Latest news with #IT)Act
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Unauthenticated info from foreign country not evidence: HC
The Delhi high court has held that unauthenticated information received from a foreign country regarding an individual's Swiss bank account cannot be treated as evidence and form a valid basis for criminal prosecution for tax evasion under the Income Tax (IT) Act. Unauthenticated info from foreign country not evidence: HC The ruling was delivered by justice Neena Bansal Krishna on Monday, in a plea by Anurag Dalmia to quash the case registered by the IT department for tax evasion. The case was registered in 2016 on the basis of the information received by the French government regarding the existence of a Swiss Bank account in Dalmia's name till 2005. Pursuant to receipt of information and unauthenticated documents received in 2011, the department conducted a raid in his premises in December 2012, but failed to recover anything. It later reopened the assessment proceedings for assessment year (AY) 2006-07, 2007–08 in 2012, and imposed fresh penalties by way of an assessment order (AO). In 2016, it also registered a case under section 276C (wilful evasion of tax, penalty, or interest chargeable), 276D (failure to produce accounts and documents), 277 (false statement in verification) of the Income Tax Act. The department had alleged that he evaded taxes by not disclosing details of his HSBC Bank account in Switzerland in his income tax returns for the assessment years 2006–07 and 2007–08, and by refusing to sign a consent waiver form that would have allowed access to the Swiss account information. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in February, 2018, concluding that there was no basis for revising Dalmia's ITR. In his petition, Dalmia asserted that the Swiss authorities had failed to respond to the department's request of further information from about the Swiss account and mere surmises or conjectures were not enough for pressing criminal charges. He further argued that the assessment order, which formed the basis for the department's initiation of criminal proceedings, had already been quashed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and this alone should be sufficient grounds for dropping the criminal case. On the contrary, the IT department had asserted that quashing of the AO, was not sufficient to exonerate Dalmia of the criminal charges and the ITAT's order was not binding on the criminal court. It was also asserted that the case was not solely based on the AO but also independent information received from the French government. Rejecting the department's contention, justice Krishna in her 33-page ruling said, 'Merely on some unauthenticated information received from a third Country with no material evidence, is not sufficient to make out a prima facie case and there cannot be a presumption that a person has committed any wrongdoing. Thus, mere surmise and conjectures is not enough to prosecute a person alleging a criminal offence under Section 276D.' She added, 'Respondent has no cogent evidence whatsoever, to establish that the Petitioner has any Swiss Bank accounts and the unauthenticated documents have no evidentiary value, to make out a prima facie case against the Petitioner. It, therefore, has to be concluded that the unauthenticated documents under DTAA cannot be a basis to conclude that there was no complete disclosure of the income by the Petitioner for the relevant Financial Years.' Ultimately, the court quashed the criminal proceedings observing that the department lacked 'cogent, credible and corroborative evidence' to establish the existence of Swiss accounts and the receipt of such information from the French and not Swiss government raised questions on the document's authenticity. The judge further noted that the department had failed to recover incriminating material during the raid and confront Dalmia with the bank details before imposition of penalty. 'There was nothing even remotely to suggest that either the Assessee was having any bank account in Switzerland with HSBC or he was in any way linked with these bank accounts It thus concluded that if no incriminating material has been found during the course of search, no additions can be made in the Assessment year where Assessments had attained finality,' the court maintained.
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
India blocked 1,524 gambling websites, apps since 2022: Centre in Lok Sabha
India issued blocking orders against 1,524 illegal gambling websites and mobile apps between 2022 and June 2025, the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) informed the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. Online gaming attracts a GST of 28%. (Getty Images) 'From 2022 till June 2025, the government issued 1,524 blocking directions related to online betting/gambling/gaming websites and mobile applications,' MoS MeitY Jitin Prasada said in a written reply to a question raised by TDP MP Krishna Prasad Tenneti on July 23. The government had till February this year issued 1,410 blocking orders, Union minister Ashwini Vaishnaw had said during the budget session in February. This comes amid growing concern over offshore online gambling platforms that operate without following Indian tax rules or local regulations. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) has been authorised under the Information Technology (IT) Act and the Integrated Good and Services Tax (IGST) Act to direct intermediaries to block unregistered online gaming platforms, including foreign gaming platforms violating the IGST Act. Online gaming companies must register under the IGST Act to operate in India, even if they are based outside the country, and platforms that fail to comply risk being blocked. Online gaming attracts a GST of 28%, the government said. While the Centre didn't share the list of blocked platforms or of a state-wise breakdown, it said it supports states and Union Territories through advisories and financial assistance under various schemes for capacity building of their LEAs. 'The policies of the central government are aimed at ensuring an open, safe, trusted and accountable internet for its users,' Prasada said. These platforms, which the government has blocked, often use digital advertising on platforms like Google and Meta to reach Indian users, sometimes via surrogate advertising that masks their true nature. In a separate matter, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has summoned Google and Meta executives as part of its money laundering investigation into illegal online betting platforms. These platforms are believed to have used ads on multiple websites to promote their services. ED is expected to record the executives' statements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on July 28.
