The Telangana High Court refused anticipatory bail after noting that the accused had left India, a non-bailable warrant had been issued, and a Red Corner Notice was in force. The Court held that such circumstances weighed against granting pre-arrest protection.
The authority addressed whether insecticide ingredients imported in bulk could be treated as preparations. The decision emphasized classification based on product presentation and chemical identity.
Rajasthan AAR ruled that compostable carry bags made from polymer materials fall under HSN 39232990. The 5% GST rate applies only if the bags qualify as biodegradable under Notification No. 9/2025.
The Rajasthan AAR held that rubber rings used in sprinkler or drip irrigation systems qualify for concessional GST under HSN 8424 only if they are made of hard rubber and used solely for irrigation.
GSTAT accepted the DGAP investigation finding that the developer retained additional ITC benefit after GST introduction. The amount must be passed on to buyers with interest.
The Court emphasized that revisionary powers under Section 264 are broad and intended to correct mistakes causing injustice to taxpayers. Authorities must examine the claim on merits rather than dismiss it on technical grounds.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation extensions apply only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and not to statutory deadlines like filing TDS statements. Consequently, the levy of late filing fee under section 234E was upheld for delayed TDS returns.
Gujarat High Court quashed reassessment proceedings after finding that deduction claim under section 35(2AB) had already been examined during original scrutiny assessment. Reopening based on same material was held to be a change of opinion and therefore invalid.
The ITAT Chennai held that an application filed after the extended deadline should be examined under the amended Section 80G provisions introduced by the Finance Act 2024. The Tribunal directed the authority to reconsider the application under the new clause allowing filing after commencement of activities.
The Court expressed concern over unclear railway fund allocation and emphasized that spending must prioritize public safety and welfare. Railways were directed to submit a detailed affidavit explaining funding priorities.
