Mario Romeo

Business

Risk Management and Best Practices for Trading on Tradingview

While Tradingview provides a fantastic platform for trading, it’s essential to remember that trading involves risk. It’s crucial to implement sound risk management techniques to protect your investments and preserve capital.

Set realistic goals and avoid being guided entirely by means of the pursuit of quick-term gains. Emotions can regularly cloud judgment, so attempt to stay calm and targeted whilst making trading choices. Avoid the not-unusual pitfalls of overtrading, chasing losses, and failing to have a strong buying and selling plan.

As you navigate Tradingview, do not hesitate to seek advice from skilled traders within the community. By getting to know from their studies, you may benefit from treasured insights and keep away from capability pitfalls.

Tradingview is a powerful tool that can help you unleash your full trading potential. Its user-friendly interface, customizable charting tools, extensive asset selection, and social features make it an excellent platform for traders of all levels.

As with any trading endeavor, it’s important to approach trading on Tradingview with discipline, patience, and a willingness to learn. Take advantage of Tradingview’s educational resources and the diverse community to continuously expand your trading skills.

Are you ready to dive into the world of trading? Sign up for Tradingview today, explore its features, and embark on your trading journey. Whether you’re a beginner or an experienced trader, Tradingview can be the catalyst that propels you towards trading success.

Unleash your trading potential today and seize the opportunity to dominate the stock market!

read more
Technology

Instagram’s co-founders introduce a new social app…for news reading • TechCrunch

[ad_1]

Can lightning strike twice? That’s apparently the question being raised today with the public introduction of the next social app built by Instagram’s co-founders, Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger. The duo launched a new venture to explore social apps, according to a report published in The Verge, which includes the debut product Artifact, a personalized news reader.

The app itself is not yet publicly available but offers a waitlist where interested users can sign up. As described, it sounds like a modern-day twist on Google Reader, a long-ago RSS newsreader app that Google shut down back in 2013. Except in this case, Artifact is described as a newsreader that uses machine learning to personalize the experience for the end user, while also adding social elements that allow users to discuss articles they come across with friends. (To be fair, Google Reader had a similar feature, but the app itself had to be programmed by the user who would add RSS feeds directly.)

Artifact will first present a curated selection of news stories, The Verge’s article notes, but these will become more attuned to the user’s interests over time. Some of the articles will come from big-name publishers, like The New York Times, while others may be from smaller sites. Other features include separate feeds for articles posted by people you follow alongside their commentary and a direct message inbox for discussing posts more privately.

The concept seems as if it has some overlap with one of Twitter’s bigger use cases around discussing news. It also arrives at a time when Twitter users are considering new options after the app’s acquisition by Elon Musk, who has chaotically made numerous and sometimes controversial changes to the app’s roadmap and policies, alienating some longtime users in the process.

But as described, Artifact doesn’t sound completely original either — not only does it seem like a modern twist on a Google Reader-type experience, it would go up against various other news reading apps, both new and older, which include personalization elements, like Flipboard, SmartNews and Newsbreak. It also sounds similar to the Pocket competitor Matter, which offers a combination of news reading, curated recommendations and comments. Even Substack has capitalized on Twitter’s destabilization, launching a way for its readers and writers to chat in-app. That means no matter how polished or differentiated Artifact may become, it could still face a host of competition in the market, where consumers also already have built-in news apps available with Apple News and Google News.

Of course, the new app would also compete in many ways with the social giant Meta, which Instgram’s founders left back in 2018. Facebook and to a lesser extent, Instagram and WhatsApp, today serve as portals where billions interact and engage with news and information, amid their updates from friends, family, groups, and businesses they follow.

According to The Verge’s report, the duo believes the recent leaps made in machine-learning technology could help give Artifact an edge, however, similar to how algorithmic recommendations have played a role in elevating TikTok to become a dominant app.

But while TikTok’s personalized For You feed is arguably addictive, the video app’s growth was seeded by record-breaking marketing spend on its user acquisition efforts — even reaching $1 billion per year in 2018, The WSJ had reported. A startup, even from remarkable founders, may not have the same fuel to throw on the fire. And news reading in and of itself seems to be a bit of a passé market to chase in an era when younger Gen Z users are often now turning to entertainment apps like TikTok to stay informed on news and world events, too.

