Consent-based personal data processing requires free, specific, informed, unconditional and unambiguous affirmative consent, limited to data necessary for a specified purpose. Consent requests must use clear language, permit access in English or a listed constitutional language, and provide rights-related contact details. Consent may be withdrawn as easily as it is given; the Data Fiduciary and its Data Processors must then cease processing within a reasonable time unless otherwise authorised by law. The Data Fiduciary must prove compliant notice and consent where disputed.

A Data Fiduciary must provide notice with or before a request for consent, identifying the personal data proposed for processing, its purpose, the means of exercising rights, and the complaint mechanism. For consent obtained before commencement, comparable notice must be given as soon as reasonably practicable. Processing under earlier consent may continue until consent is withdrawn. Notices must be accessible in English or an Eighth Schedule language.

Personal data processing is permitted only in accordance with the Act and for a lawful purpose. Processing a Data Principal's personal data may proceed where the Data Principal has given consent or where it falls within certain legitimate uses. A lawful purpose is one not expressly forbidden by law.

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 applies to processing of digital personal data within India when collected digitally or subsequently digitised, and to certain processing outside India connected with offering goods or services to Data Principals in India. Coverage excludes personal data processed for personal or domestic purposes and data publicly made available by the Data Principal or by a person legally obliged to disclose it.

Digital personal data comprises personal data in digital form, while processing includes automated operations throughout the data lifecycle, including collection, storage, use, sharing, restriction, erasure and destruction. A Data Fiduciary determines the purpose and means of processing, and a Data Processor acts on its behalf. A Data Principal is the individual to whom the data relates. A personal data breach includes unauthorised processing or accidental events compromising confidentiality, integrity or availability.

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 establishes a framework for processing digital personal data that recognises individuals' interest in protecting personal data while permitting processing for lawful purposes. Commencement is not fixed automatically by enactment: provisions take effect on dates appointed by the Central Government through notification in the Official Gazette, with different provisions capable of entering into force on different dates.

Fees collected for investment advisory services provided without required registration cannot be retained merely because no investor responds to a refund invitation. Such amounts must be deposited with the regulator, which must invite and verify investor claims. Any balance remaining unclaimed after that process must be transferred to the Investor Protection Fund. The absence of refund claims does not legitimise retention of fees earned through unregistered investment advisory activity.

Digital personal data may be processed only for a lawful purpose based on valid consent or specified legitimate uses. Consent must be free, specific, informed, unconditional and unambiguous, supported by clear notice, and withdrawable with comparable ease. Data Fiduciaries remain responsible for processing undertaken by themselves or their processors, must maintain security safeguards, notify personal data breaches, erase data when no longer needed unless legal retention is required, and provide grievance redressal. Children's data requires verifiable parental or guardian consent, with restrictions on harmful processing, tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising.

Section 153D prior approval for search assessments requires the approving authority to independently examine draft assessment orders, assessment records and relevant search material for each assessment year. A composite approval issued without evidence of record movement, separate year-wise consideration, reasons or verification indicates a routine and mechanical exercise rather than informed statutory approval. Approval granted in this manner is invalid for want of application of mind, and assessment orders founded on it are vitiated and liable to be quashed.

In an unabated assessment under Section 153A, additions require incriminating material found during the search and a link between that material and the proposed addition. An unsecured-loan addition lacking that nexus is unsustainable. Alleged unexplained-expense additions are likewise unsustainable where seized entries are reconciled with agreements and books, verification reveals no adverse discrepancy, and the transactions represent genuine accounted business dealings. These principles support deletion of additions founded on recorded expenses or loans unconnected with incriminating search material.

Transfer-pricing benchmarking under the Transactional Net Margin Method requires a disclosed, reasoned functional, asset and risk analysis to support comparable-company exclusions and selections across distribution, software-development and technical-support segments. Absent that analysis, comparability determinations require fresh, transparent evaluation with an opportunity to submit evidence. Deferred payment or receivables exceeding the agreed credit period constitute a separate international transaction, because only credit within that period is embedded in the sale price. Foreign-currency delayed receivables require separate interest benchmarking at LIBOR plus a 200-basis-point spread.

