{"id":398597,"date":"2026-10-13T12:58:09","date_gmt":"2026-10-13T07:28:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=398597"},"modified":"2026-10-13T12:59:31","modified_gmt":"2026-10-13T07:29:31","slug":"tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | CCI approves RCB Acquisition; Rapido, CCPA penalties on SpiceJet & Chaayos; Flipkart ESOP Tax Ruling & More"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Competition Commission of India<\/p>\n

CCI approves 100% acquisition of Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s parent company<\/p>\n

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has approved the acquisition of 100% shareholding of Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited, the parent company of Royal Challengers Bengaluru, by a consortium comprising entities of the Aditya Birla Group, Times Group, ICONIQ Group, Blackstone-backed funds and other investors. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

CCI penalises HP India and authorised resellers for bid rigging and cartelisation in Government e-Marketplace tenders<\/span><\/p>\n

In two separate suo motu proceedings arising out of lesser penalty applications, the Commission, comprising Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, and Sweta Kakkad, Anil Agrawal, Deepak Anurag and P. Hemalatha, Members, held that HP India Sales (P) Ltd. facilitated coordination amongst its authorised resellers and functioned as the central enterprise in a hub-and-spoke cartel involving bid rigging, customer allocation and price coordination in relation to the sale and supply of HP Supplies Products through Government e-Marketplace (GeM) tenders. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

National Company Law Tribunal<\/p>\n

Share allotment diluting majority shareholder held oppressive: NCLT Hyderabad cancels Rs 2.5 crore share allotment in MBG Commodities<\/p>\n

In the present case, a company petition was filed under Sections 241<\/a> and 242<\/a>, Companies Act, 2013<\/a> (Act) by Ashok Kumar Mandhani and 4 other family shareholders (petitioners) against MBG Commodities (P) Ltd. (Respondent 1) and 7 others, alleging oppression and mismanagement arising out of a disputed rights issue and share allotment that diluted the petitioners collective shareholding. The Bench of Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Sanjay Puri (Technical Member), allowed the petition, holding that the extraordinary general meetings were void for want of valid notice and that an allotment effected through a procedurally defective process, resulting in the reduction of the petitioners from a majority to a minority constituted oppression. The impugned allotment of equity shares in favour of Respondents 5 and 6 amounted to oppression and was liable to be set aside. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

NCLT, Mumbai transfers earlier-filed company petition to the court where connected proceeding pending: Prior Filing Cannot Ipso Facto Be a Ground to Transfer Connected Proceedings<\/p>\n

The present Transfer Application, TA (Co. Act) 23 of 2026, was filed by Mr. Anil Kumar Singh (Applicant) under Rule 16(d) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016<\/a> (NCLT Rules, 2016), seeking transfer of Amit Singh v. AI NXT Technovations (P) Ltd.<\/span>, CP No. 135(MB)\/2026 (Company Petition 2), pending before Court-I, NCLT, Mumbai Bench (Court-I), to Court-III, NCLT, Mumbai Bench (Court-III), where Anil Kumar Singh v. AI NXT Technovations (P) Ltd.<\/span>, CP No. 122(MB)\/2026 (Company Petition 1) was pending. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, President, disposed of the application by transferring company petition 2 from Court-III to Court-I, to be heard along with company petition 1 and connected proceedings. The mere fact that one proceeding was instituted earlier could not, by itself, be determinative of the Court before which the connected proceedings ought to continue. The subsequent course of proceedings was also relevant while considering the appropriate forum for transfer. The proceedings before Court-I had subsequently progressed further. Thus, it was appropriate that the connected proceedings from Court-III be transferred to Court-I. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

NCLT Allows Withdrawal of unadmitted company petition against SpiceJet but declines to record settlement; Imposes ₹15 Lakh costs<\/p>\n

