Cyber Forensic Laboratory, Army Cyber Group, Directorate General of Information Systems, is designated as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Its authorised scope within India covers computer media forensics, excluding floppy disk drives, and mobile-device forensics. The earlier gazette instrument issued on 4 September 2018 is rescinded.

Pre-offence property is ordinarily not directly derived from later scheduled-offence activity, but may be provisionally attached as equivalent value where actual proceeds are unavailable. Such attachment requires identification and reasoned valuation of the alleged proceeds, material showing their unavailability, and recorded reasons to believe that non-attachment risks concealment, transfer, or other frustration of confiscation. A later use of illicit funds to repay loans, construction borrowing, or secured obligations may separately establish a direct or indirect nexus. Section 24 presumptions do not replace the foundational requirements for attachment.

Where disciplinary misconduct concerns one CIRP, cross-assignment suspension requires a proportionate link to the pleaded charge, supporting material and hearing afforded. Section 220(2) permits disciplinary sanctions after hearing, while Regulation 13(7) requires intimation to Committees of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority. On the prima facie construction applied, intimation informs each Committee's decision on continuation or replacement rather than automatically removing the professional from unrelated ongoing assignments. The Board's regulatory role and the Committee's replacement power remain distinct but connected.

Rule 26(3) makes electronic issuance and authentication by digital signature, e-signature, or a notified verification mode cumulative conditions for GST notices and orders. A portal upload concerns service, while a system-generated reference number, DRC summary, or DIN performs tracking or procedural functions; none independently establishes the authorised officer's authentication. Section 169 governs service rather than validity, and Section 160 does not ordinarily cure a defect preventing attribution of the instrument to the competent officer. DRC-01 cannot replace the statutory notice, and DRC-07 supports recovery only upon a valid order.

Central Government designates the Cyber Forensics Laboratory, Navy Cyber Group, Naval Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy), as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Its authorised scope is limited to computer-media forensics, excluding floppy disk drives, and mobile-device forensics; the designation rescinds the earlier gazette instrument issued in 2022.

Bribery allegations concern a CGST Superintendent accused of demanding a monthly undue advantage from a scrap-business proprietor in exchange for not intercepting scrap vehicles or obstructing the business. A criminal case was registered, and a trap operation resulted in the Superintendent being apprehended while allegedly accepting the demanded undue advantage. Searches recovered cash and immovable-property documents, and the investigation remains ongoing.

Computer resources supporting the Core Banking Solution, Real Time Gross Settlement and Unified Payments Interface Switch, along with associated dependencies, are designated as protected systems under section 70 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Access is confined to bank employees, authorised service-provider or vendor personnel requiring need-based access, and specified consultants, regulators, government officials, auditors and stakeholders granted written case-by-case authorisation. The designation takes effect upon publication in the Official Gazette.

Section 75(7) bars confirmation of a demand exceeding the scope of the show cause notice. Where a notice does not propose a penalty, an adjudicating authority cannot impose one in the final order; such confirmation exceeds jurisdiction. An adjudication order imposing an unnotified penalty was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Payment of the prescribed appellate pre-deposit and filing of an appeal before the Tribunal trigger a deemed stay of recovery of the balance disputed GST demand under section 112(9), read with the CBIC Circular. During that statutory stay, net eligible GST refunds cannot be appropriated against the stayed demands. Appropriation of refunds for July to September 2023 against demands for financial years 2017-18 to 2019-20 was therefore impermissible, requiring restoration of the net eligible refund while the pending appeals proceed independently on merits.

GST audit commencement under the Explanation to Section 65(4) is reckoned from the later of record furnishing and on-site institution at the registered person's business premises. An audit following prior production of records therefore remains within time if completed within the statutory period measured from on-site commencement. Rule 101(4) requires the registered person to receive an opportunity to object to discrepancies and have those objections considered before audit findings are finalised. Audit observations seeking a response are not final findings and cannot properly support a show cause notice before that procedure is completed. Objections must be received and considered before fresh finalisation of the audit.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit under the inverted duty structure remains available under section 54(3) where accumulation results from higher tax on certain inputs than on output supplies. Circular No. 135/05/2020 does not bar such a claim merely because one principal input and the output supply attract the same tax rate. The refund application must be considered under section 54(3), and time spent pursuing writ proceedings is excluded when calculating the limitation period.

