Just-in-Time (JIT) requires goods, materials and components to be produced or delivered only in the quantity and at the time required by actual demand. It reduces inventory, overproduction, storage costs, delays, defects and other waste through demand-based production, continuous workflow, supplier collaboration and quality control at every stage. Successful adoption requires reliable supply networks, accurate forecasting, flexible operations, employee training, quality management and digital inventory tools. In manufacturing and services, JIT can improve resource utilisation, responsiveness, productivity and sustainability.

Statutory power to frame service rules includes power to amend, vary or rescind them under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Deletion of the promotion bar for technical employees was valid because it was ordered by the Registrar; communication by the Additional Registrar did not affect the exercise of that authority. A legislative laying requirement using "shall" is directory where it prescribes no consequence for non-compliance and does not make tabling a condition precedent to operation. Accordingly, non-tabling before the Legislative Assembly did not invalidate the amendment, and the employee's promotional status, seniority, consequential benefits and partial back wages were restored.

The second proviso to Section 35B(1) permits the Appellate Tribunal to refuse admission of specified appeals involving a fine or penalty within the prescribed monetary limit, but does not remove its duty to give reasons. As a statutory quasi-judicial forum, the Tribunal must consider the appeal on its merits and record why admission is unwarranted. A refusal based solely on the monetary limit, without reasoned consideration, is invalid; the matter was resolved in favour of the assessee.

Section 12A requires pre-litigation mediation before a commercial suit unless the suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief. Urgency requires a holistic assessment of the suit's nature, subject matter, cause of action and pleaded circumstances from the plaintiff's standpoint; an interim-relief prayer cannot merely circumvent mediation. Urgent disclosure and asset-protection relief was warranted where investors alleged misappropriation, asset details had not been updated, and claims were received and aggregated over time. The commercial suit therefore fell within the urgent-interim-relief exception, and non-compliance with pre-litigation mediation did not require rejection of the plaint.

Under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, disciplinary authorities must assess proven breaches and impose proportionate consequences. Appellate interference with a discretionary decision to levy a monetary penalty instead of revoking a Customs Broker licence is limited to arbitrariness, perversity, or legal error; an appellate body cannot substitute its preferred view merely because another outcome is possible. Licence revocation, which affects business operations and livelihood, is not automatic for every regulatory breach. Proven misconduct must support the sanction, as suspicion alone cannot establish liability. In the absence of arbitrariness, perversity, or legal infirmity, a monetary penalty rather than licence revocation remains sustainable.

Prospective operation of a customs notification amendment prevents its use to deny consideration of provisional release where shipment occurred before the amendment took effect. The Bill of Lading date is treated as the shipment date, consistent with the departmental position in similar matters. A request for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act must therefore be considered under the pre-amendment position; goods may be released on compliance with lawful conditions. Determination of the applicable duty rate remains subject to independent statutory adjudication.

Renewable Energy Certificate sale proceeds are capital receipts because they arise from regulatory incentives for clean-energy generation and environmental protection, rather than from production, sale of goods, services, or operational activities of an eligible undertaking. They therefore do not constitute profits derived from eligible business for deduction under section 80IA and are not taxable as business income. Retaining their character as non-taxable capital receipts, such proceeds must also be excluded from book profit for minimum alternate tax under section 115JB.

Associated Enterprise status under section 92A requires the foundational test of direct or indirect participation in management, control or capital; the circumstances listed in section 92A(2), including commercial dependence or distributor exclusivity, do not independently establish that status. Internal CUP comparability does not require identical contractual terms. Contractual differences must be assessed for their material effect on price, and reasonably accurate, objectively verifiable adjustments must be considered under Rule 10B(3). Where CUP cannot be reliably applied after that assessment, the most appropriate method must be selected independently under section 92C and Rules 10B and 10C for royalty benchmarking.

Entity-level benchmarking under the Transactional Net Margin Method supports deletion of a separate management-fee transfer-pricing adjustment where the entity margin is at arm's length and no distinguishing facts exist from earlier years. Customs and VAT/GST refunds recorded as balance-sheet items, rather than expenses claimed in the relevant year, require factual verification before being treated for tax purposes. Claimed short TDS credit must be verified and allowed to the extent eligible after giving the taxpayer an opportunity. Aggregate interest under the applicable interest provisions requires recomputation with a clear provision-wise breakup to permit verification.

Interest expenditure on historical borrowings remains deductible in full under section 57 where the borrowings retain a real nexus with income-producing investments or assets assessable as income from other sources. An oral interest-payment arrangement may be established through the parties' conduct, past treatment and surrounding material; lack of written documentation does not by itself make the liability contingent. Conversion of investments into sale proceeds or fixed deposits does not sever that nexus. Section 57 imposes no arithmetical cap limiting deductible interest to interest income earned in the same year, though year-wise quantification and separate statutory disallowances continue to apply.

