The Court ruled that when an assessee certifies stock statements given to a bank as accurate and consistent with books, discrepancies can justify tax additions. The explanation that the figures were inflated merely to obtain higher credit was rejected.
The ITAT Gauhati ruled that relief under Section 89(1) cannot be denied solely because Form 10E was not filed before the due date. The Tribunal held that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive tax relief where eligibility is otherwise established.
The High Court refused bail after noting electronic evidence and communication with suspected foreign agents, holding that the seriousness of espionage allegations warranted continued custody.
The MCA has introduced CCFS-2026 allowing companies to clear pending filings by paying only 10% of additional fees. The scheme offers a limited window to regularize compliance without heavy penalties.
The High Court set aside an assessment order issued against a deceased taxpayer. It held that once the department knows of the death, proceedings must continue only against the legal heirs.
I4C warns that ransomware groups are targeting NAS devices used by CA and consulting firms by exploiting weak credentials, unpatched vulnerabilities, and exposed internet interfaces. The advisory urges firms to strengthen NAS security, enable MFA, and maintain offline backups.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea to prohibit Kambala in areas like Bengaluru, noting that the Supreme Court has already upheld the legality of state amendments allowing such traditional sports.
Supreme Court held that dismissal of public servant [police officer] on the basis of presumption without department inquiry under Article 311(2) proviso (b) of the Constitution of India is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, order of dismissal is liable to be quashed.
Supreme Court held that the privy purses and other privileges granted to the erstwhile rulers of the Princely States were the direct outcome of political and contractual arrangements.
Supreme Court held that mere determination of the status of a candidate as to whether he/she falls within the creamy layer or the non-creamy layer of the OBCs cannot be decided solely on the basis of the income of their parents.
