The Court held that mere recommendation for promotion does not create an accrued right when no D.P.C. or select list was prepared. Since the cadre was abolished before completion of the process, appointments under repealed rules were impermissible.
The Court quashed a composite assessment order, holding that Sections 73 and 74 require separate show cause notices for each financial year due to distinct limitation periods.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the Section 68 addition on LTCG from listed shares, holding that documentary evidence, STT payment, and banking trail were not disproved by the Revenue.
SEBI has superseded Clause 2.6 of the Master Circular, introducing revised scheme categories, overlap limits, and standardized naming norms. Mutual funds must realign portfolios and disclose category-wise overlaps monthly to enhance transparency.
Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO timelines. The changes directly impact ongoing appeals, rectification, revision, and reassessment proceedings, altering litigation strategy for taxpayers and authorities alike.
Tripura HC held ITC cannot be denied under Section 16(2)(c) if buyer is bona fide and no fraud is alleged under Section 73 proceedings. Court ruled GST ITC cannot be denied to genuine purchasers merely due to supplier’s tax default absent fraud or collusion.
Observing that the charge-sheet had been filed and the maximum punishment under Section 132 was five years, the Court granted bail. It relied on Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that prolonged incarceration and documentary evidence weigh in favour of release.
The article explains how high compliance expenses function as an indirect tax on small taxpayers. It highlights that uniform procedural requirements create regressive effects despite progressive statutory tax rates.
Explains how Place of Supply rules decide whether CGST/SGST or IGST applies and which State receives revenue. Highlights its central role in destination-based taxation.
The Calcutta High Court held that amounts already deposited with CGST authorities, not linked to any outstanding liability, must be treated as compliance with statutory pre-deposit. The appellate dismissal for non-compliance was set aside and the matter remitted for decision on merits.
