Draft Income-tax Rules 2026 introduce Rule 234 and Rule 235 requiring non-resident liaison offices to file annual statements and Indian concerns to report indirect foreign share transfers.
The High Court held that once concessional late fee under Section 47 is paid for delayed GSTR-9 filing, a separate general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed. The additional penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that an assessment under Section 143(3) is void ab initio when the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) is issued by a non-jurisdictional officer. The absence of a valid jurisdictional notice vitiated the entire proceedings.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a tax deposit made under protest cannot be treated as voluntary payment to conclude proceedings. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The High Court refused regular bail citing serious allegations of breach of trust and forgery involving substantial GST refund transactions. The petitioner’s prior absconding and risk of re-absconding were key reasons for denial.
The High Court granted regular bail in a ₹26.19 crore fake ITC case, noting prolonged custody, documentary evidence, and that the offence is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum five-year sentence.
The High Court set aside the rejection of an appeal filed with a 214-day delay, holding that the petitioner’s explanation regarding the accountant’s failure was genuine. The delay was condoned subject to payment of an additional 10% of the disputed tax as pre-deposit.
The High Court set aside an order denying additional interest under Section 244(1A), holding that it was based on a Bombay High Court judgment later reversed by the Supreme Court. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Madras High Court held that when no response is received on portal notices, officers must explore alternative service modes under Section 169. The ex parte order was quashed and remanded for fresh hearing.
The Supreme Court held that even if a High Court order merges with an appellate order, its contempt jurisdiction survives. Where no fresh directions are issued by the Supreme Court, enforcement can proceed before the High Court.
