This article explains why FEMA does not explicitly prohibit round-tripping transactions and how regulators instead control them through overseas investment and FDI rules. It highlights the importance of commercial substance and regulatory compliance.
DGFT has expanded the exemption from Quality Control Orders for imports by SEZ Units and Developers. The amendment aligns the Foreign Trade Policy with the SEZ Act and clarifies compliance obligations for DTA clearances.
DGFT has introduced six new Standard Input Output Norms under the Chemical and Allied Product Group. The notification allows Regional Authorities to grant Advance Authorisations directly, reducing delays and eliminating case-by-case referrals.
The Central Government has specified infrastructure sub-sectors from the Updated Harmonised Master List as eligible businesses under Schedule V of the Income-tax Act, 2025. The notification expands the scope of recognized infrastructure activities for tax purposes.
The article argues that recurring policy interventions have failed to resolve deep-rooted economic problems. It suggests that prolonged neglect of structural issues could push the global economy from recession into stagflation.
The Supreme Court held that adjudicatory proceedings cannot survive when authorities rely on undisclosed material or deny meaningful hearing. The ruling reinforces that procedural fairness is a constitutional requirement, not a mere formality.
The Delhi High Court held that personal-use disallowance principles applicable to individuals cannot automatically apply to companies. The Tribunal’s order sustaining disallowance of one-sixth of car and telephone expenses was set aside.
The case involved simultaneous proceedings by Central and State GST authorities concerning the same tax period and subject matter. The High Court directed both authorities to coordinate and ensure that only one authority continues adjudication in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Allahabad High Court held that the impugned notice merely proposed a cess demand and did not contain a final determination. The petitioner was directed to pursue statutory remedies by filing objections before the authority.
The Court held that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(5) prevails over Section 16(4). Since the returns were filed before the prescribed cut-off date, the ITC denial was set aside.
