challenge admission. The evidence may be considered by the income-tax authority under Rule 30, requiring fresh determination of the exemption claim after that consideration.