Explains salary taxation under Income-tax Act 2025 from April 2026, covering sections, perquisites, deductions, TDS changes and new forms.
Retrospective amendments in tax law raises concerns about fairness and legal certainty. This blog evaluates the controversy surrounding Section 144C by raising a broader question: does this amendment simply aims to resolve conflicting judicial interpretations, or does it under a guise retrospectively expand the powers of tax authorities in a manner inconsistent with established principles of certainty in taxation?
Foreign liaison offices face RD-1 filing issues as MCA treats FC-4 acceptance as sufficient for calendar year adoption, creating compliance uncertainty.
The court set aside GST orders after finding both original and appellate proceedings were effectively ex-parte. It held that the taxpayer must be given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice before adjudication.
The Tribunal addressed denial of leave encashment exemption restricted to ₹3 lakh. It held that the revised CBDT limit of ₹25 lakh applies, allowing full exemption within the threshold.
The tribunal upheld rejection of a resolution applicant’s EOI for not meeting the minimum net worth requirement set by the CoC. It ruled that MSME status does not exempt compliance with eligibility criteria fixed under IBC.
The Court held that payments cannot be denied credit merely because they were recorded under different accounting heads. It ruled that substantive relief under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme must prevail over technical classifications.
The Court directed the jurisdictional authority to consider the delay condonation request after PAN transfer. It held that the application must be decided in accordance with law.
The case addresses whether discrepancies between ITR/Form 26AS and ST-3 returns can justify a Service Tax demand. The Tribunal held that without independent verification, such demands are unsustainable and must be set aside.
The case examined whether disallowance under section 94(7) should be limited to exempt dividend. The Tribunal held that the provision applies to the full dividend received, rejecting the assessee’s claim.
