The amended rules replace annual KYC with a three-year filing cycle for directors holding DINs. The key takeaway is reduced compliance frequency alongside stricter reporting of personal detail changes.
The event addressed the formal entry of newly qualified CAs into the profession. It highlighted the emphasis on ethics, governance, and professional responsibility.
Madras High Court held that compounding charges payable by petitioner as per revised Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 is unsustainable since on the date of writ order i.e. 13.04.2022, the revised guidelines was not in force. Accordingly, writ petition deserved to be allowed.
The reassessment is challenged as being founded solely on an unauthenticated photocopy with no corroboration. Such material fails the “reason to believe” test and vitiates jurisdiction.
The writ was filed long after appellate orders were passed and without approaching ITAT. The Court held that delay and failure to exhaust statutory remedies disentitled the assessee from writ relief.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that DGFT notification no. 26/2015-20 dated 21.08.2018 restricts export of Garnet irrespective of its origin. Customs tariff doesn’t distinguish between ‘Garnet found on beach’ and ‘Garnet found in inland places’. Accordingly, confiscation of export goods uphold and penalty imposed.
Long-term bike insurance allows riders to fix premiums for 2–5 years, avoiding annual IRDAI-regulated hikes. The key takeaway is stable pricing with uninterrupted protection and long-term savings.
The dispute concerned denial of TDS credit solely due to non-reflection in Form 26AS. The Tribunal held that Form 26AS is not conclusive and factual deduction of tax overrides system mismatch.
Despite Form 10E being duly filed online, the claim under section 89(1) was rejected on technical grounds. The Tribunal held that such rigidity defeats justice and directed the AO to examine the claim afresh.
The Revenue relied on alleged ₹4 crore unexplained investment to justify reopening beyond six years. The Tribunal ruled that even high-value allegations cannot override statutory limitation under section 153C.