The present interlocutory application, New IA\/3976\/2026, was filed by Aviator ML 29641 Ltd. (operational creditor) under Rule 11 read with Rule 11(2) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016<\/a> (‘NCLT Rules, 2016’), seeking liberty to withdraw C.P. IB-674\/ND\/2024 (company petition) filed under Section 9<\/a> of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC) against SpiceJet Limited (corporate debtor). The Bench of Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Anu Jagmohan Singh (Technical Member) permitted withdrawal of the company petition under Rule 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016<\/a> (2016 Rules). However, it declined to take the parties settlement agreement on record, as the request for withdrawal had been made at a belated stage of the proceeding. It directed payment of costs of Rs. 15,00,000\/-, shared equally between the parties, as a condition for the withdrawal to take effect.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that, “…Therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to consider and take into account or take on record the settlement agreement entered between the parties especially in view of the fact that the petition for initiation of CIRP against the same Corporate Debtor in other 7 matters are pending. Further, 4 other matters are pending for hearing…”<\/span> Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

₹10.46 Crore in Claims, ₹1.55 Crore Recovered: NCLT Kolkata approves SIS Mohan Real Estate Resolution Plan<\/p>\n

In a case wherein, Interlocutory Application was filed by Resolution Professional (RP) seeking direction for final approval of resolution plan, the Division Bench of Labh Singh (Judicial Member) and Rekha Kantilal Shah (Technical Member)* approved the Total Resolution Plan and held that the applicant complied with requirement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC). Further emphasised that “Commercial Wisdom of CoC” was to be given paramount status. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal<\/p>\n

Section 99<\/a> IBC<\/a> Resolution Professional’s report not mandatory where guarantor status admitted: NCLAT Chennai upholds Section 95<\/a> IBC<\/a> application<\/p>\n

The present Company Appeal was filed by Dr. Badri Prasad (Appellant), a personal guarantor of M\/s. Furnace Fabrica (India) Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), against Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. (Financial Creditor) and the Resolution Professional, challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitting an application under Section 95<\/a> Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC) against him. The Bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appellant, having admitted his signature on the loan sanction letter and letter of guarantee describing him as a personal guarantor, could not resile from that liability. It further held that the absence of a report by the Resolution Professional under Section 99<\/a> IBC<\/a> did not vitiate the admission of the application. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

NCLAT sets aside CIRP against Superfine Metals (P) Ltd.; Cash Credit and Ad Hoc facility defaults under S. 10-A<\/a> IBC<\/a> fell within protected period<\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by Siddharth Satish Katariya, ex-director of Superfine Metals Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), under Section 61<\/a> of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC) against the order dated 16-7-2026 (Impugned order) passed by NCLT, Mumbai Bench-II (Adjudicating authority) admitting a Section 7<\/a> IBC<\/a> application filed by Central Bank of India (Financial Creditor), the Bench of Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Judicial Member) and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), allowed the appeal and set aside the admission order, holding that the Cash Credit and Ad Hoc facility defaults relied upon by the Financial Creditor fell within the period protected under Section 10-A<\/a> IBC<\/a>. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Mentioning Personal Guarantor as “Director” in SARFAESI demand notice cannot frustrate S. 95<\/a> IBC<\/a> proceedings if terms of guarantee deed are satisfied: NCLAT<\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by the personal guarantor challenging the admission of an application under Section 95<\/a>, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a>, the Bench comprising Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial) and Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical) held that the demand notice issued under Section 13(2)<\/a>, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002<\/a> (SARFAESI Act) constituted a valid invocation of the personal guarantee in terms of the deed of guarantee. The Tribunal further held that where the guarantee deed does not prescribe any particular mode of invocation, a demand notice under Section 13(2)<\/a>, SARFAESI Act<\/a> calling upon the guarantor to discharge the outstanding liability is sufficient to invoke the guarantee, and the mere description of the guarantor as a “Director” in the notice does not invalidate the invocation or the subsequent proceedings under Section 95<\/a>, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code<\/a>. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Electronics, Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence Department, Mumbai<\/p>\n

