CBIC has operationalised capacity-based excise duty on specified tobacco goods from February 2026. The update outlines declarations, monthly filings, inspections, and abatement rules.
The Tribunal ruled that compensation and hardship allowance received during redevelopment are capital receipts and cannot be taxed as income from other sources.
This roundup captures key tax, GST, customs, and financial sector updates released during the week. The key takeaway is improved clarity on exemptions, compliance, and regulatory boundaries.
Tribunal held that unsecured loans cannot be treated as unexplained where confirmations, bank statements, and tax returns establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness through banking channels.
This article clarifies when e-invoicing is mandatory for export supplies under GST. It explains that only taxable exports require e-invoices, regardless of whether an LUT is filed. The key takeaway is that LUT affects tax payment, not e-invoice applicability.
The webinar explains how the first reply and pleadings determine the direction of GSTAT appeals. It highlights drafting as a strategic tool that can influence outcomes through all appellate stages.
CA Lakshman Kumar Kadali CA Akash Heda Introduction: Recently, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27/10/2025 appointing the proper officers under Section 122, 74A, 75(2) of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 142(1A) of CGST Rules, 2017. The circular has expressly stated that no proper officer has […]
The Tribunal held that Section 54B requires purchase by the assessee himself. Investment in agricultural land in the wife’s name does not qualify for deduction.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based only on presumptions and low income of subscribers are invalid. Proper documentary evidence outweighs non-appearance under summons.
The Tribunal held that a Section 54 exemption can be claimed in a reassessment return if it directly relates to escaped income. Delay or non-filing of the original return under Section 139(1) alone cannot defeat a substantive deduction.
