<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed?type=Case-Laws" rel="self" type="text/xml" />
        <title>Tax Updates - Daily Update</title>
        <link>https://www.taxtmi.com</link>
        <description>One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes and Corporate Laws in India</description>
        <category>Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services</category>
        <copyright>TaxTMI.Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.</copyright>
        <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
        <language>en-us</language>
        <webMaster>webmaster@taxtmi.com</webMaster>
        <managingEditor>editor@taxtmi.com</managingEditor>
        <ttl>60</ttl>
        <item>
<title>CGST arrest safeguards require recorded reasons to believe and statutory tax-evasion conditions; suspicion alone supported regular bail.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798049</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798049</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Regular bail was granted in CGST proceedings alleging fraudulent invoices, wrongful input tax credit, falsified records and shell entities because the arrest authorisation and arrest memo did not record the required reason to believe tax evasion or the conditions under section 132. The arrest records also omitted the monetary threshold relevant to the alleged tax evasion and corresponding period of punishment. Arrest based merely on suspicion, without concrete material demonstrating the statutory conditions, was insufficient; the petitioner was released on bail subject to furnishing the prescribed bond and sureties.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reasoned adjudication requires addressing SEZ exemption claims; cryptic rejection invalidates the order and requires fresh determination.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798509</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798509</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reasoned adjudication requires consideration of a detailed reply and a specific SEZ exemption claim. A conclusory statement that contentions are unacceptable, without addressing material submissions or giving reasons for rejection, is cryptic and non-speaking. The adjudication order was therefore invalid, requiring fresh determination after a hearing, with all contentions remaining open.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Corporate cheque-dishonour liability requires verified company roles, preventing prosecution of persons wrongly designated as responsible officers.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798438</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798438</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Vicarious criminal liability for corporate cheque dishonour applies only to persons responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, or where consent, connivance, negligence, or an independent role is specifically pleaded. Uncontroverted corporate records showing that an accused never served as director or officer, coupled with no pleaded operational connection to cheque issuance or dishonour, support quashing proceedings under inherent criminal jurisdiction as an abuse of process. Corporate complaints seeking to proceed against responsible officers must prospectively verify the company's identity and each proposed accused's office through MCA master-data CIN and certified Form DIR-12. Exceptions require a due-diligence affirmation and recorded reasons before cognizance.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Electricity arrears may bind auction purchasers seeking fresh connections despite as-is-where-is sale terms and creditor disclosures.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798435</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798435</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Outstanding electricity dues of a defaulting consumer may be required from an auction purchaser before a fresh electricity connection is released. Supply conditions framed under the Electricity Act permit recovery of arrears as a condition of new supply and retain force despite a secured creditor's statement that no encumbrance was known. Clause 10.19 of the State Electricity Supply Code regulates arrears recovery without extinguishing the underlying liability. Sale on an "as is where is" basis places property-linked liabilities on the purchaser, and the doctrine of contracts of adhesion does not displace a statutory supply condition.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reasoned FCRA renewal decisions require justified security confidentiality; peaceful protest support alone cannot establish an undesirable purpose.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798436</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798436</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[FCRA renewal refusals must disclose intelligible reasons where non-renewal adversely affects the applicant's rights; a bare reference to statutory provisions is insufficient. Confidential security-agency material may justify non-disclosure only on cogent material showing a genuine national-security necessity, rather than by automatic reliance on secrecy. Alleged financial support for peaceful Vizhinjam Port protests does not establish diversion of foreign contribution, an undesirable purpose, or prejudice to public interest without evidence linking funds or participation to unlawful conduct. Peaceful dissent, assembly and association remain constitutionally protected, and administrative disapproval of protest cannot alone support non-renewal.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Judicial review of tender decisions remains limited where no arbitrariness, unequal treatment, mala fides or procedural breach is shown.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798437</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798437</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Judicial review of government tender decisions is confined to the legality, fairness and rationality of the decision-making process, not a re-evaluation of bids or substitution of the tendering authority's commercial assessment. Intervention arises only where the process is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, discriminatory, inconsistent with tender conditions, or harmful to public interest. A bidder that participated without seeking clarification on GST cannot revise its bid after rejection through a later offer at a different rate. In the absence of unequal treatment, favouritism, mala fides or procedural irregularity, rejection of the quotation and award of the catering contract did not warrant interference. Outstanding dues under an earlier contract were independent of the fresh tender's validity.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Post facto fee sanction permits payment for accepted valuation work while recovery remains confined to liquidation funds excluding third-party liability.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798439</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798439</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Guidelines dated 1 February 1994 govern valuation assignments undertaken in 2004. Prior sanction is required for payment of fees above the prescribed ceiling, rather than for appointment of the valuer, and separate valuation exercises may attract separate fee ceilings. Accepted and non-deficient work may receive post facto sanction for reasonable fees exceeding those ceilings. Exceptional delay in payment may justify interest as compensation for the time value of earned fees, but excludes overlapping inflation-linked enhancement for the same period. Recovery is confined to available proceeding funds or the appropriate liquidation process; neither public funds nor third-party assets are liable absent proof overcoming separate corporate personality. Completion of receiver functions and absence of suit funds permit discharge of the Court Receiver and closure of the suit account.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Statutory cheque presumptions require cogent rebuttal, while successor Magistrates may decide summons-trial evidence without procedural invalidity.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798440</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798440</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Admission of signatures on a cheque and money receipt triggers presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. A challenge to the payee's financial capacity, or an alleged breach of loan-acceptance restrictions under the Income-tax Act, does not rebut those presumptions without cogent and reliable evidence. Where cheque-dishonour proceedings are conducted as a summons trial rather than a summary trial, a successor Magistrate's reliance on evidence recorded by a predecessor does not itself establish prejudice or procedural illegality. Revisional intervention requires perversity, material illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Mandatory pre-process inquiry in cheque dishonour complaints involving out-of-jurisdiction accused remains central, while trial issues stay open.