HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR   For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tanushree Sinha, Adv. Mr. Arjit Prasad, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M.L. Varma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satvik Varma, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv. ORDER Heard Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Delay condoned. Special leave petitions are dismissed. =============... ... ...

The Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, today approved the Government of India's commitment of Rs.10,000 crore towards the establishment of the SME Growth Fund (SGF) aimed at catalysing growth-oriented capital for India's Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and enabling the emergence of champion Indian enterprises across manufacturing, services, technology, innovation-driven sectors, and strategic value chains as per Para 28 of Union Budget 2026-27. This was in part ... ... ...

The Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, today approved the setting up of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), namely, Integrated Transport & Logistics Authority (ITLA) to strengthen research, planning, appraisal, monitoring and impact assessment within the broad domains of Transportation and Logistics. The approval seeks to address the long-standing challenges arising from fragmented planning and implementation across multiple transport-related Ministries and agencies.&nb... ... ...

Critical Information Infrastructure comprising IDFC FIRST Bank's Core Banking Solution, Real Time Gross Settlement system, Immediate Payment Service Switch and Unified Payments Interface Switch, together with associated dependencies, is declared to be protected systems under section 70 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The declaration applies to computer resources supporting these banking and payment functions.

Written complaints alleging misbehaviour or incapacity of the Presiding Officer are preliminarily scrutinised and, where necessary, investigated by a designated Committee. On reasonable grounds, a Supreme Court Judge is appointed to conduct an inquiry, with notice of charges and a reasonable opportunity for written defence. Denied incapacity allegations may require Medical Board examination. The inquiry follows natural justice, permits regulation of procedure, and applies statutory powers for witness attendance and document production. Suspension may be ordered pending investigation or inquiry.

SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM For the Appellant : Shri Shekhar Gupta, AR For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Kumar (CIT DR) ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the revision order of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27 Mumbai [in short CIT(A)] under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act') dated 27.03.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(3), Mumbai (... ... ...

Recall of an ex parte merits order requires sufficient cause and a substantiated error warranting intervention. Repeated issue of hearing notices, prior adjournments due to non-appearance, and an earlier adjournment request demonstrate awareness of pending proceedings. Failure to attend or monitor listed proceedings, without proof of non-receipt of notice or another specific error in the merits order, does not establish grounds for recall. A non-receipt claim without supporting material therefore lacks the necessary basis to reopen the ex parte order.

Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 designates the Cyber Forensic Laboratory under the Army Cyber Group as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India. Its authorised scope covers computer (media) forensics, excluding floppy disk drives, and mobile-device forensics. The earlier gazette designation is rescinded.

Under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Central Government designates the Digital Forensic Division of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Services, Himachal Pradesh, as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India. Its authorised scope is confined to computer (media) forensics and mobile devices forensics.

Section 263 revision requires the revisional authority to independently examine the assessment record and identify an assessment that is both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. Revision is not invalid merely because the Assessing Officer may have recommended action where the show-cause notice and revision order demonstrate independent application of mind. Reassessment-jurisdiction objections, including alleged borrowed satisfaction and defective disposal of reopening objections, cannot be used as a collateral challenge in revision proceedings; procedural defects may be curable. Failure to meaningfully examine seized material indicating accommodation-entry share capital, including failure to confront material and verify investment genuineness, can justify revision and a fresh assessment.

Disallowance of genuine expenditure solely for failure to deduct tax at source does not, without more, establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Where the relevant particulars were disclosed and the expenditure claim was not found non-genuine, the technical tax-deduction default triggers statutory disallowance but does not make the disclosed claim inaccurate. Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars is therefore not leviable merely because expenditure is disallowed for non-deduction of tax at source.

Anticipatory bail was declined in allegations of dowry demand, cruelty and abetment of suicide. Material indicating harassment and the seriousness of the alleged offences supported refusal of pre-arrest protection after consideration of the overall facts and circumstances. The alleged harassment and gravity of accusations were material factors in determining whether pre-arrest bail should be granted, resulting in dismissal of the application.

Under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, passing the written examination is sufficient for a G Card under Regulation 17(3). Regulation 6 requires both written and oral examinations for an F Card, whereas Regulation 17(3) refers to a single examination for a G Card. Delay in seeking a G Card does not constitute laches unless it causes prejudice to the respondent or third parties, such as through a material change of position. Issuance of the G Card was required within eight weeks.

Corrigenda replace two sole references to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with references to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The substitution applies to both identified passages and aligns each statutory cross-reference with the substantive criminal-law code and criminal-procedure code.

Suppression of prior criminal antecedents can invalidate an anticipatory-bail grant because disclosure is material to the stricter discretion governing such relief. Where bail was granted on the mistaken premise of no antecedents and no proof established acceptance of claimed closure reports, non-disclosure breached the clean-hands requirement; the anticipatory-bail order was therefore set aside.

Repeated non-appearance by the appellant at several listed hearings, coupled with no request for adjournment, resulted in dismissal of the service-tax appeal for non-prosecution. The appeal had remained pending since 2011. The disposition followed sustained failure to pursue the appellate proceedings and did not determine the underlying service-tax dispute on merits.

Customs Broker responsibility under Regulations 10(m) and 10(n) depends on the scope and continuity of its engagement. Where the broker's role was limited to filing warehouse bills of entry, it issued a no-objection certificate after warehousing, and another broker was subsequently authorised, liability for later unauthorised removal could not be attributed to the former broker. The alleged regulatory breaches were therefore not established, making licence revocation and related penalties unsustainable and requiring them to be set aside.

Customs-value enhancement under Section 17(4) requires compliance with Section 17(5), including an order by the adjudicating authority. Where the declared value is enhanced without passing that order, the statutory requirement is not met. The enhancement is invalid, and the declared value must be accepted by the adjudicating authority.

Section 69A applies where money found in an assessee's possession lacks a satisfactorily explained source. Agricultural land jointly held and cultivated by the assessee's father supported agricultural activity, but the absence of crop-sale records and proof of precise income prevented attribution of all produce to him. Accumulated agricultural savings were accepted only to a limited extent. Customary household savings attributed to the mother and wife were also partly accepted, resulting in partial relief while the balance cash addition remained sustained.

Section 68 applies only where a sum is actually credited in the assessee's books and its nature and source remain unexplained. A cheque recorded as an unsecured loan did not constitute an unexplained cash credit where it was never encashed, no funds entered the assessee's bank account, and the accounting entry was reversed in the following financial year. Mere book entries without an actual receipt or transfer of money do not trigger the Section 68 deeming provision. The addition was therefore deleted because no funds had actually been received.