The Bombay High Court set aside a consolidated GST show cause notice covering five financial years, holding that Section 74 mandates year-wise assessment and limitation. The ruling clarifies that tax demands must strictly follow the statutory financial year structure.
Explains how Draft Form 26 fundamentally reshapes tax audit reporting by expanding it beyond book-to-tax reconciliation. The key takeaway is that tax audits will now function as a full-spectrum compliance and risk-validation tool.
The proposed GST amendments simplify post-sale discount rules, expand refund benefits, and correct place-of-supply provisions. The changes aim to reduce litigation, improve cash flow, and align GST with global practices.
The pact expands goods and services trade across a US$24 trillion market. It is expected to accelerate exports, support jobs, and attract fresh investment.
The Supreme Court has taken up the controversy over delayed employees’ PF/ESI deposits, while the High Court upheld disallowance except where delay was due to a national holiday.
The Court held that booking speakers for an event does not amount to event management. Participation or facilitation alone cannot attract service tax under the event management category.
The Supreme Court held that gains arising from the sale of shares of a foreign company deriving substantial value from Indian assets are taxable in India. The ruling confirms that indirect transfer provisions override treaty claims when Indian assets are the real source of value.
The Tribunal held that merely treating a claimed business loss as a speculative loss amounts to a change in head of loss, not under-reporting of income. Penalty under Section 270A was deleted as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 271A cannot be levied merely because books were rejected and income was estimated. Since audited books were available, there was no failure to maintain accounts.
The Tribunal ruled that interest cannot be claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) when business use of the property is not proved, reinforcing the “put to use” requirement.
