Schedule III of the Companies Act requires companies to present detailed disclosures in the Statement of Profit and Loss. The rules ensure transparent reporting of income, expenses, and financial performance.
Courts are increasingly examining whether uploading notices on the GST portal truly amounts to effective communication with taxpayers. The key takeaway is that legal service may require more than merely placing documents online.
ITAT Pune held that creation of artificial intangible asset i.e. goodwill in intra-group merger is merely a colourable transaction out between the Holding Company and the subsidiary company. Accordingly, depreciation claimed thereon deserves to be disallowed.
Draft Rules 276 and 277 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026 introduce electronic reporting requirements for eligible investment funds and clarify the method for calculating taxable interest on provident fund contributions exceeding specified limits.
The High Court set aside a GST demand order after observing that the adjudicating authority did not examine the taxpayer’s detailed reply and issued only generic conclusions. The ruling emphasized that adjudicating authorities must discuss submissions and provide clear reasons before confirming tax and penalty demands.
The Court revoked cancellation of GST registration after accepting that the taxpayer’s failure to file returns for six months was due to mental stress and physical illness.
Draft Rule 275 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026 provides a process for investment funds to obtain optional CBDT approval confirming eligibility for tax benefits under section 9(12).
The High Court held that general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed when late fee is already levied under GST law. The court therefore removed the penalty while confirming the late fee liability.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings must follow proper procedure when the assessee is deceased. The tax authority must issue notice to the legal representative before initiating proceedings.
The Tribunal held that failure to consider additional evidence submitted during appellate proceedings violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication.
