This guide explains how technical and procedural FCRA violations can be settled through compounding before prosecution is initiated. It outlines eligibility conditions, penalties, and compliance requirements for organizations seeking relief.
The guide explains that rental income derived from a property created using foreign contribution is itself foreign contribution and must be deposited only in an FCRA account. It discusses compounding options, penalties, and corrective measures available under FCRA.
The guide explains why NGOs, trusts, and Section 8 companies must obtain FCRA approval before accepting foreign contributions. It also details eligibility conditions, registration procedures, and ongoing compliance requirements.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer ignored the statutory threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. The ruling emphasizes that reassessment notices issued contrary to limitation provisions are void in law.
he analysis clarifies that accumulated losses do not prevent a company from issuing bonus shares from its Securities Premium Account. Eligibility depends on compliance with Section 63 conditions and absence of financial or statutory defaults.
GSTAT has extended relaxed scrutiny guidelines for portal-based appeals until 31 December 2026. The key takeaway is that this relief addresses procedural defects only and does not extend the statutory appeal filing deadline.
The Madras High Court held that a taxpayer assessed under Section 62 for non-filing of GST returns can still obtain reassessment by subsequently filing the pending returns. The key takeaway is that GST law provides a statutory opportunity to regularize compliance even after a best judgment assessment.
The new Income-tax Act, 2025 replaces the old survey framework with a streamlined regime under Section 253. It expands digital record access while introducing approval requirements, retention limits, and taxpayer safeguards.
NCLAT held that dismissal for want of prosecution was unjustified where multiple adjournments were caused by the Tribunal due to paucity of time and technical issues. The ruling emphasizes that litigants should not be penalized when delays are not entirely attributable to them.
The Delhi High Court held that exoneration under Section 73 does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 74 because both provisions operate in distinct legal spheres. Taxpayers must challenge factual findings through statutory appeals rather than writ petitions.