Stolen Leads, Fake Booking IDs, ₹66 Lakh Revenue Loss: How a Spreadsheet Led to an Ex-Parte Injunction in Cordelia Cruises’ Data Theft Case<\/p>\n

In a complaint filed under Section 43(b)<\/a>, Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>, seeking statutory compensation, damages and strict injunctive reliefs against the respondents on the ground of data theft, the Adjudicating Officer Virendra Singh, passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction against the respondents to protect the complainant’s proprietary customer database, upon perusing the forensic audit reports and prohibited the respondents from accessing, printing, copying, formatting, distributing, utilising, disseminating, or exploiting the complainant’s proprietary customer databases, lead lists, electronic charts, or operational records, stolen or exfiltrated and from utilising the registered trade marks, copyrighted logos, vessel imagery or brand designations of Cordelia Cruises under any frontend configuration to pretend affiliation. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

A Senior Citizen NRI’s Hacked Email and an Unverified Transfer of USD 92,420: PNB Held Liable and Directed to Pay Unrecovered Amount with Interest<\/p>\n

In a complaint preferred under Section 46<\/a>, Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a> (IT Act), regarding cyber fraud where complainant’s email account associated with his Foreign Currency Non-Resident (FCNR) account was hacked siphoning USD 92,420 through an international wire transfer to an overseas account in Singapore, the Adjudicating Officer Virendra Singh held the respondent Bank liable for proceeding with transaction without due diligence imposing compensation of USD 58,092.07 along with 12 per cent interest, stating that it fell short of the standard of care expected and that the banks are under a continuing obligation to maintain and periodically update KYC records ensuring a comprehensive customer profile including updated contact details, alternative communication channels, risk profiling of the customer, etc. and if the respondent had exercised due diligence the fraudulent transaction could have been prevented. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Vodafone Held Liable for Negligent Duplicate SIM Issuance in SIM-Swap Fraud; Central Bank Directed to Pay Interest for Delayed Fund Release<\/p>\n

In a complaint preferred under Sections 43<\/a>, 43(A)<\/a>, 66<\/a>, 61<\/a> and 72-A<\/a> read with Sections 85<\/a> and 46<\/a>, Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>, regarding cyber fraud where complainant’s bank account credentials were hacked siphoning money to another account, the Adjudicating Officer Virendra Singh held the telecommunication services provider, i.e. Vodafone liable for negligent issuance of duplicate SIM leading to SIM-Swap fraud and directed to pay damages of ₹1,00,000 to the complainant on account of its structural negligence and deficient internal controls, and directed Respondent 3, i.e. Central Bank of India, to pay the complainant 12 per cent annual interest on the blocked principal amount as they failed to perform the physical release and remittance of the contractually frozen amount even after an interim order dated 9 May 2022, thereby unlawfully disrupting the velocity of the complainant’s capital despite the judicial intervention causing an unjustifiable operational delay in the final remittance of the tracked funds. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Real Estate Regulatory Authority<\/p>\n

Builder Delayed Delivery of Possession by 4-5 Years and Blamed COVID; Rajasthan RERA Says That Doesn’t Fly; Awards Additional Compensation on Top of Refund with Interest<\/p>\n

While deciding a complaint under Section 31<\/a>, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016<\/a> (RERA Act), the Single Bench of R.S. Kulhari, Adjudicating Officer, held that an allottee whose project was declared lapsed after the promoter failed to deliver possession within the agreed timeline was entitled to compensation in addition to the refund with interest already granted by the RERA.<\/p>\n

It was observed that, “There is a loss of interest of approximate 4 per cent every month which deserves to be awarded in the form of compensation to cover the apparent financial loss caused to the complainant who have arranged the funds from the financial institution.” Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Builder Received Home Loan Amount, Defaulted on Repayment, Yet SBI Proceeded Against Homebuyers: Rajasthan RERA Steps In and Restrains Coercive Recovery<\/p>\n

