Stamp duty on indemnity bonds is not uniform across India because each state follows its own stamp legislation and amendments. The article explains state-wise rates, recent revisions, and compliance requirements.
The analysis highlights Delhi’s 2025 circular requiring 0.1% stamp duty on both physical and demat share issuances. Companies registered in Delhi must reassess compliance obligations and stamping procedures.
A comprehensive guide to LLP Agreement stamp duty across all Indian states and UTs. Learn applicable rates, filing requirements, penalties, and key compliance considerations.
The Delhi Government Circular dated 29 July 2025 clarifies that stamp duty on the issuance of shares by companies having registered offices in Delhi, whether in physical or demat form, is payable at 0.1% under Article 19 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and not at 0.005% under the Finance Act, 2019 […]
The article explains how transferring foreign contribution to a non-FCRA trust after the 2020 amendment violates Section 7 of FCRA. It highlights the availability of compounding under Section 41 and the applicable penalty structure.
The ROC held that shares issued at a price lower than the registered valuer’s determined value violated Section 62(1)(c). Even a shortfall of ₹0.59 per share attracted penalties under the Companies Act.
SEBIs investigation found that a substantial portion of reported consolidated revenues was unsupported by verifiable subsidiary records. The interim order records a prima facie finding that the absence of underlying financial data and documentation raised concerns about the accuracy of disclosures.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has proposed a priority disposal mechanism for appeals filed up to and including 2022 in response to the increasing backlog of tax litigation. The initiative focuses on faster hearings, reduced delays, and coordinated efforts by all stakeholders to ensure expeditious resolution of long-pending appeals.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging a GST show cause notice and adjudication order, holding that the petitioner had an effective appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Court held that an Assessing Officer’s quasi-judicial decision cannot attract disciplinary action merely because another view was possible. Absence of mala fides or lack of integrity defeated the misconduct charge.
