The ITAT addressed whether a ₹ 28.94 Cr penalty was time-barred, focusing on whether the penalty initiation date starts with the AO’s satisfaction or the Addl. CIT’s notice.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of ‘reasons to suspect’ rather than on ‘reason to believe’ is invalid in the eye of law. Held that passive reliance on third-party intelligence would render the reopening invalid as it reflected merely a ‘reason to suspect’.
Calcutta High Court held that writ petition is not entertained due to availability of alternative efficacious remedy under the provisions of Income Tax Act against the final assessment order. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
NCLAT Chennai held that there would be no Security Interest which could be said to have been created in absence of there being any Registered Sale Deed. Thus, by not registering the MoDT, retention of title deeds of property of Corporate Debtor not justifiable.
Delhi High Court held that license fees paid for use of goodwill is allowable as business expenditure. Accordingly, the same is deductible under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
BCAS submits comments on RBI’s draft External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) regulations, seeking clarity on eligibility, KYC norms, borrowing limits, pricing, and reporting requirements.
GST 2.0 is a landmark reform aimed at boosting consumption and economic growth by rationalizing tax rates, making essentials cheaper and luxuries costlier. The reform is expected to have a multiplier effect on manufacturing, services, and employment, establishing a foundation for future tax structure stability
SEBI’s latest amendment includes REIT units in mutual fund investment rules, raises the liquid scheme limit to 97%, and adjusts cross-holding restrictions for Specialized Investment Funds.
SEBI’s new ICDR regulations revise anchor investor norms, setting minimum allotment limits and capping investor numbers. The rules also reserve 40% of the portion for domestic mutual funds, life insurers, and pension funds.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a rectification order under Section 154, holding that a debatable issue regarding provision for construction expenses is not a “mistake apparent from record.” The ruling reinforces that Section 154 cannot be used to make additions that require a long-drawn process of reasoning or legal interpretation.