That said, it’s difficult to count out the success of those who built Instagram, which was one of the largest social tech acquisitions of its time and has shaped the way the world engages with social media.

As an early-stage product, Artifact is still being developed and is not yet monetized, but a revenue share with publishers was mentioned as a possible option. (Where have we heard that one before?)

The app’s individual success may or may not ultimately matter, though given the founders intend on testing other new social products through their new venture, it seems.

[ad_2]

Source link

read more
Law \ Legal

Court Rules Johnson & Johnson Can’t Throw Out Civil Liability Because Of ’Good Intentions’

[ad_1]

When people usually think of bankruptcy, they usually think about it as a last resort response to large debts, mortgages they are behind on, and fatigue from the daily hounding of so many unknown numbers. The realization that student loan debt is not dischargeable by bankruptcy likely steals sleep from a good faction of our reader base too. If Johnson & Johnson hadn’t just faced a legal setback, it would have been at the top of many a corporate person’s bankruptcy associations.

A U.S. appeals court on Monday shot down Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ.N) attempt to offload tens of thousands of lawsuits over its talc products into bankruptcy court. The ruling marked the first major repudiation of an emerging legal strategy with the potential to upend U.S. corporate liability law.

J&J is among four major companies that have filed so-called Texas two-step bankruptcies to avoid potentially massive lawsuit exposure. The tactic involves creating a subsidiary to absorb the liabilities and to immediately file for Chapter 11.

Our avid readers will know that we last covered this ploy here. Thousands of folks are suing Johnson & Johnson on the claim that the use of their talcum powder has given them or their loved ones cancer. Weird thing about talc, it and asbestos are besties. If the appeals court would have granted J&J’s attempt to head to bankruptcy court, it would have ushered in copycat stratagems where liability-facing companies would have been able to shift liability to a smaller entity, hit the “oh no bankruptcy” button, and save themselves potentially massive amounts of cash in payouts.

The court ruled the healthcare conglomerate improperly placed its subsidiary into bankruptcy even though it faced no financial distress. J&J’s two-step sought to halt more than 38,000 lawsuits from plaintiffs alleging the company’s baby powder and other talc products caused cancer. The appeals court ruling revives those lawsuits.

The cunning part of J&J’s legal strategy was their attempt to frame the bankruptcy offloading as being in the customer they allegedly gave cancer’s interest. Given the fact pattern, if there was a time that two-stepping bankruptcies would have been a thing, this would have been it. See if you buy J&J’s argument:

New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson, valued at more than $400 billion, said its subsidiary’s bankruptcy was initiated in good faith. J&J initially pledged $2 billion to the subsidiary to resolve talc claims and entered into an agreement to fund an eventual settlement approved by a bankruptcy judge.

“Resolving this matter as quickly and efficiently as possible is in the best interests of claimants and all stakeholders,” J&J said.

A three-judge panel on the appeals court rejected J&J’s argument, finding the company’s subsidiary, LTL Management, was created solely to file for Chapter 11 protection but had no legitimate need for it. Only a debtor in financial distress can seek bankruptcy, the panel ruled. The judges pointed out that J&J assured that it would give LTL plenty of money to pay talc claimants.

“Good intentions – such as to protect the J&J brand or comprehensively resolve litigation – do not suffice alone,” the judges said in a 56-page opinion. “LTL, at the time of its filing, was highly solvent with access to cash to meet comfortably its liabilities.”

You know what they say — the road to offsetting corporate liability via two-stepping is paved with good intentions. The path is not completely blocked though; the company has already stated that it plans to challenge the ruling. Whatever the outcome, I hope that a speedy resolution is met for the sake of those who could have been negatively impacted.

U.S. Court Rejects J&J Bankruptcy Strategy For Thousands Of Talc Lawsuits [Reuters]

Earlier: Whose Remedy Is It Anyway? The Future Of Product Liability Could Depend On It.


Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.

[ad_2]

Source link

read more
Sports

Dooho Choi is the fighter to watch

[ad_1]

 

UFC Hall of Famer Choi Doo-ho is back in action after a three-year lay-off at UFC Vegas 68 against Kyle Nelson.

