ITAT Bangalore ruled that rejection of an 80G registration application merely for quoting the wrong section code violated principles of natural justice. The authority was directed to consider the corrected application on merits.
The article explains when ITC must be reversed under GST law and highlights the interest and penalty consequences of failing to comply with reversal provisions.
This article explains the meaning, purpose, and essential clauses of a development agreement. It highlights how development rights, timelines, consideration, and obligations are structured to protect both landowners and developers.
The Supreme Court held that heirs inheriting property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act take definite shares as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. A widow holding only a 1/5th share could not act as karta to sell the entire property on grounds of legal necessity.
The Income Tax Act, 2025 reintroduces a dedicated block assessment mechanism for search cases. The framework simplifies post-search assessments by focusing on undisclosed income detected during the search.
The Supreme Court held that online gaming, fantasy sports, and similar activities involving monetary stakes on uncertain outcomes fall within betting and gambling for GST purposes. It upheld the GST framework and taxation of actionable claims arising from such transactions.
Standard pack sizes have been recommended for commonly used edible oils to reduce market inconsistencies and assist consumers in comparing prices effectively. Minor edible oils remain exempt from this requirement.
Tribunal could not recall and restore an appeal dismissed ex parte under Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, when assessee filed miscellaneous applications after a lapse of 14 years without establishing sufficient cause for non-appearance, and where service of the original order was presumed under section 27 of the General Clauses Act as the term “afterwards” used in Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules provided procedural flexibility but did not grant an indefinite timeline.
IBBI imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty after finding that an insolvency professional accepted and continued an assignment despite suspension of his Authorisation for Assignment. The ruling underscores that valid AFA is mandatory for undertaking insolvency assignments.
Show cause notice dated 06-12-2012 issued by the Additional Director General, DRI, was quashed for lack of jurisdiction in view of the law laid down in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs.
