Section 80P deduction for a milk co-operative is confined to profits from the specified milk-supply business. Interest on an income-tax refund derives from the statutory compensation for excess tax retention, not that business, and is ineligible. Interest from commercial-bank deposits likewise neither arises from the specified business nor qualifies as investment income from another co-operative society. Interest and dividends from investments with co-operative societies may qualify independently of the primary business, subject to entity-wise verification of each investee's co-operative status. Contributions to an approved gratuity fund remain subject to the ordinary annual contribution limit under Rule 103. Interest for delayed TDS deposit is not business expenditure, and a challenge solely to penalty initiation for under-reporting is premature.

Enhanced tax rate under section 115BBE, increased from 30% to 60% by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, applies prospectively from 1 April 2017 where no retrospective operation is expressly provided. For unexplained income falling within section 69A in Financial Year 2016-17, tax is therefore computed at the pre-amendment rate, subject to applicable surcharge and cess. Cash deposited subsequently may be telescoped against cash surrendered during survey only after verifying that the surrendered cash and available cash balance existed on the deposit date and had not been used in the interim. No separate addition survives to the verified extent of such source availability.

Commodity-trading receivables written off as bad debts qualify for deduction where they were previously included in income and written off in the books; a possible future recovery does not justify disallowance. Characterising the transactions as speculative or the amount as capital investment does not displace fulfilment of those conditions. The bad-debt disallowance was deleted, subject to taxation of any later recovery in the year received. For windmill-profit deductions, head-office expenses and depreciation on common assets require factual examination of their components, use and allocation to eligible operations. That computation was remanded for fresh adjudication.

Tax deduction on foreign-leg Leave Travel Concession reimbursement was not treated as automatically enforceable against an employer where a binding interim judicial direction operated. Deductor liability requires examination of whether beneficiary employees were assessed and discharged their tax liability. Compliance with an interim direction placing eventual tax liability on employees cannot retrospectively create employer default after later determination of taxability. Consequently, demands for non-deduction and interest were deleted. The related penalty failed because it depended solely on the employer being treated as an assessee in default.

Rejection of liquor-trade book results is justified where proper books, stock registers, sale bills and supporting vouchers are not maintained, and declared profit is materially below comparable industry margins. Profit from liquor trading may then be estimated at 3% of stock put to use. Advertisement-display receipts earned for permitting liquor-product displays in business premises constitute business receipts and may be separately added where they were excluded from turnover used for profit estimation. The rejection of books, profit estimation and separate addition of advertisement-display receipts were sustained, and the appeal was dismissed.

Penalty notices under section 270A must specify whether the proposed charge is under-reporting of income or misreporting under a particular statutory limb. Notices that omit the precise charge fail to communicate the basis of penalty proceedings and are contrary to law. Applying this requirement, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings for both assessment years and deleted the penalties because the notices did not identify the applicable charge.

Section 48 requires capital gains to be computed using the consideration actually received or accruing, unless an applicable deeming provision permits substitution with fair market value. Redemption proceeds from non-cumulative preference shares therefore cannot be replaced by the price of equity shares in the same company, because the share classes carry different rights and no additional consideration was established. The provision for unquoted-share transfers and the rule for unascertainable consideration do not apply where redemption consideration is ascertainable. A claim for enhanced acquisition cost following capital reduction and consolidation requires factual verification of acquisition records, share identity, legal effect and cost allocation; it cannot be raised as a pure legal ground without an existing factual record.

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.