The UFC returns to the UFC APEX on Saturday, Feb. 4th with UFC Vegas 68, where a pair of heavy hitters meet in the main event. Both Derrick Lewis and Sergey Spivak will be looking to land a devastating blow that signals the end for their opponent, with Lewis aiming to stay in the top 10 with a victory. Spivak, meanwhile, hopes to climb up the heavyweight rankings with a huge win over the UFC’s knockout record holder.

Another man looking to make a statement is non-other than UFC Hall of Famer Dooho Choi (14-4). Inducted in 2022 for his back-and-forth war against Cub Swanson back in 2016, Choi has not fought since December 2019 and is looking to snap a three-fight losing streak against Kyle Nelson (13-5). The fight is scheduled to be the second fight on the main card and it is likely to be in contention for the Fight of the Night bonus.

Can Dooho Choi bounce back from his three-fight losing streak after a three-year layoff?

This fight should be much bigger than it is given that the card was originally scheduled to take place in Choi’s home country of South Korea. Instead, he will have to make the trip to Las Vegas in a bid to snap his three-fight losing streak against a fighter in a similar situation. Kyle Nelson is 1-4 in the UFC since signing back in 2018 and is currently riding a two-fight losing streak. While Choi has the privilege of being a UFC Hall of Famer, don’t be surprised to see the loser of this fight cut from the promotion given their respective losing streaks and the killer-infested water that is the featherweight division.

Either way, to expect anything else than an exciting, back-and-forth bout is discouraged given Choi’s willingness to always put on a show. He has received a bonus in each of his last five fights, including a three-fight-of-the-night bonus streak. Add his impressive power, with 11 of his 14 victories coming by way of knockout, and it’s easy to see how Choi will electrify yet another fight card. Win or lose, the UFC Hall of Famer will surely put on a show.

UFC Vegas 68: Derrick Lewis vs. Sergey Spivak takes place on Saturday, Feb. 4, 2023, live from the UFC APEX in Las Vegas, NV. Follow along with FanSided MMA for all your news and highlights.

[ad_2]

Source link

read more
Business

Enforcement Directorate Raids SREI Infrastructure Finance Properties

[ad_1]

The Enforcement Directorate on Tuesday conducted simultaneous raids on properties of of two organisations—SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. and Srei Equipment Finance Ltd., which are undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, in connection with the ongoing probe into alleged illegal financial dealings by them, an ED official said. The central agency’s officials raided an office of the promoters at Alipore area of the city, besid…

[ad_2]

Source link

read more
Technology

Big changes coming for GDPR enforcement on Big Tech in Europe? • TechCrunch

[ad_1]

Big Tech take note: In what looks like a meaningful — and long overdue — reforming step, the European Commission has committed to dial up its monitoring of how data protection authorities at the EU Member State level enforce the bloc’s flagship data protection rules — committing to regular checks on “large scale” General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) cases.

Checks that could help address long standing criticism that enforcement of the GDPR is too weak and plodding to put meaningful checks on Big Tech.

The EU’s executive has responded to its ombudsman saying it will ask all national supervisory data protection authorities to share with it a report — on a “bi-monthly” basis (presumably that’s every two months, rather than 2x per month in this context); so 6x per year — which it describes as “an overview of large-scale cross-border investigations under the GDPR”.

Furthermore, the Commission stipulates these reports will need to include various key details (such as case no.; controller or processor involved; investigation type), along with a summary of the investigation scope (“including which provisions of the GDPR are at issue”); the DPAs concerned; “key procedural steps taken and dates”; and the “Investigatory or any other measures taken and dates.

It has also committed, in its second upcoming report on the application of the GDPR, to provide a report of the information it’s getting back from DPAs. So the Commission will be reporting on the DPAs’ reporting.

While this probably sounds exceedingly dry, it’s actually — potentially — a very big deal.

Thing is, major cross-border GDPR cases have languished for years in regulatory limbo. Such as complaints against Big Adtech business models and behavioral advertising, or over adtech giant Google’s almost impossible to avoid location-tracking, to name two.

There’s also a very long-running complaint that’s called for the suspension of Facebook’s data exports which still hasn’t landed as a final decision. While Apple, Twitter and TikTok all have open GDPR cases pending decisions — in some instances years after an enquiry was opened on paper.