Indian Express
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
‘Indirect censorship': Digipub moves Karnataka High Court supporting X Corp's plea against takedown orders
The Digipub News India Foundation, a coalition of digital media organisations and independent journalists, Friday made submissions before the Karnataka High Court, supporting X Corp's petition against alleged subjective blocking orders on X issued by Central government officers across the country. A bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the case challenging the blocking orders on X using Section 79 (3)(B) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. X Corp also raised issues with the Sahyog portal for intermediaries, which it has previously referred to as a censorship portal. Previously, during Tuesday's hearing, X Corp's counsel, senior advocate K G Raghavan, argued that government officials were issuing the takedown orders for social media posts without applying any uniform standard. X Corp has been arguing that these takedown orders can be issued only through the mechanism laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, that is, through Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act, and not Section 79 (3)(B). Raghavan previously argued that 69A had been upheld by the apex court on account of inherent safeguards, while 79(3)(b), which deals with the removal of protection from intermediaries like X, did not have such safeguards. Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing Digipub, stated, 'X is before the high court as an intermediary….the parties directly affected by the entire exercise that the government has come up with is us….these media organisations are in a dual capacity of providing and receiving content online.' He pointed out that in the exercise of takedown of content by the intermediaries, the content creator in question did not get the chance to be heard. He also questioned the manner in which Rule (3)(1) (d) of the IT rules, which refers back to Section 79 (3) (b), is being applied, raising the issue of free speech implications. Referring to safe harbour protections of intermediaries being a free speech right, he said, 'It is precisely this, the indirect censorship, that is now being played out through this mechanism. An officer unhappy with a news report etc not palatable to his personal politics, political master morality….sits in his office and says take it down. That is the chilling effect.' Referring to the current takedown orders as well as the Sahyog platform, Sondhi stated that the situation was that of an 'ad hoc executive regime'. He added, 'A judicial determination of an unlawful act by a duly constituted court of law on the one hand – and a cyclostyled form in the hands of an officer to fill in a couple of blanks, directly infringing Article 19 (1)(a) [freedom of speech].' The hearing is set to continue on July 17.
Hindustan Times
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Govt misusing IT laws, X corp tells Karnataka high court
X Corp on Friday told the Karnataka high court that while it was not opposed to regulation, all restrictions on digital speech must strictly conform to existing law. Objecting to the Union government's directive mandating social media platforms to join the Sahyog Portal -- a centralised system for content takedown requests, the platform argued that the portal enables arbitrary censorship by executive authorities, in violation of constitutional safeguards and Supreme Court precedents. This illustration photograph shows the logo of social network X (formerly Twitter) displayed on a smartphone.(AFP/File) Senior advocate KG Raghavan, who appeared for X Corp, told a bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna that presently, the central administrative authorities or the several nodal officers empowered by the Sahyog Portal to issue take down notices to social media intermediaries, were 'misusing' the takedown regime under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act that outlines conditions under which intermediaries can lose their safe harbour protection. These officers, Raghavan argued, were performing 'judicial functions,' leading to 'arbitrary and opaque censorship' of online content. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, Raghavan said Section 69A of the IT Act, which permits content takedowns, was upheld by the Apex Court because it provides procedural safeguards, including a defined structure and the involvement of a nodal officer. However, Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules that Sahyog portal relies upon for issuing take down orders, lack such safeguards. Raghavan also argued that Rule 3(1)(d) gives the government a 'backdoor mechanism to control online content,' avoiding the Shreya Singhal mandated process under Section 3(1)(d) undermines the constitutional safeguards that the Supreme Court laid down by shifting the burden of censorship to social media platforms and enabling takedown orders by countless officers of the state issued merely on their respective discretion. 'Today, virtually any officer, from the Delhi Metro to any department, can interpret any law in the country and decide that a social media post is unlawful. This is a judicial function being carried out by executive authorities,' Raghavan argued. 'A thousand administrative officers are now empowered to interpret law, apply facts, and order takedowns. This is constitutionally impermissible,' he said. When the court asked if acts or online content deemed 'unlawful' under the law were not 'already enumerated,' and whether officers were merely 'determining if a post violated these laws,' Raghavan insisted that such determinations must not be made by executive officials without a structured procedure or review mechanism as prescribed under Section 69A. Section 69A of the IT Act provides for blocking or taking down online content only through a legal process with safeguards such as prior notices, an explanation or reasoning for why such content must be taken down, a hearing, and review etc., X Corp has argued that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, however, requires intermediaries to take down a wide range of content without any such procedural protections, based on vague criteria and even user complaints. The company has maintained that Rule 3(1)(d) effectively bypasses 69A and violates the Supreme Court's ruling, while also making the intermediaries vulnerable to losing their safe harbour protection to under the Act. The safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act shields online platforms from liability for user generated content, as long as they act as neutral intermediaries and comply with takedown orders. Raghavan further said that empowering executive officials to issue take down notices without any procedural safeguards will have a 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'A comment saying the Delhi Metro is not running on time can be taken down because the metro authorities might feel that it sends the wrong signal,' Raghavan said. 'We are a responsible platform with user agreements and moderation mechanisms. We are not against regulation, but regulation must be in accordance with law,' he said. Raghavan also argued that the Sahyog Portal had no statutory backing since it was created through 'a mere letter, with no notification or executive order.' 'The architecture of Indian law making requires statutory support for such mechanisms,' Raghavan said. Justice Nagaprasanna asked whether the portal was simply for implementation purposes, to which Raghavan said that irrespective of what the Portal intended to do, it could not have been constituted through administrative communication alone. The court will now hear the union government's arguments through Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, on July 17.