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798441</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798441</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Mandatory inquiry before issuing process against an accused residing outside territorial jurisdiction, statutory presumptions arising from admitted cheque execution, and the scope of inherent jurisdiction to quash a cheque-dishonour complaint before trial are central issues. Admitted execution of a cheque may trigger a rebuttable presumption of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The discussion also concerns whether non-compliance with inquiry requirements before process justifies pre-trial quashing while preserving substantive contentions for trial.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Legislative competence after GST constitutional amendment invalidates retrospective VAT limitation amendment excluding appellate proceeding time.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798442</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798442</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 84A of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, retrospectively introduced to exclude time spent in appellate proceedings when calculating limitation, is void for want of State legislative competence. After the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 came into force and the relevant State legislative fields were deleted, the State Legislature lacked competence to amend the Gujarat VAT law from 1 July 2017. The earlier invalidation of the amendment was confirmed, with the challenge succeeding in favour of the assessee.]]></description>
<category>VAT</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>CENVAT credit on additional customs duty for imported steam coal remains available despite Central Excise exemption restrictions.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798444</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798444</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[CENVAT credit is admissible for the 1% or 2% additional duty of customs paid on imported steam coal. Rule 3(1)(vii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules permits credit of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act. Restrictions in the proviso to Rule 3(1)(i) apply only to excise duty paid under specified Central Excise exemption notifications, not to additional customs duty. Where the relevant Customs exemption notification does not bar credit, Central Excise notification conditions cannot be imported into it. This approach follows consistent coordinate-bench treatment and supports certainty in applying credit rules.]]></description>
<category>Excise</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Service-tax demands based solely on accounting discrepancies fail without proof of taxable services or deliberate suppression.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798445</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798445</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Service-tax demands require identification and classification of the taxable service and determination of its taxable value under the Finance Act, 1994. Discrepancies between financial statements, income-tax records and ST-3 returns cannot alone establish taxable consideration without verification against agreements, invoices, work orders and contemporaneous records. Extended limitation requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention intended to evade tax; disclosed records and return-filing discrepancies do not by themselves prove suppression. Only separately identifiable admitted tax liability remains subject to statutory interest, while unsubstantiated demands and suppression-based penalties fail.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Service tax valuation excludes VAT-paid goods in works contracts, while qualifying lift-irrigation work receives exemption and limitation protection.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798446</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798446</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Service tax on works contracts applies only to the service component; the value of goods transferred, including goods on which VAT or sales tax has been paid, must be excluded under Rule 2A, as transfers of title and deemed sales are outside the definition of service. Specified construction and lift-irrigation works provided to a governmental authority may qualify for exemption where they advance municipal functions under Article 243W and the Twelfth Schedule. Extended limitation under Section 73 requires wilful fraud, collusion, misstatement or suppression intended to evade tax, and cannot rest on disclosed records or bona fide exemption claims.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Revenue consistency in identical service-tax disputes prevents selective challenges, while extended limitation requires proven intentional suppression of facts.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798447</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798447</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Revenue must maintain consistent positions where materially identical service-tax disputes involve the same show-cause notice basis, demand period, computation and Tribunal reasoning. Challenging a Tribunal ruling for one assessee after accepting the identical ruling for a similarly situated assessee is inconsistent with fairness and equality in revenue administration. Extended limitation for a service-tax demand requires specific allegations and proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, coupled with intent to evade duty. Without proof of that prescribed conduct, the extended period is unavailable and a delayed demand is time-barred.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Provisional attachment requires a real risk of alienation and fails where judicial restraints and insolvency proceedings prevent transfer.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798448</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798448</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 5(1)(b) permits provisional attachment only where there is a reasonable apprehension that the person concerned may deal with or alienate property to frustrate confiscation. A pre-existing interim judicial restraint against creating third-party rights, together with admitted insolvency proceedings concerning the secured debt, restricted dealings in the mortgaged property. These circumstances removed any credible risk of alienation or transfer capable of frustrating confiscation, rendering the statutory condition for provisional attachment unmet and the attachment and its confirmation unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>PMLA</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Risk of frustrating confiscation was unproven, making confirmation of provisional attachment unsustainable despite pending insolvency proceedings.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798449</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798449</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires material establishing a likelihood that proceeds of crime will be concealed, transferred or otherwise dealt with to frustrate confiscation. Mortgages created in favour of secured creditors before attachment, coupled with an existing restraint on third-party rights and no auction, execution, attachment or sale process, did not establish that risk. Pending insolvency proceedings served to ensure an orderly resolution of competing rights. Accordingly, the statutory condition for confirming the provisional attachment was not met, and the properties remained subject to the final outcome of the insolvency proceedings.]]></description>
<category>PMLA</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Women's exemption from PMLA bail twin conditions remains discretionary and subject to ordinary bail safeguards.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798450</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798450</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act exempts every woman accused from the statutory twin conditions for bail, without classification by education, status, or profession. The exemption is discretionary and does not create an automatic right to bail. Regular bail remains subject to ordinary considerations, including the prima facie case, gravity of allegations, attributed role, flight risk, and potential interference with witnesses or evidence. The dispensation is linked to substantive equality and the constitutional protection for women under Article 15(3). Prolonged custody, lack of need for further interrogation, delayed trial, and absence of tangible interference risks may support exercise of the discretion.]]></description>
