The regulator held that agreements lacking clear fee provisions undermined contractual clarity and regulatory compliance. A penalty of ₹1 crore was imposed for violations of MISP guidelines.
MCA amends Schedule VII of the Companies Act to include subscription to zero coupon zero principal instruments on Social Stock Exchange under CSR.
MCA has amended the CSR Rules to recognize zero coupon zero principal instruments issued by Social Stock Exchange-listed NPOs. The amendment creates a new channel for CSR implementation while prescribing safeguards for fund utilization.
The Bombay High Court held that recovery of tax demands could not continue when the department failed to produce the assessment, rectification, or intimation orders creating such demands. The Court quashed the recovery notice and directed withdrawal of the demands.
Chennai ITAT held that the enhanced leave encashment exemption limit of Rs.25 lakh under CBDT Notification No.31/2023 applies retrospectively to pending matters. The Tribunal ruled that the amendment was remedial and intended to remove hardship for non-government employees.
Tribunal ruled that market value for captive power consumption must be based on the tariff charged to industrial consumers by TNEB while computing deduction under Section 80IA.
The Calcutta High Court held that goods detained during transit must be released once the consignor complies with the penalty requirement under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. The Court ruled that disputed ownership alone cannot justify continued detention without supporting material.
The Madras High Court held that a GST assessment order issued after the death of the proprietor was a nullity. The department was permitted to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal heirs in accordance with law.
The Madras High Court set aside GST orders reversing ITC claims after noting the retrospective amendment extending the deadline for availing credit up to 30.11.2021. The Court held that claims falling within the amended timeline could not be denied on limitation grounds.
Delhi High Court held that even if the father may not qualify as a Class-I heir under succession law, he can still fall within the broader definition of legal representative for tax proceedings.
