The CCPA ruled that incomplete product details, unverifiable regulatory credentials, and missing mandatory disclosures violated the Consumer Protection (Direct Selling) Rules, 2021, resulting in a monetary penalty and corrective directions.
The CCPA held that automatically adding a service charge to restaurant bills violated the Consumer Protection Act and the CCPA Guidelines upheld by the Delhi High Court. It ordered a refund, discontinued the practice, and imposed a ₹20,000 penalty.
CCPA held that advertising bread as 100% Whole Wheat despite containing only 87% wheat flour was misleading. The authority ordered withdrawal of the advertisements and imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty.
The Authority ruled that selectively withholding course information and presenting disclaimers in illegible font misled prospective students. It ordered discontinuation of the advertisements and imposed an ₹8 lakh penalty.
The CCPA held that failure to prominently disclose licensing requirements, frequency details, and regulatory approvals for walkie-talkies amounted to misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices. The company was fined ₹1 lakh and directed to ensure full compliance and disclosures.
The CCPA held that claims such as 100% Tender Coconut Water, 100% Juice, and several health benefit claims were misleading and inadequately substantiated. It directed their immediate discontinuation and imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a GST order passed without considering the assessee’s reply and without recording reasons violates the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting a proper hearing.
This FAQ serves as a reference for the Income-tax Act provisions relating to cash receipts, loans, repayments, and electronic payment compliance. It also highlights the statutory thresholds, exceptions, and penalties for various defaults.
This FAQ covers all ten notified ICDS, explaining their scope, applicability, disclosures, and treatment of various tax-related transactions. It serves as a consolidated reference for ICDS compliance under the Income-tax Act.
The ITAT held that Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has made necessary inquiries and adopted a plausible view. It quashed the revision order after finding no lack of investigation into the related-party transaction.