EU privacy campaigners and legal experts have for years argued that — on paper — the GDPR should be protecting consumers from unwanted tracking and profile. Yet they’ve also pointed out these self-same rules are being systematically flouted by tech giants that think they’re big enough to ignore the rules.

The upshot is EU citizens’ rights are steamrollered under the market muscle of major tech platforms and their associated ecosystems of operators — which critics contend extends to regulatory capture of ‘friendly’ DPAs. Especially in certain Member States where there’s a concentration of big tech firms (such as Ireland). Hence the call for closer monitoring of how (or even whether) Member State level authorities are doing the job of enforcing GDPR.

Just today, for example, an EU report on digital advertising and privacy concludes there’s “a need to increase individuals’ control over how their personal data is used for digital advertising, including how they avoid unwanted targeting” — which points to a gap between EU regulations that it too emphasizes “should” be protecting consumers from such abuse — yet, very evidently, they aren’t.

The issue here is simple: It’s who’s watching the watchmen, argues Dr Johnny Ryan — a senior fellow at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) — the rights group which complained to the European ombudsman over the Commission’s monitoring of Ireland’s implementation of the GDPR.

The Commission has treaty obligations to monitor Member States’ implementation of pan-EU laws but has often seemed reluctant to wade into the fray. And it’s this reluctance to crack an eyelid over plodding DPAs the ICCL challenged via the ombudsman back in November 2021.

That complaint has now led to agreement from the Commission that it will improve how it’s keeping tabs on GDPR enforcement more generally (so not just keep specials tabs on Ireland). And led to what looks to be, per the above list, a solid basis for overseeing DPAs administration of their duties — and at least putting the EU’s executive in a position to identify inconsistencies or other investigatory shenanigans.

(Whether the Commission will act robustly on reports that will be confidential is another matter; but at least it won’t be able to pretend problems don’t exist — and it also knows that its watchman, the ombudsman, is on its case with eyelids open.)

In a press release today, the ICCL lauds the development — dubbing the Commission move a Europe-wide “overhaul” of the GDPR.

“The European Commission’s new commitment should transform Europe’s data and digital enforcement,” argues Ryan in a statement. “Previously, big cases lay dormant for years. Now, we should see acceleration in investigation and enforcement, and it will be clear where the European Commission needs to take swift action against Member States that fail to apply the GDPR. This heralds the beginning of true enforcement of the GDPR, and of serious European enforcement against Big Tech,

“I think it makes the GDPR real,” Ryan also told TechCrunch — adding that if the Commission’s changes also apply retrospectively, i.e. to the large existing slate of Big Tech cases, that’ll be “even better”.

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC) typically attracts the most criticism over its approach to GDPR. Not only for how much time it may take on an enquiry but whether it even actually investigates the issue being complained about.

One oft complained about tactic is for the regulator to follow up a complaint (or complaints) by opening up what it refers to an “own volition enquiry” — which allows it to set the terms of reference. And, critics contend, to narrow the scope and/or entirely avoid the crux of a complaint. Creative reframing of enquiries is the ‘straw man’ of regulatory (in)action — deflecting and rerouting the claimed scrutiny in a way that can sidestep the core issue and ensure any damage to the target business is kept to a minimum. In short, it’s a mockery of genuine oversight.

A recent example is a decision against WhatsApp by the DPC — some 4.5 years after a series of complaints were raised over the legal basis Facebook-owner Meta claims to run behavioral advertising across a number of its services.

The Irish regulator ended up being instructed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) to find a series of breaches of the GDPR — some of which it alone had declined to find in its preliminary decision on the complaint back in 2021– but in one of its final decisions, against WhatsApp, the DPC was accused by the complainants of not investigating a core element of its complaint: i.e. whether WhatsApp processes users’ metadata for ad targeting (and, if so, whether it has a valid legal basis for doing that).

The DPC did not investigate that issue and also ignored a follow-on instruction by the EDPB to investigate it — claiming the Board was overreaching its jurisdiction. It also said it would challenge that component of the Board’s instruction in court. So instead of robustly investigating the legality of Meta’s ad-targeting — which had been raised by complaints dating all the way back to May 2018 — the DPC simply chose not to look — doing so at the end of a very long enquiry process where it also had the opportunity to investigate and didn’t. (And that’s just one instance of scores of complaints about its ’round-the-houses’ approach to ‘enforcing’ GDPR.)