Brand-development outlays incurred in an existing business are revenue expenditure where they support the profit-earning process and create no capital asset; commercial expediency cannot be displaced without evidence of non-business purpose. Additional deduction claims may be considered in appellate proceedings, and accrued redemption premium on transferable zero-coupon debentures is deductible where no identifiable payee gives rise to withholding obligations. Corporate guarantees require a service charge but are not benchmarked as bank guarantees; a 0.2% fee reflected limited benefit. Aircraft treated as aeroplanes qualify for 40% depreciation. Investment shares consistently held as investments and sold through limited delivery-based transactions generate capital gains, supported by consistency of past treatment.

Freight income from operating ships in international traffic qualifies for exemption under Article 8 of the India-Singapore tax treaty where eligibility is undisputed. Where such income was offered under section 44B because the return form did not permit a direct treaty-exemption claim, relief under section 90 must be granted. An incorrect treaty-country code in the original return cannot justify denial when a revised return corrected the code to Singapore but was not processed. Relief is to be granted for eligible income after an opportunity of hearing.

Penalty for failure to obtain an audit under Section 44AB cannot be sustained where the assessee proves reasonable cause under Section 273B. Dependence on a person responsible for business and regulatory compliance, that person's death, and the assessee's disability and resulting inability to manage the business showed that the default was neither deliberate nor lacking in bona fides. These circumstances constituted reasonable cause, making the penalty for audit non-compliance unsustainable.

Charitable exemption may not be denied in return processing solely because Form No. 10B was filed after the prescribed date where the audit report was available before the intimation. The filing deadline for the audit report is treated as procedural and directory in those circumstances, with timely availability before processing constituting substantial compliance. The condonation route for delayed filing operates as an additional remedy and does not exclude appellate review of an adjustment to the exemption claim. Consequently, refusal to condone delay need not prevent appellate consideration or acceptance of the exemption claim.

Jurisdictional objections to reassessment may be raised collaterally in an appeal against revision under section 263 because revision presupposes a legally valid assessment order. A defect in the authority to initiate reassessment cannot be cured by waiver, acquiescence, participation, or failure to challenge the reassessment directly. Where more than three years have elapsed, section 151(ii) requires sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner; approval by the Principal Commissioner under section 151(i) does not meet that condition. Reassessment without competent sanction is void ab initio and cannot support revisionary jurisdiction under section 263.

Reassessment notices issued in a deceased assessee's name lack jurisdiction where death preceded their issuance. Failure by legal representatives to inform tax authorities of the death does not validate proceedings against a non-existent person. Section 159 permits continuation only of proceedings validly initiated during the assessee's lifetime against legal representatives. This defect is jurisdictional, not procedural, and cannot be cured under Section 292B; the notice, order under Section 148A(d), and consequential reassessment proceedings are void ab initio.

Genuine COVID-19-related non-appearance justified setting aside the ex parte appellate order and restoring the matter to the Tribunal. As the Tribunal is the final authority on facts and law, principles of natural justice required a fresh hearing. The merits and questions of law remained open for adjudication, with the assessee to be heard before a fresh decision.

Statutory priority for a registered secured interest gives a prior mortgagee first charge over later income-tax attachments; those attachments cannot displace the secured debt. Registration law does not empower a Sub-Registrar to delete attachment entries already shown in encumbrance records. Priority should instead be implemented through a contra entry identifying the secured creditor's precedence, while preserving the attachment record and allowing any surplus sale proceeds, after satisfaction of the secured debt, to be applied towards the attachment.

Revision under Section 263(1) requires both an erroneous assessment order and prejudice to Revenue; a different possible view does not justify revisional jurisdiction. Where the Assessing Officer examines allegedly bogus steel-scrap transactions, verifies the relevant material, and disallows the related loss, the assessment reflects an informed and legally plausible view rather than lack of inquiry. Revision is therefore unavailable on those facts, and no substantial question of law arises.