The CCPA imposed penalties on coaching institutes after finding that advertisements highlighted successful candidates while hiding the actual courses undertaken by them. The Authority held that such concealment amounted to misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The FAQs explain how the 60 Tax Audit assignment ceiling will operate through the UDIN system from 1 April 2026. ICAI clarified which audit forms will count toward the limit and how assignments across firms, branches, and revised reports will be treated.
The Tribunal ruled that the limitation period for appeal commenced only when the assessee first received the ITBA screenshot revealing the basis of the outstanding demand.
The Madras High Court held that common packaging elements, graphics, and colour schemes do not automatically create a “brand name” under GST law. The ruling clarifies that exemption cannot be denied merely due to visual similarity where enforceable brand rights are relinquished.
The Bombay High Court held that importers under CIF contracts cannot be taxed under reverse charge for ocean freight since they are not recipients of the transportation service. The Court quashed the show cause notice and ruled the levy beyond statutory charging provisions.
The Tribunal ruled that a genuine share transaction resulting in a short-term loss cannot automatically be treated as a make-believe or accommodation entry transaction. The assessee’s regular trading history supported the genuineness of the transactions.
Escalating geopolitical tensions around the Strait of Hormuz triggered sharp increases in crude oil prices and heightened fears of global supply disruptions. The analysis highlights India’s growing import vulnerability and the broader impact on financial markets.
Courts held that GST offences covered under the CGST Act must follow the special procedure prescribed under the statute. Authorities cannot invoke IPC provisions to avoid mandatory safeguards like prior sanction for prosecution.
ITAT Mumbai deleted additions exceeding ₹10.57 crore made under section 56(2)(vii)(c) after finding that the Assessing Officer wrongly adopted an amended valuation approach retrospectively. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s deletion in entirety.
The High Court quashed the GST cancellation proceedings after finding that the show cause notice did not specify the alleged contraventions or shortcomings. The Court held that absence of material particulars violated the prescribed procedure under GST law.
