The Data Protection Board of India is established under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, effective from publication in the Official Gazette. It is constituted to exercise powers conferred on it and perform functions assigned under that Act, with its head office situated in the National Capital Region of India.

Registered persons whose aggregate turnover in any financial year does not exceed two crore rupees are exempted from furnishing the annual return under the first proviso to section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Coverage begins with financial year 2024-25 and subsequent financial years, and the measure is deemed effective from 17 September 2025.

Suspension of registration prevents a registered person from issuing tax invoices or charging tax on supplies, while revocation restores applicable invoicing and return obligations for the suspension period. Input tax credit on invoices or debit notes not uploaded by suppliers is restricted to 20 per cent of eligible credit relating to uploaded documents. Before issuing a tax-demand notice, the proper officer must communicate the ascertained tax, interest and penalty liability through FORM GST DRC-01A, allowing the person to make partial payment or submit objections.

The Data Protection Board of India's composition is specified under section 19(1) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. In exercise of the statutory power to determine the Board's membership, the Central Government fixes the Board at four members. The Board's membership strength is therefore set for its constitution and functioning under the statutory framework governing digital personal data protection.

TDS credit in domestic deductor-default cases depends on verified actual deduction from the taxpayer's income, not solely on deposit, TDS statements, Form 16 or Form 16A, or Form 26AS reflection. Section 205 bars direct or indirect recovery, including refund adjustment, to the extent tax was deducted. The taxpayer must provide reliable payment-specific evidence, and the Assessing Officer must verify the claim while the Department proceeds against the defaulting deductor.

Section 119(2)(b) may permit admission of a delayed revised-return claim where expiry of the Section 139(5) period causes genuine hardship. Condonation removes only the procedural bar and does not establish exemption, refund, or interest entitlement. Genuine hardship requires assessment of bona fides, the nature of the omission, promptness after discovery, legal plausibility, and the consequence of refusal. Circular No. 9/2015 permits prima facie verification and inquiry, but substantive taxability and refund entitlement remain for merits examination.

Provisional refund is not available to registered persons who have not completed Aadhaar authentication. It is also unavailable to persons supplying areca nuts, pan masala, tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes, or essential oils. The specified goods are classified under the relevant Customs Tariff chapters, headings, sub-headings and tariff items, with classification determined using the applicable tariff interpretative rules and notes.

Section 9(1) is corrected to clarify that a Data Fiduciary must obtain verifiable consent before processing personal data of a child or of a person with disability having a lawful guardian. Section 10(2)(c)(ii) replaces "audit" with "data audit," aligning periodic audit terminology for Significant Data Fiduciaries with the independent data auditor requirement and clarifying the intended data protection audit obligation.

Reserved High Court judgments are subject to a three-month framework for a reasoned pronouncement, supported by monthly monitoring, status disclosures, date-recorded certified copies, and automated notice to advocates. Urgent matters may receive an operative-part pronouncement, but reasons must be uploaded within seven days or, where practical difficulties exist, within fifteen days. Parties may seek early pronouncement after the specified period and, after further delay, request withdrawal and assignment for a fresh hearing.

Refund of accumulated ITC under an inverted duty structure depends on whether higher-rated input goods cause credit accumulation relative to output supplies, not solely on whether the principal raw material and output carry the same rate. Section 54(3)(ii) permits the claim subject to notified exclusions, credit eligibility, and proof of a causal nexus between qualifying inputs and accumulation. Input services and capital goods are excluded from Net ITC for the Rule 89(5) calculation. Rule 89(5) limits refundable quantum, while the prescribed process requires electronic filing, invoice details, ledger debit and verification. Administrative circulars cannot add a principal-input condition beyond the statutory test; claimants must substantiate rate inversion, manufacturing nexus, computation and procedural compliance.

Section 129(3) of the CGST Act imposes separate mandatory deadlines: the penalty notice must be issued within seven days of detention or seizure, and the penalty order must follow within seven days after service of that notice. The latter period runs from service, not from a reply, valuation exercise or other intervening event. Because detention and seizure are coercive restraints on goods and conveyances, administrative difficulty, minimal delay and inspection-stage timelines cannot extend either deadline; a delayed Section 129 order is invalid. The affected person must receive an opportunity of hearing. Invalidity of Section 129 proceedings does not preclude separately lawful action under other GST provisions.

Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act constitutionally requires tax charged on a supply to be actually paid to the Government before input tax credit is available; invoice possession, receipt of supply and recipient payment do not substitute for this cumulative condition. The Supreme Court affirmed that a bona fide-purchaser exception cannot be read into the provision by relying on the distinct Delhi VAT framework. Section 41 and Rule 37A require reversal where supplier tax payment conditions are unmet, while permitting re-availment after subsequent compliance. Constitutional validity does not permit mechanical denial of credit: authorities must establish the relevant statutory facts, consider transaction-specific evidence, provide a hearing and issue reasoned findings.

Preventive outreach in Malana village promoted drug awareness, youth engagement, community participation and alternative development in an area associated with illicit cannabis cultivation. Residents were sensitised to the harmful effects of cannabis, charas and hashish oil consumption and encouraged to pursue sustainable alternatives, including apiculture, animal husbandry, dairy activities and tourism. Community discussions addressed livelihood barriers, ecological concerns, and commitments to refrain from drug consumption and discourage illicit cannabis cultivation.

Settlement-price depression under the PFUTP framework requires cogent proof of a manipulative act, device, scheme or artifice, not merely a substantial short derivative position, closing-window sales, or an incentive to benefit from a lower settlement price. Position concentration and position-limit non-disclosure are distinct from PFUTP fraud. Sales below the last traded price require market-wide causal analysis of other trading activity, execution mechanics, benchmark methodology, commercial rationale, and actual price impact. A genuine hedge and agency-attributed exposure do not, without further proof, establish manipulation.

India-UK financial-markets cooperation covers capital-market connectivity, cross-border listings, investor access and development of GIFT IFSC as an international financial centre. Engagement also addresses insurance, pensions, asset management, sustainable-finance disclosures and cross-border investment. Fintech cooperation includes digital public infrastructure, central bank digital currencies, data exchange, responsible artificial intelligence, fraud prevention, cyber security and operational resilience. Cross-border payments work prioritises reduced frictions, transparency, efficiency and interoperability of electronic payment infrastructures.

Section 107(6)'s substituted proviso, requiring a ten per cent pre-deposit for penalty-only appeals, does not apply where a formal show-cause notice commenced adjudication before 1 October 2025. The High Court treated the right of appeal and its associated conditions as substantive and vested when the lis begins. Because the new filing-stage deposit may bar access to the appellate forum, it is an onerous condition rather than merely procedural. In the absence of express retrospective operation or necessary intendment, appeals from pre-amendment proceedings remain governed by the earlier regime, while admitted amounts remain payable. The Appellate Authority has no inherent power to waive an applicable mandatory deposit.

Revisionary jurisdiction requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Where the Assessing Officer examines an exemption claim relating to interest awarded under the Land Acquisition Act on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and adopts the Supreme Court-recognised treatment of section 28 interest as compensation, that view remains legally possible. Divergent judicial approaches to the post-amendment treatment of such interest under income-tax provisions prevent revision merely because another view is preferred. Revision under section 263 is therefore invalid when due inquiry was made and the assessment is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue interests.

Reassessment notice validity under the Income-tax Act turns on compliance with principles of natural justice, including furnishing legible underlying material and allowing reasonable time to respond before an order is made on prima facie income escapement. Writ jurisdiction may extend to review of reassessment notices and related orders where procedural fairness is challenged. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court judgment and dismissed the special leave petition.

Revisionary jurisdiction is unavailable where the assessing authority made specific enquiries and adopted a legally tenable view on a debatable issue; absence of detailed reasoning in the assessment order does not itself establish lack of enquiry. Interest awarded for enhanced land-acquisition compensation under Section 28 forms part of the enhanced value of the acquired land, unlike interest for delayed payment under Section 34. Amendments governing the timing of taxation of interest on compensation do not alter that character. Where enhanced compensation qualifies for exemption, Section 28 interest retains the exempt character and cannot be revised merely because a contrary view is preferred. A non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition creates no binding precedent.

Foreign LTC/LFC payments for itineraries containing an overseas leg are outside the Section 10(5) exemption, which is confined to actual eligible domestic travel subject to Rule 2B shortest-route and fare conditions. Under Section 192, employers must include known non-exempt payments in estimated salary and deduct tax; they cannot disregard available claim records showing foreign or circuitous travel. A recovery restraint does not automatically suspend the deduction obligation. Section 201 recipient-compliance conditions, interest, and penalty based on reasonable cause require separate analysis.