While considering a complaint under Section 31<\/a>, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016<\/a>, the Single Member Bench of Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Member, granted interim protection to the complainants and directed State Bank of India (SBI) not to take any coercive action against them for recovery of the housing loan amount disbursed to the promoter, holding that the interim relief sought deserved to be allowed in the facts of the case. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

National Green Tribunal<\/p>\n

NGT Assesses Over ₹2.65 crores Environmental Compensation for Illegal Felling of 33 Trees in BHU Campus; Directs UP PCB to Complete Levy Proceedings Within 3 Months<\/p>\n

In an execution application seeking compliance with the direction to the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) to plant compensatory plantation for illegal cutting of 33 trees, and direction to the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UP PCB) to assess and recover environmental compensation from the University, the Bench of Justice Prakash Shrivastava (Chairperson) and Dr Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member) noted that environmental compensation was assessed at ₹2,65,26,877.08 and granted further time to the UP PCB to complete the levying of the compensation. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

11,000 litres of milk and more than 200 sarees offered in Narmada; NGT directs MP PCB to remain vigilant during religious gatherings<\/p>\n

In an application alleging water pollution by the discharge of around 11,000 litres of milk and more than 200 sarees in the Narmada River following a religious gathering, the Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi (Expert Member) held that no law was shown by the applicant which bars offering of milk; however, it should be avoided, as such large quantity of milk when poured into the river which might contaminate the water, if the water is found to be stagnant. The NGT directed the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) to remain vigilant during such religious gatherings and ensure that such a large quantity of milk is not offered in future. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal<\/p>\n

Investment advisory services to overseas entity\/recipient to be considered as “export of service”: CESTAT Mumbai allows unutilised CENVAT credit refund<\/p>\n

In a case wherein, appeal filed against the order of rejection of the appellant Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd.’s claim for refund of unutilised CENVAT credit available in their books of accounts under Rule 5, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004<\/a> (Rules, 2004), the Division Bench of M.M. Prathiban (Technical Member) and S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member)* allowed the appeal and held that the appellant had exported the services to the overseas entity\/recipient, such service should be considered as “export of service” and the appellant should be availed with accumulated CENVAT Credit available in the books of accounts. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Clandestine Clearance | Electronic data retrieved without compliance with Sections 9-D<\/a> & 36-B<\/a>, Central Excise Act, 1944<\/a> cannot sustain duty demand: CESTAT<\/p>\n

In the appeals filed against order confirming demand of central excise duty and penalty imposed under Section 11-AC<\/a>, Central Excise Act, 1944<\/a> (the Excise Act) based on documents retrieved from CPUs, computers or pen drives and statements recorded during the course of investigation, the Division Bench of K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) and Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member)* allowed the appeal and held that the statements and documents were inadmissible for sustaining the charge of clandestine clearance of goods as not complied in terms of Section 36-B(2) and (4)<\/a>, Excise Act<\/a>. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Construction services provided to Tsunami affected areas, not “Commercial or Industrial Construction Service”: CESTAT quashes Service Tax demand on Pal Promoters<\/p>\n

In a case wherein appeal filed against order confirming the demand of service tax on construction activities rendered by the appellants-Pal Promoters Pvt. Ltd and its Managing Director (MD) fell under “Commercial or Industrial Construction Service” as per Section 65(25-b)<\/a>, Finance Act, 1994<\/a> (Finance Act) and “Construction of Complex service” as per Section 65(91-a)<\/a>, Finance Act<\/a>, the Division Bench of M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) and Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member)* set aside the order of demand and held that constriction services provided did not constitute commercial construction activity. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Central Consumer Protection Authority<\/p>\n

Trick Question, Forced Action, Interface Interference: CCPA Identifies Three Dark Patterns on SpiceJet’s Booking Platform, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Penalty<\/p>\n