<category>PMLA</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Personal insolvency applications abusing interim moratorium to obstruct security enforcement rather than genuine repayment resolution warrant rejection.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798451</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798451</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 94 permits a personal guarantor in default to initiate a personal insolvency resolution process and propose a repayment plan, while Section 96 grants an interim moratorium. These provisions require a genuine effort to resolve insolvency and cannot be used to obstruct a financial creditor's lawful security enforcement. Withdrawal of an earlier application after enjoying the interim moratorium, followed by a fresh application immediately after issuance of a possession notice, without any intervening repayment effort, demonstrated an intent to stall recovery proceedings. The personal guarantor's application was therefore rejected as an abuse of the insolvency process and interim moratorium.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 12A withdrawal formalities may be impracticable where settled creditor claims and unresolved CIRP costs create procedural stalemate.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798452</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798452</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, read with Regulation 30A, ordinarily requires an initiating applicant to seek CIRP withdrawal in Form FA, with prescribed creditor approval and security for CIRP costs. Where creditor claims have been settled or agreed to be settled, but CIRP costs remain uncrystallised and the required bank guarantee cannot be furnished, those formalities may create a procedural stalemate. In exceptional circumstances, continuation of CIRP may be unwarranted where no resolution plan is available and the Resolution Professional's entitlement to CIRP costs remains protected through pending adjudication and a binding undertaking to pay the determined costs.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Director disqualification cannot deactivate a DIN without Rule 11 compliance and a prior hearing under natural justice.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798453</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798453</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes disqualifications for appointment or reappointment as a director but does not authorise deactivation of a Director Identification Number (DIN). DIN deactivation is governed by Rule 11 of the Companies (Appointment of Directors) Rules, 2014, requiring compliance with that rule. Recording a DIN as disqualified under Section 164(2)(b) without establishing Rule 11 compliance or giving the affected director an opportunity of hearing breaches principles of natural justice. An uncommunicated and unpublished internal assertion of disqualification cannot support a contrary website status. The website notice showing the DIN as disqualified was therefore quashed.]]></description>
<category>Corporate Laws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Customs exemption scope covers specialised petroleum-service equipment despite mismatch with List tariff heading before later specific entry.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798455</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798455</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Mono Ethylene Glycol Reclamation Plant imported for offshore and onshore petroleum operations qualified for customs exemption under Serial No. 404 read with Serial No. 4 of List 33 of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs during the pre-amendment period. Eligibility required the goods to fall within the tariff coverage in the main notification and meet prescribed conditions; List 33's reference to tariff heading 8430 did not independently restrict the wider description of specialised petroleum-service equipment. End-use certification supported this interpretation. A later specific entry for the plant operated prospectively and did not displace coverage under the existing general entry. The ambiguity rule favouring Revenue did not apply because the exemption provision was unambiguous.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Extended search-assessment jurisdiction requires identifiable specified assets and independent recorded satisfaction; loose cash-payment papers cannot validate notices.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798458</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798458</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Extended assessment jurisdiction under the fourth proviso to Section 153A requires material showing that escaped income is represented by an identifiable asset specified in Explanation 2, together with the Assessing Officer's objective and independent recorded satisfaction. Loose papers alleging cash payments for land, without identifying or establishing acquisition of immovable property or another specified asset, do not satisfy these conditions. Material potentially supporting an unexplained-investment addition cannot replace the separate jurisdictional basis for extending the search-assessment period. Subsequent merits enquiries cannot cure an invalid notice; notices and consequential assessments issued without the required foundation are without jurisdiction.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment based only on property-sale information fails without material of escaped income and independent statutory approval.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798459</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798459</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment based solely on information that immovable property was sold lacks a jurisdictional foundation unless material links the sale proceeds to income escaping assessment. Statutory approval must reflect the approving authority's independent and reasoned satisfaction; mechanical endorsement is insufficient, rendering the reassessment and resulting assessment invalid. Agricultural land located beyond the prescribed municipal limits falls outside the definition of a capital asset where supported by relevant municipal evidence and affidavit. Its transfer therefore does not attract capital-gains taxation, and any related long-term capital-gains addition is unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Extended reassessment limitation requires qualifying escaped income, making notices based solely on sub-threshold deduction denial invalid.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798460</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798460</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 149(1)(a) imposes a three-year limitation for reassessment notices. The extended period under section 149(1)(b) applies only where material indicates escaped income of at least Rs. 50 lakh represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry, and its conditions require strict satisfaction. Jurisdiction under section 148A(d) must be founded on the issue that remains after considering the taxpayer's response. Where the surviving basis is denial of a deduction below the statutory threshold, rather than an allegation of unexplained deposits, the extended limitation is unavailable. A notice issued beyond three years is therefore time-barred, and the consequential reassessment lacks jurisdiction.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 80P deduction covers valid reassessment-return claims and interest on temporary deposits of co-operative credit societies.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798461</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798461</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[For AY 2016-17, section 80AC did not apply to deductions under section 80P, as its expanded scope applied only from AY 2018-19. Section 80A(5) required a deduction claim in a return of income but did not require filing within the section 139(1) due date. A return accepted under section 148 and used for assessment satisfied that requirement; the sixth proviso to section 139(1) did not apply to a co-operative society or section 80P deduction. Interest from temporary bank deposits of idle business funds of a co-operative credit society was attributable to its member-credit business and qualified under section 80P(2)(a)(i), where the funds were not liabilities payable to members.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Mandatory prior opportunity in return processing invalidates adjustments and requires reconsideration of corrected charitable accumulation claims.