During the week of 8–14 December 2025, multiple regulatory authorities issued significant rulings, amendments, and clarifications across GST, customs, foreign trade, securities, insolvency, banking, and allied laws, though no updates emerged under income tax or MCA. GST developments were dominated by High Court and AAR rulings clarifying time limits on provisional attachment, tax rates, input […]
he assessee had already offered the same project income to tax in later years. The Tribunal held that taxing it again earlier would amount to double taxation. Key takeaway: timing disputes cannot justify taxing the same income twice.
The Supreme Court held that non-compete payments facilitating efficient business operations are deductible under section 37(1) when no capital asset or profit-making structure is created.
Swaroop Kudalkar Vs Assessment Unit (ITAT Pune) Ex-parte Assessment & NFAC Dismissal Set Aside in Legal Heir Case; Matter Remanded for Fresh Adjudication – ITAT Pune The Pune Bench of the ITAT, in Swaroop Kudalkar (Legal Heir of Late Roshan Kudalkar) vs. Assessment Unit (ITA No.2132/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21, order dated 18-12-2025), set aside the ex-parte […]
The Revenue argued for exclusion of the 148A show-cause period to justify approval. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the exclusion proviso applies only prospectively from Finance Act 2023.
The issue was unexplained partner capital contribution. The ITAT held that clear proof of funding by the NRI husband with sufficient creditworthiness bars addition under section 69A.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative housing society from deposits with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction, as the bank continues to be a co-operative society.
The court set aside a rectification order passed without a DIN and beyond the statutory time limit. The ruling underscores that non-compliance with CBDT DIN rules renders such orders invalid.
The Court quashed a stay rejection that contained no reasoning or findings. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with directions to pass a speaking order.
The ruling clarifies that rectification powers are confined to patent errors and cannot be invoked to revisit decisions based on later changes in law.
