A summary of the challenges in passing on GST rate cuts to consumers, focusing on issues like input tax credit reversal and practical pricing difficulties.
The Supreme Court has stayed several provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, but refused to strike it down completely, in a landmark decision.
NCLT Cuttack held that a pre-existing dispute cannot be a bar for admission of an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Accordingly, CIRP application against S.S. Aluminium Private Limited admitted as debt and default established.
PFRDA’s circular allows physical submission of Unified Pension Scheme requests to nodal offices until September 30, 2025, due to potential online system issues.
Allahabad High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act] is not tenable in law since no findings is recorded which shows that there is fraud or willful mis-statement or suppression of fact to evade payment of tax.
Sikkim High Court held that section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act] doesn’t envisage refund of unutilized ITC for closure of business. Thus, rejection of refund application is within parameters of section 54 and lawful.
Gujarat High Court stays a six-month suspension of an Insolvency Professional by IBBI, citing issues of bias and the lack of an appellate remedy.
The Supreme Court has ruled that an application under the State Bank of India’s (SBI) One Time Settlement (OTS) 2020 Scheme is invalid without the mandatory 5% upfront payment of the settlement amount.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest on housing loan is allowed to be included in cost of acquisition of capital asset under section 48 of the Income Tax Act provided the same is not claimed as deduction u/s. 24(b). Accordingly, matter restored back to AO for verification.
ITAT Delhi held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not justifiable since proper enquiry and examination was made and therefore, there is no error in the order of the AO thus, it is not pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue.
