The Tribunal set aside the appellate order as the assessee sought another chance to prove the genuineness of expenses. It directed fresh assessment after proper opportunity of hearing.
The Authority examined whether importers can claim duty exemption without linking input specifications to export goods. It ruled that such correlation is not required for non-sensitive inputs, but exemption is conditional upon strict compliance with DFIA licence terms, including value caps and usage restrictions.
The authority refused to entertain the application as the classification of provisionally preserved areca nuts was already decided by the High Court. It held that settled judicial precedent bars fresh rulings on identical issues.
Allegations of an implied anti-competitive agreement between a regulator and a software provider were rejected. The Commission found no material indicating collusion or exclusion of competitors.
Authorities arrested the key accused for orchestrating fake ITC claims and fictitious export transactions. The case highlights strict enforcement against large-scale GST refund fraud using shell entities.
The issue highlights a new agreement between financial regulators of both countries. The key takeaway is that the MoU promotes collaboration, transparency, and stronger financial ecosystems.
Explains the legal framework of dormant companies under Section 455, including eligibility, process, and reduced compliance benefits. Highlights how businesses can retain corporate identity without full operational obligations.
Explains mandatory quarterly disclosures under SEBI LODR, including financial results, governance reports, and shareholding patterns. Highlights how timely compliance ensures transparency and investor protection.
The paper examines whether recent labour law reforms deliver real gender equality or merely formal compliance. It concludes that despite progressive provisions, enforcement gaps and exclusions limit actual impact.
ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid. The burden of proof lies on the department.
