The Income Tax Department has enabled ITR-1 and ITR-4 filing utilities for AY 2026-27. Taxpayers are advised to verify AIS, TDS, and Form 26AS details before filing returns.
The Kerala AAR held that advance ruling applications cannot be based on hypothetical scenarios or academic questions. The Authority rejected the application because it did not relate to any actual or proposed supply undertaken by the applicant.
The Kerala AAR held that medicines, consumables, room rent, and ancillary services provided during inpatient treatment form part of a composite healthcare supply. Such inpatient healthcare services qualify for GST exemption under Notification No. 12/2017.
Kerala AAR held that used gunny bags sold after cattle feed manufacturing are reusable packing bags under HSN 6305 and not scrap. The ruling clarified that GST would apply at 5% if the sale value does not exceed Rs. 2500 per piece.
The Kerala AAR rejected an advance ruling application after noting that the issue of GST applicability on member transactions had already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings. The Authority held the application was barred under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.
The Authority ruled that the President and Members of the statutory temple board are not “directors” under GST notifications. Accordingly, reverse charge GST was held inapplicable on honorarium and sitting fees.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that mandarin juice concentrate falls under “juice of any other single citrus fruit” and not orange juice because the Customs Tariff separately classifies oranges and mandarins. The Tribunal upheld duty demand for the normal period but quashed penalties and extended limitation.
The Gujarat High Court held that a GST cancellation notice lacking material particulars cannot sustain cancellation proceedings. The Court restored the registration after finding both the notice and cancellation order vague and non-speaking.
The ITAT Bangalore held that gains arising from buyback of shares are taxable under Section 46A because the conditions prescribed under Section 47(iv) were not satisfied. The Tribunal found that the parent company did not hold the entire share capital through itself or nominees.
The CESTAT Delhi held that transfer of land development rights amounts to transfer of immovable property and not a taxable service. The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand, holding that such transactions fall outside Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act.
