The Income-tax Act, 2025 has officially replaced the Income-tax Act, 1961 from 1st April 2026. The new law focuses on simplified language, reduced litigation, and easier tax compliance without introducing new taxes.
The update highlights the Supreme Court’s split verdict on Section 17A of the PC Act concerning prior approval for investigation of public servants. The issue has now been referred to a larger Bench for final adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that capital gains on Transferable Development Rights must be computed after deducting the purchase cost of TDR from the sale consideration. The case was remanded because the assessee failed to submit documents before the AO earlier.
The Court directed release of the refund amount deposited before it after finding that no interim order from the Appellate Tribunal restrained refund disbursal. The release was made subject to future appellate orders.
The article explains how critical illness insurance provides a fixed payout for listed illnesses while standard health plans mainly cover eligible treatment expenses. It highlights how combining both covers may help families manage recovery costs, income gaps, and household expenses.
The article explains how constitutional safeguards prevent illegal, discriminatory, and oppressive taxation by authorities. It highlights the role of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 in protecting businesses against misuse of taxing powers.
The article explains that companies need a balanced mix of Executive, Non-Executive, and Independent Directors for effective governance and better decision-making. It highlights how proper Board composition supports long-term business success.
Mumbai ITAT held that genuine outstanding trade liabilities arising from accepted business transactions cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal ruled that once purchases and expenses are accepted, corresponding creditor balances cannot be taxed separately.
CESTAT Delhi set aside the refund rejection order after finding that issues relating to double payment of service tax and CENVAT credit eligibility required proper examination. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with an opportunity to produce supporting evidence.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST refund rejection order after finding that the adjudicating authority failed to provide proper reasons or consider the taxpayer’s submissions. The Court held that refund claims cannot be rejected through non-speaking orders passed without application of mind.