Rule 46A permits consideration of supplementary evidence where the Assessing Officer receives an opportunity to submit a remand report and the material is necessary to determine exemption claims. A registered arrangement amalgamating adjoining flats into one composite residential unit may support capital-gains exemptions under Sections 54 and 54F when the assessee's investment and ownership share in the resulting unit are established. The separate identity of an amalgamated flat may cease where the registered agreement creates a single residential unit, supporting the claimed exemptions.

Transactional Net Margin Method benchmarking requires comparables to match the tested party's functions, assets and risks; product developers, intangible-owning entities, entrepreneurial businesses, education or publishing entities, unsegmented diversified providers and online gaming companies are unsuitable for a limited-risk distributor or routine service provider. Comparable margins must use correct data, with working-capital adjustment granted on verification where material and proportionate adjustment applied consistently. Back-office, sales and marketing support costs integral to assured-margin subscription and service segments cannot be separately valued at nil once segmental margins are arm's length, as this would create a double adjustment. Tax deducted at source credit and consequential interest require recomputation.

Appellate jurisdiction under Section 250 is confined to the assessment and assessment year that form the subject matter of the appeal. An appellate authority cannot direct reopening or reassessment under Section 147 for a distinct assessment year concerning an issue not before it. Where reopening is initiated solely under such an extra-jurisdictional direction, the direction is without jurisdiction. The resulting reassessment, including an addition for unexplained investment, is void ab initio and cannot survive.

Depreciation on fixed assets may be treated as application of income where the asset's acquisition cost has not been claimed as application of income in the same or an earlier year. Section 11(6) prevents depreciation only to the extent necessary to avoid a double deduction when capital expenditure on the relevant asset has already been treated as application of income. Where financial records establish that capital expenditure was not included in the application claimed and only depreciation was claimed, the statutory restriction does not apply. Depreciation is consequently allowable as application of income.

Agricultural income claimed as exempt required verification against supporting documentary evidence before it could be treated as unexplained money. Partial evidence had been furnished during assessment, while sale invoices could not be uploaded because of portal-size constraints and submission in hard copy was sought. As the assessment was completed without further opportunity and the additional evidence was not admitted on appeal, the addition was set aside for de novo verification and adjudication by the Assessing Officer after adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Section 115BAA permits a domestic company to elect the concessional tax regime by filing Form No. 10-IC under Rule 21AE. The option is irrevocable and, once exercised for a previous year, cannot be withdrawn for that or any subsequent previous year. Consequently, the election continues for subsequent assessment years without requiring a fresh Form No. 10-IC each year. A domestic company that has validly exercised the option remains entitled to the concessional tax regime for later years, subject to the statutory conditions.

Unaccounted cash-receipt additions cannot rest on price differentials, internal records, employee statements, electronic communications or median-rate estimates without reliable, transaction-specific proof that cash was actually received. Accepted books, registered sale documents and banking receipts cannot be displaced by uncorroborated suspicion; estimation may quantify an established undisclosed receipt but cannot establish it. Similarly, a vendor's notebook notation does not prove unrecorded land consideration where the alleged cash payment lacks independent evidence, the vendor's explanation remains unrebutted, and disclosed consideration is supported by books and banking records. Deeming provisions for unexplained investment or money require proof of actual investment or possession. Both additions were deleted.

Section 154 permits rectification only of a patent, self-evident mistake apparent from the record and does not permit review of a debatable issue or substitution of one possible view for another. Where a final assessment order expressly applied the India-Mauritius DTAA rate to interest on an income-tax refund, a subsequent rectification could not replace that rate with the domestic-law rate merely by referring to the return of income or the assessment order's lack of detailed discussion. Such reconsideration requires legal examination and falls outside rectification jurisdiction. The treaty rate remained applicable to the refund interest.

Interest on NRE deposits may qualify for exemption under Section 10(4)(ii) even where the individual is resident in India, if the RBI permits continued maintenance of the NRE account. The provision and its proviso prescribe alternative eligibility conditions: residence outside India under the foreign-exchange framework, or RBI permission to maintain the account. Residential status alone does not determine entitlement. Eligibility requires verification of whether the deposits could lawfully continue under the applicable RBI/FEMA framework after the change in residential status. The exemption claim was remitted for limited fresh verification on this issue.

Material non-compliance before the assessing and first appellate authorities warranted a fresh opportunity to substantiate objections and supporting evidence in reassessment proceedings. The first appellate order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo reassessment after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The operative principle is that where non-compliance prevents adjudication of tax claims on evidence, a de novo assessment may be directed to preserve principles of natural justice and fair play.