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.

When a victim deposes before the court that she was subjected to sexual harassment, had her modesty outraged, was disrobed, stalked, or had her privacy intruded upon, or was sexually harassed by any means, the court may, unless the contrary is proved, presume that the identified person committed the relevant offence. The presumption is discretionary and may be rebutted by proof to the contrary.

Section 114A creates a presumption of absence of consent in specified aggravated rape prosecutions. Where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved, consent is in issue, and the woman states before the court that she did not consent, the court must presume absence of consent. The provision applies only where these cumulative conditions are met, and sexual intercourse includes the acts covered by clauses (a) to (d) of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 114 establishes discretionary evidentiary presumptions, permitting the Court to infer facts likely to have occurred from the ordinary course of natural events, human conduct, and public or private business, assessed against the circumstances of the particular case. The presumptions are not automatic: their application depends on whether surrounding facts support or weaken the relevant inference. Application requires regard to facts capable of displacing the ordinary inference.

Section 113B requires the court to presume that a person caused a woman's dowry death where it is shown that, soon before her death, she was subjected by that person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry. Dowry death carries the same meaning as under the applicable penal provision defining that offence.

Section 113A permits a court to presume abetment of suicide by a husband or relative of a husband where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage after being subjected to cruelty. The presumption is discretionary and must be assessed with regard to all other circumstances. Cruelty has the same meaning as under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 113 treats a Gazette of India notification recording the pre-commencement cession of any part of British territory to a Native State, Prince or Ruler as conclusive proof that a valid territorial cession occurred on the date specified in that notification. The temporal qualification relates to the commencement of Part III of the Government of India Act, 1935.

Section 112 creates conclusive proof of legitimacy for a person born during a valid marriage, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution where the mother remains unmarried. The person is treated as the legitimate son of the man married to the mother, unless it is shown that the spouses had no access to each other at any time when conception could have occurred.

Section 111A creates a rebuttable presumption for specified offences when an accused is shown to have been present at a place in a disturbed area, or an area affected by extensive public-peace disturbance, from which firearms or explosives were used against armed forces or public-order forces performing their duties. The presumption applies to the listed Indian Penal Code offences and certain conspiracy, attempt and abetment offences, unless the contrary is established.

Where the good faith of a transaction is questioned between parties in a relationship of active confidence, the burden of proving good faith lies on the party occupying that position. An attorney must prove good faith in a sale by a client to the attorney, while a father must prove it where a son who has just attained majority challenges a sale to the father.

Where ownership of anything possessed by a person is disputed, the person affirming that the possessor is not the owner must prove that assertion. Possession supplies the factual basis for placing the evidentiary burden on the challenger to ownership.

Section 109 places the burden of proof on a person who asserts that an established relationship of partnership, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent does not exist or has ceased. Once parties have been shown to have acted in any of those respective capacities, the contrary assertion must be proved by the person making it, rather than by the person relying on the demonstrated relationship.

Burden of proving continued life shifts where a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of that person if alive. The person affirming that the individual remains alive must then prove continued life.

Section 107 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allocates the burden of proof where a person's life or death is in issue. Once it is shown that the person was alive within thirty years, the party asserting that the person has died must prove the death. The provision places the evidentiary burden on the affirmative claimant of death in such circumstances.

Burden of proof for a fact especially within a person's knowledge rests on that person. The individual with particular knowledge must establish the fact in question. Where conduct reflects an apparent intention but a different intention is asserted, the person performing the act must prove that differing intention. A person charged with railway travel without a ticket must prove ticket possession.

Section 105 places on an accused person the burden of proving circumstances that bring the case within a General Exception, a special exception or proviso in the Indian Penal Code, or an exception or proviso contained in a law defining the offence. In the absence of such proof, the court must presume that those circumstances do not exist. The burden applies to each asserted exception.