In a suo motu case against SpiceJet for “use of dark patterns resulting in unfair trade practices, misleading advertisements, and violation of consumer rights”, the Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Anupam Mishra held that the impugned interface deployed multiple prohibited dark patterns, resulting in unfair trade practices, misleading representations and impairment of consumer choice and informed decision-making. The CCPA directed SpiceJet to ensure that the corrective measures implemented on its platform were maintained continuously and not reverted in the future; to remain compliant with the Consumer Protection Act, 2019<\/a>, the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020<\/a>, and the Dark Patterns Guidelines, 2023; and imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Chaayos Said the Service Charge Was Voluntary but Its Own Billing Software Said Otherwise: CCPA Imposes ₹50,000 Penalty<\/p>\n

In a suo motu case against Chaayos for charging a mandatory “service tax”1 separately in addition to CGST and SGST, the Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Anupam Mishra held that the restaurant had demonstrated a pattern of deliberate non-compliance with the “Guidelines to Prevent Unfair Trade Practices and Protection of Consumer Interest with Regard to Levy of Service Charge in Hotels and Restaurants”; directed the restaurant to reimburse to the aggrieved customer and pay a penalty of ₹50,000. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

CCPA: Rapido’s pre-ride tipping prompts misleading and unfair; ₹10 lakh penalty imposed<\/p>\n

While taking cognizance of a representation against Rapido (Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd.) concerning pre-ride tipping prompts displayed on its ride-hailing platform, the CCPA comprising Nidhi Khare, Chief Commissioner, and Anupam Mishra, Commissioner, examined whether such prompts amounted to misleading advertisements, unfair trade practices, unfair contracts and prohibited dark patterns under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019<\/a>. The CCPA held that the impugned prompts created a misleading impression in the minds of consumers that paying an amount over and above the quoted fare would improve the likelihood and speed of ride confirmation, thereby violating Sections 2(28)<\/a>, 2(46)<\/a> and 2(47)<\/a> of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019<\/a> and the Dark Patterns Guidelines, 2023. Accordingly, to safeguard the interest of the consumers, the authority directed Rapido to discontinue the impugned prompts including the interface designs and imposed a penalty of ₹10 lakh. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission<\/p>\n

SCDRC issues fresh arrest warrants against Angle Infrastructure Directors after Delhi HC declines interim protection<\/p>\n

In a significant development in the execution proceedings arising out of a consumer dispute, the two-Member Bench of Dr Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member) directed the issuance of fresh arrest warrants against the Directors of Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., after noting that the judgment-debtors have failed to satisfy the decretal amount despite repeated opportunities. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Central Information Commission<\/span><\/p>\n

Examination evaluation records are “information” under S. 2(f)<\/a>, RTI Act<\/a>; Confidentiality or fiduciary claim can’t be invoked mechanically: CIC<\/p>\n

While considering the scope of disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005<\/a> (RTI Act) in relation to the evaluation of law semester examination answer scripts at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Sudha Rani Relangi, Information Commissioner, held that while the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) could not be required to create information which did not exist, existing records could not be denied merely because they concerned the examination or evaluation process. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Student seeks evaluated Answer Script, University demands ₹1,000: CIC Says RTI Rules Override<\/p>\n

In a second appeal against the demand of ₹1000 for providing a copy of the appellant’s evaluated answer script for the FYUG 2nd Semester Examination, 2025, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decision of Patharkandi College affiliated with Assam University. Relying on Section 22<\/a>, RTI Act<\/a>, the Commission held that where an answer script is sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005<\/a> (RTI Act), the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) can charge only the photocopying fee prescribed under the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012<\/a> (RTI Rules), and cannot enforce university regulations inconsistent with the statutory fee structure. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal<\/p>\n

Homebuyer challenges DLF flat’s carpet area; seeks independent verification: Haryana REAT allows expert measurement<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering an application under Sections 44(6)<\/a> and 53<\/a>, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016<\/a> (RERA Act) read with Rule 8 and Annexure A and Rule 25, Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017<\/a>, seeking appointment of an independent expert for measurement of the allotted apartment, the Division Bench of Rajan Gupta, J., Chairman, and Dinesh Singh Chauhan, Member (Technical), allowed the application finding substance in the appellants’ request for independent measurement of the apartment in DLF Valley Gardens, Panchkula. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Copyright Office, New Delhi<\/p>\n