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798462</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798462</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Prior opportunity before an adjustment in return processing is a mandatory statutory condition; failure to provide it vitiates the processing and renders the adjustment unsustainable. A charitable entity's accumulation claim requires substantive examination in rectification proceedings where revised Form 10B, an asserted inadvertent return-filing error, and supporting indemnity material are produced. The corrected claim should not be rejected merely because it requires reasoning; the taxable-income computation must be reconsidered and consequential rectification undertaken in accordance with law.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Merits-based appellate adjudication prevents dismissal for non-prosecution and requires reasoned reconsideration after a hearing opportunity.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798463</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798463</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Commissioner (Appeals) must decide income-tax appeals on merits through a written, reasoned order identifying the points for determination and the basis of the decision. Sections 250 and 251 permit ex parte disposal where an assessee does not participate despite notice, but do not permit dismissal solely for non-prosecution. Such dismissals require fresh adjudication after a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Delay caused by electronic communication of an appellate order, despite a request for physical service, warrants a liberal, justice-oriented approach to condonation where the delay is not inordinate.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Consequential assessment fails when its quashed revisional foundation restores the original assessment and removes jurisdictional basis for disallowance.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798464</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798464</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A consequential assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 lacks an independent legal basis when the revisional order under Section 263 that authorised it has been quashed for a jurisdictional defect and the original assessment stands restored. In those circumstances, the consequential assessment cannot survive, and the disallowance is deleted. The characterisation of the claimed loss as capital or revenue expenditure does not require consideration because the assessment fails for want of a valid jurisdictional foundation.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Service of recorded reasons and mandatory scrutiny notice is essential; unserved communications invalidate reassessment proceedings from inception.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798465</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798465</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment proceedings require communication of the recorded reasons to the assessee and valid service of the mandatory notice under section 143(2). Where the assessee requests the reasons after responding to the reassessment notice, dispatch alone is insufficient if the reasons and notice are returned unserved. Available addresses in departmental records, including prior use of affixture, must be considered for effective service. Failure to furnish the recorded reasons and serve notice under section 143(2) renders a reassessment under sections 144 and 147 invalid and void from inception.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Concealment penalty fails when its sole quantum addition is deleted and the underlying tax issue remains debatable.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798466</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798466</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Concealment penalty cannot be sustained under Section 271(1)(c) when the quantum addition forming its sole basis has been deleted. Where a challenge to the quantum deletion remains pending, the underlying issue is debatable; penalty for concealment is not leviable on such a debatable issue. The concealment penalty was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment jurisdiction fails where limitation, mandatory scrutiny notice, or prescribed approval requirements are not met</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798467</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798467</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment validity depends on compliance with limitation, mandatory scrutiny notice, and statutory approval requirements. Extended limitation under relaxation legislation did not preserve a notice for assessment year 2015-16 issued after 1 April 2021. Where a return responding to reassessment is filed before completion, even if belatedly, it cannot be treated as non est; notice under section 143(2) is mandatory before reassessment. For reopening after three years from the relevant assessment year, approval must come from the authority specified under section 151(ii); approval by a Principal Commissioner does not meet the prescribed hierarchy, and time relaxation does not alter it. Non-compliance creates jurisdictional defects rendering reassessment unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Search assessment jurisdiction fails when satisfaction is recorded after the searched person's assessment has concluded.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798468</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798468</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 153C jurisdiction over a non-searched person depends on satisfaction being recorded within the statutory search-assessment framework. Recording satisfaction only after completion of the searched person's assessment falls outside that framework and invalidates the resulting assessment. Where the applicable provision excludes recourse to Section 153C, any permissible reassessment must instead be initiated under Section 147. The assessment was therefore treated as jurisdictionally invalid.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Unexplained money addition fails where IEC use alone does not prove the assessee acquired imported goods.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798469</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798469</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 69A requires proof that the assessee acquired the property alleged to be unexplained. Use of the assessee's Importer Exporter Code for imports, without evidence of payment, ownership, or use of the goods, does not establish acquisition. Contemporaneous records showed that another entity arranged the imports, paid customs duty, retained title to the equipment, and made payments to the foreign seller through the customs-clearance agent. With no supporting material in the assessee's financial records or other inquiry, the addition for alleged unrecorded import purchases was unsustainable and deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Recorded sales receipts cannot be treated as unexplained money solely because purchaser identities are doubtful without disproving book entries.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798470</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798470</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Recorded sales receipts entered in audited or maintained books cannot be assessed again as unexplained money under Section 69A merely because purchasers' identities are doubtful. Section 69A applies only where money or assets are unrecorded and their nature and source remain unexplained. Revenue must first displace the correctness of the books and establish that the receipts lack nexus with the recorded sales entries. Doubt concerning purchasers, without that demonstration, does not justify an addition. Accordingly, recorded sales receipts are not liable to addition under Section 69A.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 80G Approval: Limited spiritual activities did not disqualify a 12AB-registered trust pursuing broader charitable objects.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798471</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798471</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 80G approval cannot be denied merely because a trust registered under section 12AB incurs limited expenditure on spiritual knowledge and satsang activities. Such expenditure, being less than 5% of donations and accompanied by substantially greater spending on food, clothing, community meals, medicines and administration, did not establish a disqualifying religious purpose. Spiritual meetings conducted for the community at large, without benefiting trustees or a particular community, remained consistent with charitable objects already considered for section 12AB registration. The trust therefore satisfied the conditions for section 80G approval.