RBI’s draft amendment strengthens customer protection by shifting the burden of proving negligence to Regional Rural Banks. It mandates fraud detection systems, transaction alerts, and structured grievance mechanisms.
RBI’s draft amendment strengthens customer protection in electronic banking transactions handled by Local Area Banks. It places the burden of proving customer negligence on banks and mandates fraud detection systems and alerts.
RBI’s draft amendment strengthens customer protection by placing the burden of proving negligence on Payments Banks in unauthorised electronic transactions. The framework introduces fraud detection systems, alerts, and grievance mechanisms.
The High Court set aside the Settlement Commission’s order rejecting a settlement application. It held that while non-cooperation was noted, the finding regarding lack of full disclosure lacked adequate reasoning.
The ITAT held that when non-jurisdictional High Courts give conflicting decisions, a division bench ruling should be preferred over a single judge decision. On that basis, the Tribunal rejected the assessee’s claim that the assessment order was time-barred.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of ₹19.27 lakh under Section 69A after finding that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence explaining the source of cash deposits. The explanation regarding gold loans and family transactions remained unsubstantiated.
The draft directions introduce a comprehensive framework defining authorised transactions, bank negligence, and third-party breaches in digital payments. Customers may receive zero liability where banks fail to ensure security or where fraud is reported promptly.
ITAT held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was valid because the Assessing Officer followed CBDT Instruction 1/2022 and the Supreme Court’s decision on reassessment procedures. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the notice was barred by limitation.
The Kerala High Court held that freezing a bank account suspected to contain proceeds of crime must follow the attachment procedure under Section 107 of the BNSS. The debit freeze imposed under Section 106 was therefore quashed.
The Court ruled that Section 106 of the BNSS permits seizure of property but not debit freezing of bank accounts. Attachment of proceeds of crime must follow the procedure under Section 107.
