ITAT Delhi rules Section 148 notice invalid as escaped income not represented in an ‘asset’; reassessment quashed for being time-barred.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act issued by ITO, who didn’t have jurisdiction over the assessee, instead of DCIT is unwarranted. Thus, assessment order based on invalid notice is not sustainable.
The SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, establish a detailed compliance framework for listed entities, categorizing disclosures into non-event, event-based, and shareholder meeting requirements. Key non-event based compliances include the integrated filing of corporate governance reports and the reconciliation of share capital audit reports, both due within 30 days in XBRL mode, and prompt […]
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unsecured loan is liable to be sustained since the assessee has miserably failed to establish the essential three ingredients as prescribed in section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that monetisation by sale of units is impermissible since building plan of the project has not been revalidated. Accordingly, permission for monetisation not granted due to absence of revalidation of the map.
Effective October 6, 2025, the MCA introduced the Investor Education and Protection Fund Amendment Rules, 2025, modernizing the refund process.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that the power to reopen an assessment under Section 147/148 is invalid when a valid return is on record and the Assessing Officer still has time to initiate regular scrutiny under Section 143(2).
Kerala High Court held that appeals on identical issue can be disposed by passing single order containing single DIN. Thus, passing of single order for multiple appeal is legally valid. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that this Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal provided under the GST Act. Accordingly, writ disposed of with direction to prefer appeal before appellate authority.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that since services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residents is exempted from payment of GST, GST already paid is to be refunded back without considering period of limitation. Thus, writ petition is allowed.
