The Tribunal allowed recovery of ₹10.74 lakh after the borrower defaulted on a car loan and failed to appear in the proceedings. The bank’s documentary evidence remained unrebutted.
The Tribunal removed the transfer pricing addition on delayed receivables from associated enterprises, holding that the company’s profit margins exceeded comparable companies and interest was already embedded in pricing.
Rules 245–246 of the Draft Income-tax Rules, 2026 require the Income-tax Department to upload Annual Information Statements and prescribe procedures for valuer registration to strengthen tax transparency and compliance.
Supreme Court held that even if a raid under the PCPNDT Act was unauthorized by the full District Appropriate Authority, evidence collected during the search may still be admissible. As allegations regarding non-maintenance of mandatory records existed, the complaint proceedings were allowed to continue.
Rule 244 of the Draft Income-tax Rules, 2026 requires crypto-asset service providers to perform detailed due diligence and obtain self-certifications to identify reportable users and ensure accurate tax reporting.
Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking a ban on a film after the filmmaker filed an affidavit withdrawing the disputed title and undertaking to adopt a new title that would not resemble or evoke the earlier one.
Rule 243 of the Draft Income-tax Rules, 2026 mandates detailed reporting of crypto-asset users and transactions by service providers to ensure transparency and tax compliance.
Rule 242 of the Draft Income-tax Rules, 2026 mandates crypto-asset reporting and due diligence for service providers connected to India while allowing exemptions where equivalent compliance is completed in partner jurisdictions.
Rule 241 of the Draft Income-tax Rules, 2026 introduces detailed definitions for crypto-asset transactions, reporting crypto-asset service providers, and reportable users. The rule aims to strengthen AML and KYC compliance while enabling cross-border tax transparency through clear reporting obligations for crypto-asset activities.
The High Court held that a tax notice and assessment issued in the name of a company that had already merged into another entity were invalid. The ruling clarifies that once the tax authority is informed of a merger, proceedings must be issued in the name of the transferee company.
