A group health insurance coverage provides medical expenses for a group of people, especially employees of an organisation or a co-operative society. This type of policy offers benefits like daycare treatments, covers hospitalisation costs, and AYUSH treatment.
Sections 339 and 340 explain corpus and deemed corpus donations, investment conditions, and rules for religious place renovation funds.
Calcutta High Court held that failure to investigate allocation of common head office expenses to eligible units rendered assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests.
The DGFT has changed the import status of specified silver bars from “Free” to “Restricted” under ITC HS Codes 71069221 and 71069229. Importers must now comply with Policy Condition No. 7 of Chapter 71 under the revised import framework.
Delhi HC held that proviso to Section 45 of PMLA grants discretionary relief to women accused and stringent twin bail conditions would not ordinarily apply unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictitious loan entries but made additions for alleged bogus LTCG from penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that changing the basis of reopening is not permissible in law.
Gauhati High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without assigning reasons in FORM GST REG-19 was illegal and violated statutory requirements. The Court restored the matter and granted the taxpayer fresh opportunity to respond.
CESTAT Delhi remanded the matter after finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the appellant’s affidavit and explanation regarding delayed receipt of the order. The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances required fresh examination.
CESTAT Mumbai upheld demand, interest, and penalty for failure to reverse SAD Cenvat credit on imported inputs transferred between units. The Tribunal held that extended limitation was valid due to suppression in ER-1 returns.
The Madras High Court quashed prosecution under Sections 276CC and 278B after finding that the petitioner had resigned as director before the relevant assessment year. The Court relied on Form No.32 filed with the Registrar of Companies.