Original, yes. Author, no: Copyright Office rejects AI authorship, but not AI-generated art<\/p>\n

In a registration application of an artistic work created by an artificial intelligence system, the Registrar of Copyrights, Prof. (Dr) Unnat P. Pandit, held that the said artificial intelligence (AI) system was not a natural or juristic person recognised in law and cannot be recognised as author under Section 2(d)(vi)<\/a>, Copyright Act, 1957<\/a>; the application was maintained exclusively on the premise of AI authorship and thus rejected. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal<\/p>\n

Finance Act, 2025<\/a> Amendment prospective; No 10% penalty pre-deposit for appeals arising from pre-01-10-2025 GST proceedings: GSTAT<\/p>\n

Deciding the question of admission of the appeal, the Bench comprising Sushil Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial) and Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas, Member (Technical) held that the appellant was not liable to make any statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8)<\/a>, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017<\/a> (CGST Act) for admission of its appeal, as the penalty proceedings had commenced before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2025<\/a> came into force. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal<\/p>\n

Consideration received on repurchase of vested but unexercised Flipkart ESOPs is taxable as “capital gains”, not as “salary perquisite”: ITAT<\/p>\n

Allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, the Bench comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail, JM and Balakrishnan S., AM, held that the consideration received by a Flipkart employee on repurchase of vested but unexercised stock options could not be taxed as a “perquisite” under Section 17(2)(vi)<\/a>, Income-tax Act, 1961<\/a>, since no “specified security” had come into existence. The Tribunal held that the vested Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) represented a capital asset in the nature of a right to subscribe to shares, and its repurchase amounted to a transfer chargeable to tax as long-term capital gains. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission<\/p>\n

30 Days for filing Written Statement extendable by 15 days if sufficient cause provided: NCDRC confirms 45 days being absolute limit<\/p>\n

