Section 56(2)(viib) does not apply where shares are issued as non-cash consideration for acquiring a business undertaking, because no money is received; the share-premium addition was deleted. Bad-debt deductions were allowed where receivables had been taxed earlier and were written off, including student-fee receivables supported by detailed records. Section 14A disallowance was deleted in the absence of exempt income. Reversal of advance or unearned fees did not attract sections 41(1) or 28(iv) where no earlier deduction or benefit arose, and acknowledged creditor liabilities were not treated as ceased. Loan processing charges were allowable as interest-related business expenditure. TDS-related relief depended on the payee offering income to tax; other disallowances were sustained, restricted, or remanded according to the applicable rules and evidence of liability crystallisation.

Transfer pricing tolerance rules govern software development and online advertisement support services where the tested party's margins or transaction prices fall within the prescribed range. Foreign exchange gains or losses linked to export invoices may be operating items for IT-enabled services, subject to verification and corresponding treatment in comparable-company margins. Income from sale of SEIS scrips is non-operating because it arises from an incentive scheme rather than service exports, requiring parity adjustments for comparables. Comparable selection requires final search criteria and detailed FAR analysis: companies with negligible IT-enabled services activity may be excluded, while additional or previously selected comparables may be reconsidered. Comparable-margin computations require verification and correct application.

Petroleum-operation equipment moved from the DTA to an FTWZ after completion of its original contract and then returned to the DTA under a fresh essentiality certificate does not qualify for the residuary re-import exemption under Serial No. 5 of Notification No. 45/2017-Customs. The conditional petroleum-operation concession under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs is limited to certified use for the specified operation and includes its own transfer mechanism for eligible operations; an FTWZ movement cannot create an additional fiscal benefit. The SEZ statutory fiction is limited in scope, and equipment identity alone does not establish continuity with the original outward movement. FTWZ-to-DTA clearance for a new domestic contract is a fresh import, making the re-import exemption unavailable.

Parity with an accepted co-ordinate Tribunal order supported setting aside revocation of a Customs Broker licence. The Tribunal had found that alleged contraventions of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 were not established in an analogous matter involving the same exporter. As the Revenue identified no material factual distinction and had accepted the earlier Tribunal decision without challenge, no substantial question of law arose. The High Court therefore upheld the setting aside of the licence revocation and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Customs Broker licence proceedings require a factual basis for findings of procedural prejudice. The High Court found that the Tribunal incorrectly treated the inquiry as inordinately delayed and wrongly assumed that the investigating and inquiry officers were the same, although the show cause notice and inquiry report were issued within the stated period by different officers. Because the Tribunal had not examined the alleged breaches of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 on merits, its order was set aside and the matter remanded for an independent merits determination. The restored licence remains usable pending that decision.

Excess drawback paid under self-assessed export shipping bills cannot be recovered directly under Section 75A(2) merely because exported goods were subsequently found misclassified. A subsisting self-assessment remains the basis of payment until the proper officer reassesses it under Section 17(4), or follows the Section 18 procedure where applicable, to determine liability. Recovery proceedings initiated without prior reassessment, and consequential revisional and appellate orders, were set aside. Reassessment or other action under Sections 17 and 18 may be pursued where legally permissible.

Transferee importers using duty-free DFIA licences linked to fabricated exports must independently verify licence authenticity, underlying export documents and transfer release advice. Verification solely through the DGFT website is insufficient. Purchase through intermediaries does not remove customs duty, interest or penalty exposure where the importer fails to undertake due diligence with licensing or Customs authorities regarding the issuing exporter and claimed exports. The stated Tribunal approach treats absence of such verification as sufficient to sustain liability for imports made under fraudulent transferable export incentive licences.

Export duty recovery for goods cleared under bonds pending test reports requires finalisation of provisional assessments before proceedings for non-levy or short levy can begin. Bonds executed under Section 18 obligated exporters to pay duty finally assessed after adverse test reports, so the clearances remained provisional rather than constituting provisional release or reassessment. Demand notices issued before final assessment were therefore premature. Redemption fine under Section 125 cannot be sustained where exported goods were neither seized nor provisionally released and are unavailable for confiscation. The duty demands, redemption fine and penalties were set aside, while the merits of rice classification remained open.

Post-export conversion of shipping bills from the Advance Authorisation Scheme to the duty drawback scheme cannot be refused solely because a request exceeds the three-month period prescribed by Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. That circular-based limitation is inconsistent with the statutory framework governing amendment of customs documents, and consequential export benefits remain available after export. Notification No. 11/2022-Cus. (N.T.), which introduced time limits for specified post-export conversions, does not apply retrospectively to exports made before its introduction. Shipping bills for such earlier exports remain eligible for conversion without denial based on either the circular limitation or the later notification.