Indian Express
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
X vs the government: The mysterious case of who wanted to block Reuters' accounts in India
India is currently witnessing a strange 'they said, they said' situation involving X (formerly Twitter) and the Government of India regarding accounts belonging to Reuters, an international news organisation. Combined with other recent developments, this raises several questions about how the Indian state's information restriction apparatus operates with opacity, across different political ideologies, and in the absence of meaningful oversight and accountability. At the time of writing, X and GoI have contradicted each other's version of events surrounding the suspension and subsequent restoration of two X accounts associated with Reuters (@Reuters and @ReutersWorld); they were restricted in India on July 5. Users were greeted with a now-familiar message that this was in response to a 'legal demand,' but the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) denied issuing such orders. After the accounts were restored, X's Global Affairs account contested MeitY's position, stating that it received orders to block 2,355 accounts in India on July 3 and expressed concerns about 'ongoing press censorship'. MeitY has refuted issuing 'fresh orders' on this date and that it did not intend to block any prominent international news channel. Questions like how/why these accounts may have been referenced in a correspondence between MeitY and X are unlikely to be answered. There have been other recent instances of friction and confusion. During the India-Pakistan conflict in May, X's Global Affairs alleged its account was temporarily restricted in India, a day after it revealed having received orders to block over 8,000 accounts in India, with threats of fines, liability and imprisonment of local representatives. There are suggestions, though, that it was an inquiry rather than a blocking order. That such miscommunication can occur raises questions about the normal terms of engagement and lends credence to civil society fears of overcompliance by platforms. Once military operations stopped, X accounts of some Turkish and Chinese state media entities were briefly restricted. In early July, there was ambiguity surrounding restrictions on social media accounts from Pakistan being temporarily lifted. The reasons and circumstances leading up to these flip-flopping actions are not clear. Many of these orders were likely issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act under procedures defined in the colloquially-named 2009 Blocking Rules. This mechanism lets the government invoke confidentiality clauses, meaning that the contents of orders (including their reasoning) cannot be disclosed even to people/groups whose content has been restricted. Reviews, if conducted, are limited to the executive branch. These recent instances of confusion and friction spotlight the problems with the opacity of the current process, the robustness of the purported procedural safeguards, and the tendency of the state to resort to broad restrictions of accounts limiting access to past, current, and future speech. Apart from Section 69A, Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act creates a 'grey area' which allows various government departments to direct internet services to remove/restrict content without the same procedures as Section 69A. X is currently challenging the use of this mechanism in the Karnataka High Court, arguing that it creates a parallel blocking regime, as does the 'Sahyog Portal' developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The acquiescence of other social media platforms should be noted here. More government departments across the country appear to be using this method, with recent reports and court documents revealing a pattern of problematic usage. The Department of Railways attempted to restrict posts about the tragic stampede at the New Delhi Railway Station in February, and content about overcrowded trains and incidents of vandalism. Law enforcement departments in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Bihar have sent notices for content critical of/ridiculing political figures associated with state governments and local administrations. This partisan use across the political spectrum suggests that the tendency to restrict information is a feature of Indian polity, not restricted to any particular entity, even as the degrees of use may vary. The default nature of the Indian state to resort to information suppression, whether through internet restrictions or content blocking, through a range of events like geopolitical conflicts, tragedies, or criticism, is deeply worrying and counterproductive. In such situations, people need access to more information, not less. Instead of short-term, arbitrary actions, the Indian state would be better off facilitating and supporting a deeper understanding of the complexities in the information ecosystem today. Political entities feigning concern, citing public order or security, should, first and foremost, stop constantly resorting to half-truths, fear-mongering, and poisoning the well themselves. Where content restrictions are absolutely necessary, they must be narrow and limited to specific pieces of content. Due process, sound reasoning, and rigorous accountability should be firm requirements rather than perfunctory acts. Any orders must be accompanied by adequate disclosures, and oversight (whether at the level of union/state governments) cannot be limited to the executive branch. Measures that build resilience, both in institutions and the public at large, will offer more in the long term than unbridled censoriousness. The writer is an independent technology policy researcher and former executive director of the Internet Freedom Foundation