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Concealment penalty cannot follow rejection of a disclosed banked gift when donor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness are established.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798472</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798472</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Concealment penalty does not arise merely because a disclosed gift is rejected in quantum assessment where the recipient establishes the donor's identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the banking trail. Donor confirmation, PAN, bank statements and the recipient's bank statement supported the source and movement of funds. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was therefore not imposable on the disclosed gift receipt.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 263 revision fails where deduction was allowed after inquiry under binding precedent on Regional Rural Bank interest.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798473</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798473</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Revision under section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on interest from a Regional Rural Bank had been specifically examined and allowed after inquiry, following jurisdictional High Court precedent treating a Regional Rural Bank as a co-operative society through the statutory deeming fiction in the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Section 80P(4) did not displace that precedent. A later contrary coordinate-bench view could neither retrospectively make the assessment erroneous nor override binding High Court authority. Explanation 2 to section 263 did not apply because there was no lack of inquiry; consequently, revision was unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Unexplained assets require contrary evidence where jewellery and business stock are supported by customary holdings and contemporaneous financial records.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798474</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798474</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 69A applies only where jewellery found in possession is not satisfactorily explained. Jewellery within customary family holdings may be assessed with reference to CBDT Instruction No. 1916, while earlier voluntary disclosure can independently support its source. In the absence of material proving exclusive ownership or unexplained acquisition in the relevant year, such jewellery is not taxable as unexplained assets. Section 69B requires evidence that an investment exceeds what is recorded in the books. Stock supported by contemporaneous purchase entries, invoices, banking payments and the actual owner's financial records is explained; valuation differences alone do not establish unrecorded investment without contrary material.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Alternative income-tax exemption routes prevent denial of charitable-donation approval solely for absence of registration under the trusts regime.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798475</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798475</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 80G(5)(i) permits an institution to establish that its income is not includible in total income through alternative routes: exemption under sections 11 and 12, or coverage under section 10(23C). Registration under section 12AB relates to the sections 11 and 12 route and is not a universal precondition for 80G approval. Where an educational institution claims that its income is covered by section 10(23C)(iiiad), eligibility must be verified under that provision rather than rejected solely for lack of 12AB registration. Approval under section 80G(5) should follow where such coverage is established.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Bogus purchase additions target embedded profit, while prima facie accommodation-entry information can support valid reassessment initiation.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798476</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798476</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Non-genuine purchases from accommodation-entry providers, where corresponding sales are accepted, warrant taxation of only the embedded profit element rather than the full purchase value. A 15% profit-element addition is identified as consistent with comparable bogus-purchase treatment. Reassessment may be initiated where investigation information links accommodation entries to the taxpayer's purchase transactions and provides prima facie material indicating escaped income. At the reopening stage, the material need not conclusively establish escapement; its sufficiency is not examined once a reason to believe is properly formed and objections have been addressed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Multiple residential units bought before the amendment can qualify for Section 54 relief despite the later one-home restriction.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798477</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798477</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[For pre-amendment assessment years, capital gains invested within the prescribed period in more than one residential unit could qualify for residential-property relief. The expression "a residential house" was capable of covering multiple units before the statutory restriction to one residential house took effect from 1 April 2015; that restriction operates prospectively and cannot alone deny relief for earlier years. A reopening challenge based on the absence of a separate speaking order on objections does not arise where the communication contains only factual statements rather than specific, substantive objections to the recorded reopening reasons.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Cost of improvement excludes routine, decorative and movable flat expenses; inseparable capital additions require item-wise verification for capital-gains computation.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798478</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798478</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Capital-gains cost of improvement requires capital expenditure that adds to or alters the residential flat and is inseparable from the building. Routine repairs, maintenance, decorative articles, and detachable or movable items do not qualify because they do not change the character of the capital asset. Expenditure on pest control, artwork, upholstery, curtains, furnishings, gym equipment, plants, decor, furniture and related accessories was treated as non-qualifying. Glass and mirror work, kitchen and bathroom items, wallpaper, air-conditioning, home theatre and interior-work expenditure require item-wise verification of invoices, payments and installation evidence before determining allowability.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Charitable income accumulation cannot become specified income merely through a return-schedule mismatch during automated return processing.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798479</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798479</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Income validly accumulated under section 11(2) and subsequently applied to charitable objects does not become specified income taxable under section 115BBI solely because of an inadvertent mismatch between return schedules. Where revised Form 10-BB and return disclosures establish the amount's source, character and charitable application, a reporting omission cannot create a statutory tax charge. Processing under section 143(1) cannot selectively rely on the mismatch while disregarding contemporaneous disclosures demonstrating that the accumulation neither became deemed income nor breached conditions applicable to charitable funds. The proposed adjustment is therefore liable to be deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Remand assessment limitation follows fresh-assessment timeline, while unsupported foreign currency remains taxable as unexplained money.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798480</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798480</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Fresh assessments required after remand, with reconsideration after giving the taxpayer an opportunity, fall within the limitation framework for fresh assessment or reassessment rather than the separate period for merely giving effect to appellate directions. Unsupported foreign currency may be treated as unexplained money where explanations of its source and purpose are contradictory and lack documentary support, including proof of acquisition from authorised dealers. Foreign-exchange confiscation proceedings concerning unlawful retention do not establish the currency's source for income-tax purposes, and an offsetting expenditure claim does not displace unexplained-money treatment.