DGFT revises import conditions for pesticides and chemicals under Chapters 29 and 38 of ITC (HS), 2022, requiring CIB&RC permits and registration.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund of CVD paid on account of EDI system glitch needs to be examined in terms of the Act and relevant judgements passed in this regard. Accordingly, matter remanded back to Original Authority for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since over 70% of the consideration was paid in 2012 against an allotment letter, the transfer was deemed complete in the earlier year under the Income Tax Act, despite the 2016 registration date. This precedent ensures that the stamp duty value difference provision cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions substantially completed before the law changed.
ICAI allows a last chance to submit MEF 2025–26 on 16th and 17th October 2025 through meficai.org for members who missed earlier deadlines.
The Tribunal deleted the entire tax addition, relying on a binding coordinate bench decision that accepted the LTCG on the same scrip (Tuni Textile) under identical facts. This ruling emphasizes judicial discipline and holds that the Revenue cannot ignore established jurisdictional precedents and High Court rulings allowing LTCG when the transaction is supported by concrete, demat-based evidence.
ROC Cuttack imposes a 2,00,000 penalty on DP Financial Corporation of India Limited and its director for failing to maintain a registered office under the Companies Act, 2013.
Jharkhand High Court in Maa Kalyani Electrical Vs Union of India set aside an appellate order that rejected an appeal on ‘functus officio’ grounds. The court held that since the original dismissal was only for failure to make a mandatory pre-deposit, not on merits, the authority wasn’t functus officio after the deposit was subsequently made.
The ITAT allowed the LTCG exemption, confirming that the department cannot ignore binding jurisdictional High Court judgments and its own precedent on the exact same scrip and issue. The ruling firmly establishes that if all compliance conditions are met, the Revenue cannot reject a capital gain claim based on general allegations of price manipulation without independent, concrete evidence against the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) order under Section 263. The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary powers simply because they desire a deeper investigation, establishing that inadequate enquiry is not equivalent to no enquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that a Mauritian shipping companys freight income could not be taxed in India under Article 7 (Business Profits) of the DTAA. The decision was based on the finding that its Indian agent was commercially independent and did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE).
