Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has taken action against 479 brand owners for non-compliance with the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. Learn about the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regime, the show cause notice, and the consequences of violating the rules.
A comprehensive guide to The Competition Act, 2002 in India, highlighting anti-competitive agreements, relevant case laws, and the power of the Competition Commission of India to impose penalties.
Dive into the world of startup financing with insights on convertible notes and SAFEs – the emerging trend in India and abroad. Discover their significance for startups and investors, their role in fundraising, and key considerations for choosing between convertible notes and priced equity. For expert guidance on implementing convertible notes, contact CS Kanchan Gupta, Corporate Lawyer, and Company Secretary.
Explore the importance of Document Identification Number (DIN) in Income Tax Notices in India, how it enhances tax administration, its legal implications, and recent judicial pronouncements concerning DIN validity.
CESTAT Chennai held that as Chapter Heading 3302 covers both natural and/or synthetic mixtures of odoriferous substances, ‘tomato dry flavour’ is correctly classifiable under CTH 3302 10 10 instead of 2106 90 60.
ITAT Chennai held that in case of banking companies were shares & securities are held as stock in trade, dividend income is considered as business income, and consequently, provisions of Sec.14A of the Act, cannot be applied.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services related to construction of roads etc. the Government authorities/ agencies are covered under Mega Exemption of Service Tax notification no. 25/2012-ST and hence demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that the services provided to fulfil warranty obligation would be eligible as input services being a service in relation to manufacture. Further, also the warranty charges were included in the assessable value of goods sold to the customers.
CESTAT Delhi held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Here, it was merely suppression of facts but intent to evade payment of service tax was absent.
CESTAT Chennai held that as the demand was raised on the basis of the books of accounts which was not hidden from the department, there was no wilful suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade tax and hence invocation of extended period not justified.
