Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
This article examines whether a tax audit is mandatory under Section 58(3) of the Income-tax Act when profits fall below 6%, emphasizing the need for legislative clarification.
The ITAT has ruled that a Chartered Accountant (CA) acting as a conduit for client tax payments cannot be taxed on funds deposited through their bank account as unexplained income.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that a return filed in response to a Section 148 notice still necessitates a subsequent notice under Section 143(2) before reassessment can occur.
The Calcutta High Court differentiates between tax evasion and extortion claims while granting anticipatory bail to a former MLA. The court evaluated the gravity of the accusations against the accused’s personal circumstances.
The CESTAT ruled that Customs must pay interest on delayed refunds of Extra Duty Deposit, emphasizing that delays attract statutory interest regardless of litigation.
The CESTAT determined penalties on an importer were inappropriate because all relevant documents were submitted, including a certificate from an authorized agency. The Tribunal attributed any assessment failures to customs authorities.
The article provides guidelines for Chartered Accountants (CAs) on essential GST compliance checks necessary before signing audit reports to ensure accurate financial disclosures and mitigate risks.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled that a co-operative society cannot have its deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) denied due to clerical mistakes on tax returns. It emphasizes proper evaluation over minor errors.
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the use of the word 'may' in the GST amnesty notification creates a directory timeline for filing declarations rather than imposing a mandatory obligation. The court directed authorities to reconsider taxpayers' requests pending resolution.
The Madras High Court upheld a 14.5% VAT on inter-state sales, ruling that capital goods cannot benefit without being used within the state.
The Karnataka High Court determined that interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act is mandatory and cannot be waived without statutory authority, thereby setting aside prior orders that granted waivers.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the time limit for filing a waiver application under Section 128A is directory and not mandatory, meaning a delay cannot solely justify the rejection of such waivers for GST interest and penalty.