The report highlights major investigations by CBI, ED, DRI, SFIO, and NIA into NEET paper leaks, bank frauds, betting apps, and terror financing. It shows how Indian agencies are expanding enforcement against organized financial and economic crimes.
The Supreme Court restored execution proceedings after finding that the decree already contained directions for sale of the property if partition by metes and bounds was impossible. The Court ruled that further final decree proceedings were unnecessary in the facts of the case.
Delhi ITAT ruled that only unique solar days of employee presence, and not cumulative man-days, should be considered for determining Service PE under the India-US DTAA. Since the assessee’s employees stayed only 72 unique days in India, no PE existed and Section 44BB taxation was deleted.
The Gujarat High Court held that authorities cannot pass adverse GST orders without complying with the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 75(4). The Court ruled that even if the assessee opts against personal hearing, principles of natural justice must still be followed.
The Karnataka High Court held that adjudication by the same officer who conducted the GST audit raises serious concerns of bias and violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded after directing that jurisdictional objections be decided before proceeding on merits.
The Telangana High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after implementation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme were without jurisdiction. It quashed notices issued under Sections 148A and 148 along with consequential orders.
The Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to seek revocation of GST registration cancellation after returns were not filed due to closure of business. The Court granted liberty to file a fresh application as the petitioner intended to restart operations.
The Telangana High Court directed GST authorities to decide pending cancellation proceedings within two weeks after noting that the taxpayer’s business operations had come to a standstill.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its managing director for failure to file financial statements under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The order highlights that prolonged filing defaults can attract maximum statutory penalties.
The ROC imposed the maximum statutory penalty on a Nidhi company for non-filing of financial statements under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Managing Director was also penalized separately for continuing default.