While considering a revision petition filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission), wherein application for condonation of delay for delayed filing of written statement was dismissed, the Single Member Bench of Saroj Yadav, J., (Presiding Member) allowed the petition and held that written statement was filed within the maximum permissible period of 45 days. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Key orders from the CCI, CCPA, NCLT, NCLAT, ITAT and other tribunals and commissions from July to September 2026.This quarterly roundup covers all major legal news from India’s tribunals and commissions in last quarter. The CCI penalised HP India and its resellers for hub-and-spoke cartelisation in GeM tenders, while the CCPA came down on dark patterns at SpiceJet, Chaayos and Rapido. Also in the mix: NCLAT rulings on personal guarantors under the IBC, a Flipkart ESOP tax verdict from the ITAT, and the Copyright Office’s stance on AI authorship.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67516,"featured_media":398594,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45673,46957],"tags":[116970,116971,116969,116974,116975,116972,116973,116967,116968],"class_list":["post-398597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-columns-for-roundup","category-tribunals-regulatory-bodies-commissions-monthly-roundup","tag-cci-hp-india-bid-rigging-penalty","tag-ccpa-dark-patterns-penalty","tag-important-tribunal-orders-india","tag-indian-tribunals-latest-judgments","tag-legal-news-india-tribunals","tag-nclat-section-95-ibc-ruling","tag-nclt-spicejet-withdrawal-costs","tag-tribunal-and-commission-rulings-india","tag-tribunal-roundup-july-to-october-2026"],"yoast_head":"\nTribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Tribunals and Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026: CCI penalty on HP India, CCPA action against Rapido and SpiceJet, NCLAT, ITAT and other key rulings\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | CCI approves RCB Acquisition; Rapido, CCPA penalties on SpiceJet & Chaayos; Flipkart ESOP Tax Ruling & More\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Tribunals and Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026: CCI penalty on HP India, CCPA action against Rapido and SpiceJet, NCLAT, ITAT and other key rulings\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-10-13T07:28:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-10-13T07:29:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-Quarterly-Roundup-2026.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | CCI approves RCB Acquisition; Rapido, CCPA penalties on SpiceJet & Chaayos; Flipkart ESOP Tax Ruling & More\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"headline\":\"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | CCI approves RCB Acquisition; Rapido, CCPA penalties on SpiceJet & Chaayos; Flipkart ESOP Tax Ruling & More\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-13T07:28:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-13T07:29:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3679,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-Quarterly-Roundup-2026.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"CCI HP India bid rigging penalty\",\"CCPA dark patterns penalty\",\"Important Tribunal orders India\",\"Indian tribunals latest judgments\",\"Legal news India tribunals\",\"NCLAT Section 95 IBC ruling\",\"NCLT SpiceJet withdrawal costs\",\"Tribunal and commission rulings India\",\"Tribunal roundup July to October 2026\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Legal RoundUp\",\"Tribunals\\\/Regulatory Bodies\\\/Commissions Monthly Roundup\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/\",\"name\":\"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-Quarterly-Roundup-2026.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-13T07:28:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-13T07:29:31+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"Tribunals and Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026: CCI penalty on HP India, CCPA action against Rapido and SpiceJet, NCLAT, ITAT and other key rulings\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-Quarterly-Roundup-2026.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-Quarterly-Roundup-2026.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Tribunals and Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/13\\\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | CCI approves RCB Acquisition; Rapido, CCPA penalties on SpiceJet & Chaayos; Flipkart ESOP Tax Ruling & More\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\",\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arunima\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/scc-editor_9\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | SCC Times","description":"Tribunals and Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026: CCI penalty on HP India, CCPA action against Rapido and SpiceJet, NCLAT, ITAT and other key rulings","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | CCI approves RCB Acquisition; Rapido, CCPA penalties on SpiceJet & Chaayos; Flipkart ESOP Tax Ruling & More","og_description":"Tribunals and Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026: CCI penalty on HP India, CCPA action against Rapido and SpiceJet, NCLAT, ITAT and other key rulings","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-10-13T07:28:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-10-13T07:29:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-Quarterly-Roundup-2026.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arunima","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | CCI approves RCB Acquisition; Rapido, CCPA penalties on SpiceJet & Chaayos; Flipkart ESOP Tax Ruling & More","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arunima","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/"},"author":{"name":"Arunima","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"headline":"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | CCI approves RCB Acquisition; Rapido, CCPA penalties on SpiceJet & Chaayos; Flipkart ESOP Tax Ruling & More","datePublished":"2026-10-13T07:28:09+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-13T07:29:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/"},"wordCount":3679,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-Quarterly-Roundup-2026.webp","keywords":["CCI HP India bid rigging penalty","CCPA dark patterns penalty","Important Tribunal orders India","Indian tribunals latest judgments","Legal news India tribunals","NCLAT Section 95 IBC ruling","NCLT SpiceJet withdrawal costs","Tribunal and commission rulings India","Tribunal roundup July to October 2026"],"articleSection":["Legal RoundUp","Tribunals\/Regulatory Bodies\/Commissions Monthly Roundup"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/","name":"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-Quarterly-Roundup-2026.webp","datePublished":"2026-10-13T07:28:09+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-13T07:29:31+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"Tribunals and Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026: CCI penalty on HP India, CCPA action against Rapido and SpiceJet, NCLAT, ITAT and other key rulings","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-Quarterly-Roundup-2026.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-Quarterly-Roundup-2026.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Tribunals and Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/tribunals-and-commissions-quarterly-roundup-2026\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tribunals & Commissions Quarterly Roundup 2026 | CCI approves RCB Acquisition; Rapido, CCPA penalties on SpiceJet & Chaayos; Flipkart ESOP Tax Ruling & More"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb","name":"Arunima","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arunima"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-Quarterly-Roundup-2026.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398597","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67516"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=398597"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398597\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":398599,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398597\/revisions\/398599"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/398594"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=398597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=398597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=398597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}