EPCG duty exemption requires strict compliance with the stipulated export obligation. Failure to meet that obligation makes the duty saved and applicable interest recoverable unless a waiver is obtained from the competent EPCG or DGFT authority; flood damage to imported machinery did not establish such waiver. The machinery had been installed but was subsequently submerged and damaged beyond repair. While duty and interest liability for non-fulfilment of export obligation remained enforceable, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were not sustained in those circumstances. The exemption condition was applied strictly, with the importer bearing the burden of proving entitlement to the exemption.

Under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, proper client authorisation need not be received directly from the importer where authorisation letters are available. A Customs Broker is not shown to have failed in its duty to advise clients merely because inferior quality or overvaluation is detected after First Check assessment, physical examination and valuation by approved valuers, absent evidence of deficient advice. KYC obligations are met by obtaining IEC, GSTIN, PAN and other documents issued by competent authorities; the regulations do not require independent verification of every document or physical verification of the importer's premises. On these principles, alleged breaches of the authorisation, advisory and KYC duties were not established, and licence revocation and security forfeiture were set aside.

Forfeiture of earnest money in an e-auction required fresh consideration under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act because the statutory requirements governing contractual forfeiture, including the necessity and quantum of loss, had not been raised or examined. The applicable e-auction terms also required determination of whether the forfeitable amount was 25% or 10% of the successful bid. The High Court set aside the rejection of the refund claim and remitted that issue to the Company Judge after completion of pleadings, leaving the merits of forfeiture open.

Right to information covers material held by or under the control of a public authority when an RTI request is made. Information concerning a private body may be sought only where another law permits the authority to access it, subject to the conditions and restrictions of that law. Regulatory power to call for information does not require a public authority to obtain, create, collect or collate material absent from its records merely to answer an RTI application. Directions requiring SEBI to procure information from BSE and provide it to applicants were treated as unsustainable, and the challenged CIC directions were quashed.

Admission of the corporate insolvency resolution process may rest on an undisputed record of default filed with an information utility, together with other material establishing that the corporate debtor availed the loans. For a financial creditor's application, the adjudicating authority must ascertain default from information utility records or other evidence furnished. Where the debtor does not dispute the pleaded default date, objections that loan documents are photocopies do not invalidate admission. The challenge to admission was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed without costs.

Orders disposing of show-cause notices under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in exercise of disciplinary committee jurisdiction fall within the appellate remedy available for orders under the relevant provisions. Where an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal is available, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked at the first instance, even if the order does not finally determine the consequences of alleged misconduct. The disciplinary dispute may instead be pursued through the statutory appeal, with any delay assessed in light of prior writ proceedings.

Intermediary service classification does not apply to loan origination, credit assessment, structuring, disbursement and loan-management activities performed by an Indian bank office for its Singapore head office where both form the same legal person. The arrangement lacks the required three distinct parties, identifiable main and ancillary supplies, and remuneration linked to the external lending service. The Indian office performs principal functions on its own account, while the head office alone enters into and makes final decisions on external commercial borrowing arrangements. The activities are therefore not liable to service tax as intermediary services, rendering the related demand and penalties unsustainable.

Personal insolvency interim moratorium does not stay cheque-dishonour prosecutions against company directors and responsible persons where the dishonoured cheques represent the company's debt. Directors are prosecuted through statutory vicarious liability rather than as primary personal debtors, while the moratorium applies to civil debt-recovery actions concerning the individual debtor and does not bar criminal proceedings. Potential recovery of compensation does not justify staying the trial at that stage. A pending reference to a larger Bench does not weaken the binding effect of existing law unless altered; therefore, trials need not await determination of questions concerning compensation. Applications and writ petitions seeking to stay or defer the prosecutions were dismissed, and interim stays were vacated.

Inherent jurisdiction to quash cheque dishonour proceedings cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial where complaints prima facie disclose the offence and disputed issues, including security cheques, enforceable debt, service of notice and settlement, require evidence. The statutory presumption of legally enforceable debt under section 139 remains subject to trial. Separate complaints based on two consolidated demand notices for multiple dishonoured cheques from one transaction are maintainable. Non-reflection of the underlying transaction in income-tax returns does not by itself rebut the statutory presumptions or make the debt unenforceable; any income-tax breach may attract a prescribed penalty. The quashing petitions were dismissed and expeditious trial completion directed.

Alleged misuse of Ayushman health-scheme cards involved collecting identity and ration-card details by promising free treatment, then creating forged beneficiary cards with false particulars. The alleged scheme enabled treatment for ineligible persons and purported claims of government health-scheme funds. Police arrested five persons, recovered purported forged identity and beneficiary cards, and are investigating possible involvement of hospital and medical-office personnel, the scale of card forgery, and alleged diversion of public funds.

MSME development is identified as central to employment generation, exports, entrepreneurship, economic resilience and self-reliance. Key priorities include affordable credit, technology upgradation, supply-chain integration, market access, brand-building and reduced red tape. Formalisation of micro industries is emphasised to expand institutional credit access, while sustainable trade is promoted through green technologies and renewable energy. Export competitiveness is to be strengthened through regional production capabilities and the "One District, One Export Hub" initiative.