Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
The CESTAT Delhi has ruled that quicklime containing less than 98% CaO should not be classified under Chapter 28.25, affirming its status under Chapter 25.
CESTAT has quashed the confiscation of duty-free gold, stating that a procedural lapse regarding manufacturer listing was curable. This decision impacts the handling of advance authorizations in customs.
The High Court has remanded GST proceedings after it found the petitioner did not have a fair opportunity to respond to the show cause notice due to its improper upload.
The Kolkata ITAT has deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) following the deletion of all quantum additions for the assessment year 2016-17 in the quantum appeal. This ruling emphasizes the relationship between penalties and the underlying assessments.
RBI clarifies FLA Return applicability and the filing process via FLAIR, with a late fee of ₹7,500. The due date for filing is set for July 31, 2026.
A new advisory outlines how to differentiate between genuine and fraudulent income tax notices. Taxpayers are encouraged to verify notice authenticity to avoid scams.
The Ministry of Finance has revised duty drawback rates, increasing refunds significantly for specific jewellery tariff items. This adjustment aims to support the jewellery export sector amidst changing economic conditions.
Two judges of the Delhi High Court disclosed their personal tax filing statuses ahead of a significant plea regarding the taxation of judges' allowances, indicating the potential personal implications of the case.
The ITAT clarified that disallowance of expenses under Section 37(1) is unsupported without specific adverse findings.
This article addresses common client inquiries during the ITR deadline week, providing practical insights for tax professionals.
This article highlights common discrepancies leading to income tax notices post ITR filing. It serves as a practical guide for tax practitioners and Chartered Accountants to ensure compliance and avoid scrutiny.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that minor typographical errors in manually entered DINs do not invalidate income tax orders. This ruling clarifies compliance requirements in tax proceedings.