Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
The Madras High Court ruled that GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied solely based on the retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s registration, underscoring due process in tax claims.
Sellers on platforms like Amazon and Flipkart are cautioned to navigate specific GST traps that could adversely affect profitability, significantly impacting compliance and operations.
The Orissa High Court modified an earlier order to prevent the state from imposing excise duty on liquor MGQ more than once. This ruling clarifies the principle against double taxation in the state’s excise framework.
The Madras High Court ruled that a one-year practice is required for registration as an Income Tax Practitioner. This decision clarifies the regulatory framework governing the eligibility of representatives in tax matters.
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the ITAT's finding on limitation. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines in income tax reassessment.
The Reserve Bank of India has introduced a quarterly calendar for state government borrowings, promoting transparency and market efficiency. This initiative involves nine states for better structured funding.
Analyzing the implications of the Income Tax Act, 2025, which reinstates capital gains taxation on share buybacks.
The Madras High Court ruled that legal heirs of a deceased taxpayer can be held liable for tax dues under Sections 73, 74, and 74A. The court emphasized that tax liability can be determined posthumously, encompassing the entire adjudicatory process.
The Karnataka High Court affirmed the mandatory seven-day compliance period for income tax notices under Section 148A(b), ruling that shorter timeframes are inherently illegal.
The Bombay High Court has declared a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act invalid due to delays in passing an order giving effect to the assessment, thus abating the tax demand.
The CESTAT ruled that ownership of seized gold is established through GST documents, disallowing confiscation. Burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act was deemed fulfilled by the importer, making confiscation unsustainable.
The Gauhati High Court ruled that mechanical attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 of the GST Act without prior formation of opinion by the authorities is unsustainable. The court ordered the de-freezing of the affected bank account.