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Sufficient cause for delayed tax appeals requires diligence; strategic waiting and administrative explanations do not justify condonation.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798481</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798481</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 249(3) requires a credible, bona fide explanation showing that circumstances beyond the appellant's control prevented timely filing of a first appeal. Voluntarily offering a receipt to tax, accepting the resulting intimation without challenge for about ten years, and later relying on favourable developments concerning the payer's registration do not demonstrate diligence or sufficient cause. Waiting for a favourable legal outcome, misunderstanding the legal position, tracing records, or consulting professionals cannot reopen an assessment accepted after an inordinate delay. The delay was therefore not condonable.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 153C reference date is receipt of seized material, placing the disputed assessments outside the statutory block.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798482</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798482</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 153C requires the assessment block for a non-searched person to be computed from the date on which the jurisdictional Assessing Officer receives the seized books, documents or assets. The first proviso to Section 153C(1) applies this deemed reference date to the six-year and relevant ten-year assessment periods, not merely to abatement. Since the satisfaction and initiation of proceedings occurred in 2022, AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 fell outside the permissible statutory block. Assessments for those years were therefore beyond jurisdiction under Section 153C.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment based on recycled search-assessment material is invalid as a change of opinion without fresh tangible evidence.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798483</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798483</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 cannot rest on information and statements already available and considered in earlier search assessment and revision proceedings. Where an investigation-wing communication merely repackages existing material, it does not provide fresh tangible material for reopening. Failure to address confirmations obtained from the concerned entities before issuing the reopening notice further supports that the action is based on a change of opinion. Approval founded solely on the same old statement, without independent consideration, is mechanical. Such reopening is beyond jurisdiction, requiring deletion of additions made in the reassessment.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>TDS credit follows assessable income, allowing trusts credit despite deduction in trustee PAN and absent procedural declaration.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798484</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798484</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[TDS credit under section 199 read with Rule 37BA(2) belongs to the person in whose hands the related income is assessable. Where a trust's funds were invested through its trustee, the interest income was offered and assessed in the trust's hands, and tax was deducted in the trustee's PAN, the trust remains the beneficial owner entitled to the credit. The declaration under the proviso to Rule 37BA(2) is procedural and does not defeat that substantive entitlement where the income has been returned to tax and the tax deduction is undisputed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>MEIS duty credit scrips are operational export assistance and taxable revenue receipts from assessment year 2016-17.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798485</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798485</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[MEIS duty credit scrips under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015 constitute taxable revenue receipts from assessment year 2016-17. Applying the purpose test, the rewards offset recurring export-related costs and infrastructural inefficiencies, are linked to export turnover, and need not be used for capital assets; they therefore support the conduct of export business rather than its establishment or expansion. Section 2(24)(xviii) covers governmental assistance by whatever name called and cannot be narrowly restricted through ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis. MEIS rewards qualify as grants, cash incentives or residuary governmental assistance, while neither statutory exclusion applies.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 14A satisfaction and contemporaneous DCF valuation protected the assessee from further disallowance and excess share-premium addition.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798486</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798486</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Further disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D requires examination of the accounts and recorded dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo motu computation. A different computation alone does not meet that statutory condition, so the additional disallowance was deleted. Share premium valuation under Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA using the discounted cash flow method must be assessed from information and estimates available on the valuation date. Subsequent actual financial results cannot, without a material error in inputs or methodology, justify replacing that valuation with the net asset value method. The excess share-premium addition was therefore deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Revisionary jurisdiction requires authorised capacity and cannot reopen a plausible assessed property valuation merely for further inquiry.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798487</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798487</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Revision under Section 263 requires the competent income-tax authority to exercise the power in its authorised statutory capacity. Where an officer formally holding charge as Chief Commissioner acts and signs as Principal Commissioner without express authorisation to perform that authority's functions, the revisionary notice and consequential order lack jurisdiction. Revision also cannot rest on a preference for further inquiry when the Assessing Officer examined property ownership, use and annual letting value, accepted a plausible view, and no specific error causing prejudice to revenue is established. Explanation 2 does not permit revision merely on a change of opinion.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Delayed tax appeals require sufficient cause, while former directors cannot personally challenge company assessments without authority or personal liability.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798488</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798488</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A delayed tax appeal requires sufficient cause for condonation; an unexplained delay unsupported by an application, affidavit, explanation or material prevents admission. An appeal against a company's assessment may be maintained only by the assessee affected by the order or a person duly authorised to represent it. A former director of a struck-off company has no personal right to challenge assessment and appellate orders made against the company where no personal liability, authority to represent the company, or foundational assessment order is shown. Striking-off provisions preserving liabilities do not independently confer locus standi.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Internal comparables and evidenced intra-group services defeated transfer-pricing adjustments on masala-bond interest and consultancy charges.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798489</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798489</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reliable internal uncontrolled comparables should be preferred over external comparables where they more closely match the transaction's terms and credit profile. For fixed-rate masala bonds, bank borrowings of the same enterprise provided an appropriate internal CUP, unlike floating-rate external lending comparables; the interest adjustment was deleted. Operational, technical, knowledge-sharing and systems support received from an associated enterprise were not shareholder activities where business need, actual receipt, costs and mark-up were established. Under the CUP method, an arm's length price cannot be fixed at nil without supporting uncontrolled comparables; the related services adjustment was deleted. Tax deducted at source credit remains subject to verification under law.