Over that same set of complaints, the Irish regulator was also accused of further letting Meta massively off the hook — by not fining it the maximum amount possible for failing to have a valid legal basis for its core behavioral ads business.

The days of regulatory dither and ‘creative inaction’ by EU Member States which may feel they have a political interest in not annoying Big Tech companies headquartered on their soil may — finally — be numbered if the Commission starts to do a proper (i.e. active) job of overseeing DPAs’ GDPR enforcement.

The Commission should care about this. And not just because of its core duty to uphold EU treaties — but also because the GDPR is a cornerstone of a far wider and more ambitious digital regulatory program it’s been setting out in recent years; laying out wide-ranging rules for data governance and data reuse with the aim of accelerating regional innovation in artificial intelligence.

So if the GDPR is shown to not be working that risks bringing the whole carefully constructed EU digital edifice crumbling down — and at a time when the Commission is taking on a major new oversight role for larger platforms and tech giants (via the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act).

Which means the EU’s executive has plenty of very good reasons to d something about the problem of failed GDPR enforcement. Far better than any superficial PR wins it may want to accrue by claiming GDPR enforcement is working just fine.

Still, some question marks over this reforming step remain.

As well as the question of whether the Commission’s changes to how it will monitor GDPR enforcement will apply retrospectively (or not), there’s a more basic question of when exactly this new world order will be implemented? For now, that’s not clear.

EU citizens have already spent years waiting to see action on GDPR complaints — having to watch tech giants continuing to enrich themselves at the expense of their rights in the meanwhile. So there really is no time to lose for the Commission to locate a higher gear here. However when we asked it when it will be implementing the changes — and whether they will be retrospective or not — a Commission spokeswoman declined comment.

There is also a question over how exactly the Commission will define “large scale” in this context — and whether or not its reporting requirements will capture all cross-border GDPR cases, or just a subset.

Furthermore, there could be some wiggle room for regulators to reach non-public agreements with tech giants, i.e. as another route to cynically closing GDPR cases down (and end any reporting requirements in the process).

But given all the criticism over (and attention on) lax GDPR enforcement already, DPAs surely can’t hope to try their luck with a fresh repackaging of inaction — not unless they are actually extracting meaningful reforms in an agreed resolution with a company targeted for complaints. (And, well, if they’re achieving the latter no one would need to complain!)

The EU’s ombudsman reached its decision on the ICCL complaint in December — after a year long enquiry.

In an eight-page decision on whether the Commission collects sufficient information to monitor Ireland’s implementation of the GDPR, Dr Emily O’Reilly wrote that “EU citizens are entitled to expect that the European Commission collects sufficient information to monitor the application of that legislation”.

She went on to welcome the fact she found the Commission reportedly receiving “bi-monthly” reports from the DPC on the handling of “big tech” cases but suggested there was room for more improvement — such as maintaining a table of “pre-determined fields” containing key details and key steps taken, as the Commission has now committed it will.

If it were not to apply this “specific targeted monitoring measure”, the Ombudsman concluded she “would have had serious doubts as to the adequacy of the information that the European Commission relies on”. So, again, there’s not going to be any way back from this formalized monitoring process for the Commission — a standard is being set and required.

In a separate GDPR enforcement related development the Commission mentioned in its work program last year, it has also said it will be presenting a proposal to improve cooperation between data protection authorities on cross-border GDPR cases — so further changes are afoot which may help tackle delays kicked up by disputes between DPAs who fail to agreed on how to enforce against tech giants.

Again, there’s no concrete timings attached to this development — beyond a pledge from the Commission to come with a proposal this year. (But it would then need the other EU institutions to weigh in and agree any changes.)

Never one to waste a PR opportunity, in a joint speech this week, the EU’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, and justice commissioner, Didier Reynders, pitched the move as the Commission wanting to “further strengthen the enforcement of the GDPR”, as they spun it — writing that, working together with the EDPB, they’ve “started looking into ways to further enhance cooperation in cross-border cases”, and “will present a proposal this year to further harmonise relevant procedures for DPAs”.

