A practical two-day GSTAT workshop equips professionals with drafting, presentation, and procedural skills to excel in GST appellate practice.
Notification 157/2025 sets 1% tolerance for wholesale trading and 3% for all other cases for Arm’s Length Price variation for AY 2025-2026 under the Income-tax Act.
The court directed implementation of an Order-in-Appeal allowing the release of gold upon payment of a reduced redemption fine and penalty of ₹35,000 each.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the addition of ₹1.77 Cr as unexplained cash credit, directing the Assessing Officer to verify evidence, including the assessee’s claim of exempt agricultural income.
Orissa High Court directs GST authority to first assess the maintainability and merits of an application seeking rectification of a show cause notice under Section 161.
The High Court found the accused’s claims of illegal arrest and lack of police procedure compliance to be incorrect and rejected the bail application due to the magnitude of the alleged fraud.
Allahabad High Court set aside the penalty order (GST MOV-09) against M.D. Traders, ruling that the penalty for a missing e-way bill, when a tax invoice is present, must be determined under Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act, not 129(1)(b).
Bombay High Court held that assessee couldn’t be put to considerable disadvantage due to belated advice given by CA. Further, in case delay is not condoned, grave hardship will be suffered as genuine losses will not be permitted to be carried forward. Accordingly, delay in filing return condoned.
ITAT Mumbai held that in absence of any contrary inference by Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] in the TP analysis, ad hoc disallowance cannot be restored towards the international transaction of technical service and other transaction. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Since the Form 10B was filed along with the return of income and within the due date of filing the return of income, the delay in filing the Form 10B could not be a ground for denial of the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12.
ITAT Chennai held that mere CRS data without corroborative evidence cannot justify taxing balances in foreign trusts as undisclosed assets when the assessee has not contributed funds or derived income.
