During the week of 8–14 December 2025, multiple regulatory authorities issued significant rulings, amendments, and clarifications across GST, customs, foreign trade, securities, insolvency, banking, and allied laws, though no updates emerged under income tax or MCA. GST developments were dominated by High Court and AAR rulings clarifying time limits on provisional attachment, tax rates, input […]
The Supreme Court ruled that payments made to prevent competition, even if providing enduring business benefits, are allowable revenue expenditures and not capital expenditures.
This article provides a comprehensive practical guide to correctly reporting exempt, nil-rated, and non-taxable supplies in GSTR-9 for FY 2024–25, while highlighting common mistakes taxpayers make. It explains how different types of supplies—B2B, B2C, exports, SEZ transactions, LUT supplies, RCM supplies, credit/debit notes, and amendments—should be classified and reported primarily in Tables 5A to 5F. […]
The issue was whether summons under Section 70 trigger formal GST proceedings. Courts held that summons are part of inquiry only, with proceedings commencing later through statutory notices.
The Tribunal held that restricting TDS credit at the CPC stage is unsustainable when Form 26AS supports the claim. Full credit must be allowed after verification under Section 199 and Rule 37BA, ensuring income–TDS linkage.
The Supreme Court held that directing time-bound investigations should be exceptional and only where undue delay or stagnation is evident, preserving investigative autonomy while protecting Article 21 rights.
The ITAT held that professional lapse by a Chartered Accountant is a sufficient cause, condoning an 85-day delay and restoring the appeal.
Highlights the most common GST triggers for online sellers, including GSTR mismatches, ITC issues, and credit note errors, helping businesses prevent notices and penalties.
The Tribunal held that section 54F does not require submission of a completion certificate. The key takeaway is that actual investment and timely construction, supported by evidence, are decisive.
The case questions how data protection rules can operate when the parent Act is admittedly unenforced. It underscores that subordinate legislation cannot survive without statutory commencement.