[ad_2]

Source link

read more
Sports

Clippers vs. Bulls prediction and odds for Tuesday, January 31

[ad_1]

Sunday was a tough one for the Los Angeles Clippers, but outside of that 122-99 loss to Cleveland, they’ve been rolling.

Prior to Sunday, they had ripped off five straight wins and now sit at 28-25, which is somehow good enough for the fourth seed in the Western Conference.

They’ll look to get back into the win column against the under .500 Chicago Bulls today. It looks like everyone is going to play, but when it comes to Kawhi Leonard and Paul George, until that ball is tipped, you never really can say for sure.

Let’s get into the odds for the Clippers and Bulls in Chicago.

Clippers vs. Bulls odds, spread and total

Clippers vs. Bulls prediction and pick

The Bulls are 23-26 and last time out they beat the Magic, 128-109 with 32 points from DeMar DeRozen and Zach LaVine. Between those two, the Bulls might lead the league in capital letters in the middle of names.

They don’t really lead the league in much else though. The 10th seed in the east is 22nd in offensive rating, 12th in defensive rating, 12th in effective field goal percentage. They’re a very middle of the pack team and if the Clippers are at full strength, they should win this one.

The only issue is, I never trust the Clippers to be at full strength. Reggie Jackson is questionable tonight and Kawhi and Paul George are both listed as probable.

Over the Clippers last six games, they’re 5-1, but they’ve done it with the best offensive rating in the NBA, but the 22nd best defensive rating. This team for the season is 23rd and 11th in those categories, so this flip has thrown off Vegas on their totals. The over is 4-0 in their last four and that’ll be our play tonight.

LaVine and DeRozan will be tough for the Clippers to slow down on the wing because Kawhi and George are not the defenders that they once were.

Follow all Josh Yourish’s bets HERE

Game odds refresh periodically and are subject to change

[ad_2]

Source link

read more
Business

GST Collection Breaches Rs 1.5 Lakh Crore Mark In January

[ad_1]

The Ministry of Finance announced the monthly collections of the goods and services tax ahead of the Union Budget on Wednesday.

The gross GST collected in January for transactions in December stood at Rs 1.55 lakh crore, rising from the previous month’s tally of Rs 1.49 lakh crore.

GST data is released with a month’s lag and pertains to transactions that took place in the preceding month.

Trends indicate that the last quarter usually registers increased collections. Monthly collections have continued to remain upwards of Rs 1.4 lakh crore since March 2022. The recent collections are higher than October’s collections and the April figures, making it the second highest collection ever.

Collections hovered around the Rs 1.5 lakh crore mark last month as well, missing the mark by a small margin.

Experts said that this was aided by manufacturing and consumption stability across states, and highlighted robust economic performance across key sectors.

January’s collection is 24% higher than the corresponding period last year. During the month, revenues from import of goods were 29% higher and revenue from domestic transactions, including import of services, were 22% higher than revenue from these sources during the same month last year.

E-way bills picked up during the month to 8.3 crore, which is the highest so far, up from 7.9 crore in the previous month.

The government’s budget estimates pegged the indirect tax target at Rs 13.30 lakh crore. Revised estimates for the fiscal will be revealed along with the country’s financial outlay for the next financial year in the budget.

The total tax target for the fiscal currently stands at Rs 27.50 lakh crore.

Break-Up Of GST Collections (as on 5 p.m. on Jan. 31)

  • Gross GST revenue: Rs 1,55,922 crore.
  • Central GST: Rs 28,963 crore.
  • State GST: Rs 36,730 crore.
  • Integrated GST: Rs 79,599 crore (including Rs 37,118 crore collected on import of goods).
  • Cess: Rs 10,630 crore (including Rs 768 crore collected on import of goods).

The ministry credited the healthy collections to various policy changes introduced during the course of the year to improve compliance.

“The percentage of filing of GST returns (GSTR-3B) and of the statement of invoices (GSTR-1) till the end of the month, has improved significantly over years,” according to a release.

In the October–December quarter, a total of 2.42 crore GST returns were filed till end of next month as compared to 2.19 crore in the same quarter in the last year.

[ad_2]

Source link

read more
1 2 3 4
Page 1 of 4