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Stamp valuation date for fixed consideration protects capital gains computation from later guideline value increases</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798490</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798490</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The beneficial proviso to section 50C(1) permits use of the stamp valuation applicable when sale consideration was fixed and acted upon, rather than the valuation prevailing at registration, where guideline value later increased. A continuous evidentiary chain comprising statutory rehabilitation, contemporaneous transferor and transferee resolutions, banking-channel advance payments, and sale deeds reflecting identical consideration can establish prior fixation of consideration. A formal bilateral agreement is not indispensable where the parties' conduct conclusively proves that fixation. The differential long-term capital gains addition based on the later stamp valuation was deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Payee tax-compliance conditions must be verified before default liability arises for non-deduction on External Development Charges.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798491</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798491</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[External Development Charges paid to Haryana Urban Development Authority were treated as payments subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194C. A deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default where the payee has filed its return, included the relevant receipts in taxable income, paid the tax due, and the deductor furnishes the prescribed accountant's certificate under the first proviso to Section 201(1). Verification of these conditions is necessary before imposing liability under Sections 201(1) or 201(1A); the matter requires verification by the Assessing Officer.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Composite media-rights payments: live-feed consideration is not royalty, while non-live telecast consideration attracts withholding-based disallowance.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798492</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798492</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Consideration for live telecast rights in a composite cricket media-rights agreement is not royalty because a live sporting event is not a pre-existing copyrighted work and no copyright is transferred. Consideration attributable to non-live or repeat telecast rights is royalty, as it relates to the use of copyright. Where tax was required but not deducted, only the royalty component is disallowable under the withholding-tax provisions. Applying the established live-to-non-live viewership ratio, 93% of the payment attributable to live broadcasts is not disallowable, while 7% attributable to non-live broadcasts is royalty and is disallowable.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Capital-gains reinvestment requires the assessee to buy the replacement home; a spouse's sole-name purchase defeats exemption.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798493</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798493</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 54F applies only where long-term capital gains arise from transfer of an asset other than a residential house; a transfer of a residential property is therefore governed by Section 54, not Section 54F. Section 54 requires the same assessee who transfers the original residential property to purchase or construct the replacement residential property within the prescribed period. A property bought solely in the spouse's name is treated as acquired by a distinct legal person and cannot be linked to the assessee's sale for the exemption. Consequently, capital gains remain taxable where neither provision's conditions are met.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 14A disallowance under Rule 8D cannot automatically increase book profit under the MAT computation provisions.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798494</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798494</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Disallowance computed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot, merely because it is disallowed for normal tax computation, be added to book profit under Section 115JB. The relevant Explanation permits adjustment only for expenditure relating to exempt income determined under the book-profit computation, and does not import the Section 14A/Rule 8D mechanism. Accordingly, book profit cannot be increased solely by the amount disallowed under Section 14A using Rule 8D.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Disputed-interest settlement eligibility extends to pending writ challenges after rejected interest-waiver applications under the scheme.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798495</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798495</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Eligibility under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 extends to a person whose writ petition challenging an interest determination and rejection of an interest-waiver application was pending on the specified date. Such a person falls within "appellant", while the challenged interest is treated as disputed interest and tax arrears. FAQ 15 applies only where the waiver application itself remained pending before the competent authority on that date; it does not exclude a pending High Court challenge to a decided waiver application. This interpretation permits settlement of a genuine pending interest dispute.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Director tax liability under Section 179 requires consideration of replies and evidence before a fresh lawful determination.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798496</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798496</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 179 liability imposed on a company director requires consideration of the director's reply and supporting documents submitted in response to the show-cause notice. Failure to consider those materials breaches principles of natural justice and renders the liability order unsustainable. The order was quashed, with the matter requiring fresh decision in accordance with law after proper consideration of the director's response and documents.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment approval after the extended limitation period required competent higher authority sanction, rendering revival without jurisdiction.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798497</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798497</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Approval for reassessment after expiry of the extended three-year period required sanction from the authority specified under Section 151(ii). The relaxation period under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 permitted approval under Section 151(i) only until 30 June 2021. Consequently, approval by the Principal Commissioner under Section 151(i) for an order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 issued on 29 July 2022 did not meet the statutory requirement. The reassessment revival was therefore without jurisdiction.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Defective penalty notices based on unstruck cyclostyled particulars faced scrutiny, while discretionary intervention was declined.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798498</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798498</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Validity of a penalty notice was examined in relation to a cyclostyled show-cause notice that retained irrelevant particulars, raising vagueness concerns and questioning whether such a notice could validly found a penalty. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 and dismissed the special leave petition, leaving the impugned order undisturbed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Pre-2021 reassessment limitation: a notice faced challenge after expiry of the applicable statutory limitation period for reassessment.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798499</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798499</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment notices for pre-2021 assessment years are considered in relation to the six-year limitation prescribed under the erstwhile reassessment regime. For AY 2017-18, a notice issued after expiry of that period was challenged. The Special Leave Petition involved an inordinate delay that was not satisfactorily explained, and the High Court's orders were not disturbed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Actual end-use determines GST exemption for tariff-heading paper supplied to manufacturers of exercise books and specified notebooks.