RBIs draft amendment introduces stronger customer protection rules for electronic banking fraud in rural co-operative banks. Customers may get zero liability or compensation for small-value frauds if reported promptly.
This article explains how Internal Committees under the POSH Act should handle harassment complaints, including evidence collection, neutrality checks, and drafting legally sound investigation reports.
Urban Co-operative Banks must send instant SMS alerts for transactions exceeding ₹500 and email alerts wherever available. The rule aims to help customers quickly detect and report unauthorised transactions.
ITAT Panaji refused to condone an 803-day delay in filing appeals against TDS default orders. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide a credible explanation and therefore dismissed the appeals as time-barred.
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.
