Bangalore ITAT held that interest paid on a housing loan can be treated as part of the cost of acquisition where no deduction was claimed under house property income. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow indexed benefit on such interest expenditure.
Mumbai ITAT held that once receipts reflected in Form 26AS are assessed as taxable income, corresponding TDS credit cannot be denied on technical grounds. The AO was directed to verify records and grant due credit.
Indian Overseas Bank invites applications from eligible CA firms for concurrent audit empanelment for 2026-27. Apply online by June 10, 2026.
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.