First Appellate Authority cannot condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit for appeals against GST registration cancellation. Constitutional directions tailored to individual cases cannot enlarge statutory appellate jurisdiction or override an express limitation. The Department's restoration of cancelled registrations after implementing appellate orders altered taxpayers' legal and commercial positions; its challenges to those orders therefore became academic, futile, infructuous and not maintainable, as no effective relief could be granted without addressing the consequences of restoration.

Statutory outer limits on condoning delay restrict the First Appellate Authority's jurisdiction in GST registration-cancellation appeals; equitable considerations and fact-specific constitutional orders cannot extend that power. However, where the Department has already restored registrations pursuant to the challenged appellate orders, its challenge may become infructuous because reversing those orders without addressing the consequences of implementation offers no effective relief. Failure or inability to seek revocation through Rule 23, including where the common portal blocks a late application, does not extinguish the independent statutory right to appeal cancellation of GST registration.

Income-tax returns constitute personal information protected from disclosure under the RTI Act unless a larger public interest justifies disclosure. That exception is confined to transparency concerning public authorities and does not cover private financial information lacking a bearing on the public at large. A spouse seeking the other spouse's net taxable income for maintenance proceedings cannot rely on the larger-public-interest exception, because the maintenance forum may require both parties to file income, asset and liability disclosure affidavits. The direction to disclose the taxpayer's income details was therefore set aside, without limiting remedies available before the maintenance forum.

Notional interest on interest-free tenancy security deposits is not taxable merely because deposits were received: absent a contractual right to interest or evidence that rent was suppressed or substituted, no real income accrues. Capital introduced by an identified partner through verified bank accounts cannot be added in the firm's hands merely because the partner's antecedent source remains doubtful, unless the funds are shown to belong to the firm. A cash-deposit addition must exclude amounts already treated as partner capital, while unreconciled balances require cash-book verification. Expenditure disallowance under section 14A requires exempt income in the relevant year; ad hoc business-expense disallowance also fails without identified non-business expenditure or record defects.

Computer resources relating to Indian Bank's Core Banking Solution, Real Time Gross Settlement, Automated Teller Machine Switch and Unified Payments Interface Switch, along with associated dependencies, are designated as protected systems under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Access is restricted to employees, service-provider or vendor personnel, and specified external persons who receive written authorisation from Indian Bank, with third-party access limited to need-based access and other external access granted case by case.

Direct Head Office and overseas-branch expenditure incurred specifically for an Indian branch is deductible when directly attributable and supported by invoices, rather than being treated as general Head Office expenditure subject to the statutory cap. Under the India-France DTAA, branch-to-Head Office interest is not independently taxable where paid by the Indian permanent establishment, treaty tax-rate ceilings exclude separate surcharge and cess, and refund interest is taxed at the treaty rate. Common-cost allocations must be benchmarked by a prescribed transfer-pricing method, not assigned a nil value without examining services, costs and allocation keys. ECB interest already attributed to the permanent establishment must be recomputed without double taxation.

Post-detection surrender of depreciation and amortisation claims arising from dealings with a non-genuine supplier was treated as non-voluntary where survey findings and adverse material had exposed accommodation entries, the original return claimed the expenditure, and no revised return correctly disclosed income. Failure to prove the supplier's existence supported misreporting through suppression of facts and false entries; a surrender to buy peace or avoid litigation after detection did not preclude penalty for under-reported income. A challenge that the penalty notice omitted the specific misreporting clause was rejected because it had not been raised before the assessing or appellate authorities or through grounds before the Tribunal. The penalty was sustained and the appeal dismissed.

Section 54F permits acquisition of a new residential asset within one year before transfer of the original asset and does not require that sale consideration alone fund the purchase. Where the flat is acquired within that period and the investment exceeds the capital gain, housing-loan financing does not disqualify the exemption; the capital-gain addition does not survive. Unexplained cash deposits remain liable to addition where the taxpayer produces no documentary evidence of source, fails to rebut adverse findings, and gives inconsistent explanations.

Rule 10B(3) requires examination of differences that materially affect net profit margins and reasonably accurate comparability adjustments where quantification is possible. Capacity underutilisation and differing customs-duty burdens may distort manufacturing-segment profitability, but claims require complete quantitative and documentary support and fresh functional comparability analysis. Regulatory ceilings for external commercial borrowings do not replace transfer-pricing arm's-length benchmarking; interest comparables must reflect materially similar credit profile, scale and risk attributes rather than rely on a single unsuitable comparable. Penalty proceedings for under-reporting, misreporting or alleged false entries remain separate from assessment proceedings, making a challenge to their initiation premature.