Reassessment proceedings initiated through a notice and an authorising order under Section 148A(d) fell outside the applicable statutory limitation period. Under the governing principle for reassessment limitation, both the notice and the Section 148A(d) order were invalid as time-barred. As limitation disposed of the validity issue, separate examination of other challenges was unnecessary.

Section 128 preserves professional privilege where a party gives evidence in a suit, as this does not constitute consent to disclose communications protected under section 126. When a party calls a barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil as a witness, consent extends only to matters on which that legal professional is questioned and which would otherwise remain undisclosable.

Section 127 applies the provisions of section 126 to interpreters and to the clerks or servants of barristers, pleaders, attorneys and vakils. The application extends beyond the listed legal practitioners themselves to persons identified by the provision as interpreters or as their clerks or servants. Each identified category is brought within the scope of section 126 by reason of that specified function or employment.

Professional communications between a client and a legal professional are protected from disclosure without the client's express consent, including employment-related communications, documents learned through employment, and advice given to the client. Protection continues after the engagement ends. Privilege does not cover communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose or facts observed during employment showing a crime or fraud committed after employment commenced.

Source confidentiality prevents compelled disclosure by magistrates and police officers of persons or sources from whom offence information was obtained. Revenue officers receive the same protection for information relating to offences against public revenue. A revenue officer includes every officer employed in or about the business of any branch of public revenue.

Section 124 protects official communications made to a public officer in official confidence. A public officer cannot be compelled to disclose them where the officer considers that disclosure would harm public interests. Protection applies to communications received officially and depends on the concerned officer's assessment that public-interest prejudice would result from disclosure.

Evidence derived from unpublished official records concerning affairs of State cannot be given unless permission is obtained from the officer heading the relevant department. The departmental head may grant or withhold permission at discretion, thereby regulating disclosure and evidentiary use of State-related material held in unpublished official records, including material maintained in official departmental custody and linked to governmental affairs.

Marital communications cannot be compelled from a current or former spouse and cannot be voluntarily disclosed without the communicator's consent or that of the communicator's representative in interest. The protection is excluded in proceedings between married persons and in prosecutions concerning a crime committed by one spouse against the other.

Judges and Magistrates cannot be compelled to answer questions about their judicial conduct or matters learned in court while acting in that capacity, unless a subordinate court issues a special order. They may, however, be examined regarding other events that occurred in their presence while acting judicially. Questions concerning an allegedly improper deposition or statements made before a Magistrate require a superior court's special order.

In every civil proceeding, each party to the suit and the husband or wife of any party is competent to testify. In criminal proceedings against a person, that person's husband or wife is likewise competent to testify. The rule treats marital status as no bar to competency in these proceedings.

Evidence of a witness unable to speak may be conveyed through intelligible writing or signs made in open court and is deemed oral evidence. Where the witness cannot communicate verbally, the court must use an interpreter or special educator to record the statement and must videograph that statement.

Competency to testify extends to all persons unless tender years, extreme old age, bodily or mental disease, or a comparable cause prevents understanding questions or giving rational answers. Mental illness alone does not disqualify a witness; disqualification depends on impaired comprehension and inability to respond rationally.

Scientific research approval is accorded to M/s GCS Foundation, formerly known as The Gujarat Cancer Society, Ahmedabad, under section 45(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 read with rule 35 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026. The approval applies to the entity's scientific research for five tax years, from Tax Year 2026-27 through Tax Year 2030-31. Retrospective effect is certified as not adversely affecting any person.

GST treatment classifies food supplied by cloud and central kitchens as restaurant service taxable at 5% without input tax credit, while pre-manufactured ice cream sold without preparation is goods taxable at 18%. Government-funded disability-scheme coaching and toll overloading charges receive the applicable exemptions, and qualifying vehicle rentals are treated as giving on hire. Mineral exploration and mining rights, specified amusement admissions, and alcoholic-liquor job work are subject to 18% treatment in the stated circumstances, while qualifying overseas satellite launch services are zero-rated exports.

Section 117 creates an estoppel preventing an acceptor of a bill of exchange from disputing the drawer's authority to draw or endorse the bill. A bailee or licensee cannot deny the bailor's or licensor's authority at the commencement of the bailment or licence. An acceptor may challenge the purported drawer's genuineness, while a bailee may prove another person's superior right to delivered goods.

Tenant and licensee estoppel prevents a tenant, or a person claiming through the tenant, from disputing the landlord's title to immovable property at the beginning of the tenancy while it continues. It also prevents a person who entered property under a licence from denying the licensor's title to possession when the licence was granted.

Section 115 establishes estoppel where a person, through a declaration, act or omission, intentionally causes or permits another person to believe a matter to be true and to act on that belief. In a suit or proceeding between those persons, or their representatives, the person making or permitting the representation and that person's representative cannot deny the truth of the matter represented.

Section 114B creates a rebuttable presumption for specified offences involving sexual harassment, outraging modesty, disrobing, stalking, intrusion upon privacy, and related conduct. Where the victim testifies that she experienced the corresponding prohibited conduct, the court may presume that the accused committed the offence unless contrary evidence is proved.

Section 114A establishes a mandatory presumption of absence of consent in specified rape prosecutions. Where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved, consent is in issue, and the woman states in court evidence that she did not consent, the court shall presume consent was absent. Sexual intercourse includes acts specified in clauses (a) to (d) of section 375 of the Penal Code.

Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 confers discretionary power to presume facts likely to have occurred from the ordinary course of natural events, human conduct, and business. Permissive inferences may arise from recent possession of stolen goods, uncorroborated accomplice evidence, consideration for negotiable instruments, continued existence, regular official acts, ordinary business practice, withheld evidence, voluntary refusal to answer, and possession of an obligation instrument by the obligor. Each inference remains subject to countervailing circumstances.