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798500</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798500</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[GST exemption for uncoated paper and paperboard under tariff heading 4802 applies only where a recipient established as a manufacturer uses the paper exclusively to produce exercise books, graph books, laboratory notebooks or notebooks. Rate treatment turns on established actual end use at the manufacturing stage, not paper grade, specification, tariff heading alone, or intended use. Paper put to the specified uses is exempt; paper used for other purposes is taxable at 18%. The revised rate scheme takes effect from 22.09.2025, leaving no stated uncertainty over supplies from that date.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Actual-use exemption for uncoated paper applies only to direct supplies received by manufacturers producing specified notebooks and books.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798501</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798501</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Ruled or lined uncoated paper, whether supplied in rolls or cut sheets, remains classifiable under Heading 4802 because ruling, lining and cutting do not create finished stationery articles under Heading 4820. The end-use exemption for qualifying paper applies only to a direct supply to a manufacturer that actually uses it to produce specified books; intended eventual use through an intermediate supply chain is insufficient. Each supply is independently assessed for exemption. Paper mills supplying reels to intermediate processors must charge tax where no separate exemption applies, as recipient-side reverse charge is inapplicable; input tax credit remains subject to statutory conditions.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Advance-ruling bar prevents reopening classification and tax-rate questions already decided in enforcement proceedings concerning the applicant.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798502</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798502</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 98(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 bars admission of an advance-ruling application where the questions raised are already pending or decided in proceedings concerning the applicant. Classification and tax-rate questions previously determined in enforcement proceedings, following adequate hearing opportunities, cannot be reopened through the advance-ruling mechanism. The application is therefore inadmissible because the same questions had already been decided under the Act.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Pure-agent electricity recovery excludes actual HVAC and common-area power charges from GST when recovered without markup.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798503</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798503</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Actual electricity charges recovered from unit holders at the distribution company rate, without markup, for metered HVAC, non-HVAC and apportioned common-area consumption are deemed to be recovered as a pure agent under Circular No. 206/18/2023-GST. Although electricity supplied with maintenance services ordinarily forms part of a composite supply, the circular's deeming treatment applies where recovered charges equal those charged by the electricity board or distribution company and are separately identified from common-area maintenance charges. Such recovery is excluded from the value of supply under Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, and GST is not leviable on those electricity charges.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Inverted duty refunds cover higher-taxed packaging inputs when no rate reduction affects identical goods in the supply chain.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798504</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798504</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Refund under the inverted duty structure may cover accumulated input tax credit on higher-taxed packaging materials used for packaged tea. Packaging materials used in the course or furtherance of business qualify as inputs, and the refund calculation cannot be confined to bulk tea by disregarding ancillary eligible inputs. Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST is confined to credit accumulation caused by a GST rate reduction on the same goods at different points in time. Where bulk tea and packaged tea attract the same rate and no such reduction occurred, the circular does not bar the claim. An administrative circular cannot curtail a statutory refund entitlement.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Demand beyond the show cause notice is prohibited, making excess GST confirmation fundamentally unsustainable under Section 75(7).</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798506</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798506</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 75(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prohibits confirmation of a GST demand exceeding the amount proposed in the show cause notice. Where confirmed demands on two discrepancy counts substantially exceeded the amounts proposed in a single notice, the excess confirmation constituted a fundamental and incurable defect. The adjudication order was therefore unsustainable to the extent it confirmed demand beyond the show cause notice.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>GST payment representations require tender, invoice and final-bill review before authorities issue reasoned decisions on contractor claims.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798507</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798507</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Pending representations seeking GST payment for taxable services require examination of the applicable GST rate, tender conditions, bills, invoices and payment records, including whether GST was already included in final bills. The competent authorities must assess the supporting material and communicate independent, reasoned and speaking decisions on each representation. No determination of the contractor's substantive entitlement to the claimed GST amounts was made. The representations were directed to be decided within six weeks.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Electronic-only GST notice service after registration cancellation invalidates ex parte adjudication without an effective opportunity of hearing.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798508</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798508</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Electronic-only service of a show-cause notice through the Common Portal after cancellation of GST registration does not provide an effective opportunity to participate in Section 74 adjudication. Where proceedings are initiated after deregistration, physical service is required under the applicable departmental circular because the deregistered person may not access, or be required to access, the portal. An ex parte adjudication based solely on portal upload in those circumstances cannot be sustained. Fresh adjudication requires effective notice, an opportunity to reply, seek relevant documents or cross-examination where necessary, and be heard.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Proceedings against a non-existent merged entity remain void, and CGST recovery provisions cannot validate them.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798511</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798511</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[GST proceedings commenced against an amalgamating company after its merger are void from inception because the entity no longer exists. Section 87 of the CGST Act does not authorise proceedings against a non-existent entity or cure the resulting jurisdictional defect. The GST order was set aside on that basis, and the Supreme Court declined to interfere by dismissing the special leave petition.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Pre-deposit rules follow the show-cause notice date, while disputed proper-officer objections belong before statutory appellate review.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798510</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798510</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Pre-deposit requirements for statutory tax appeals are governed by the regime in force when adjudicatory proceedings commence, namely the date of the show-cause notice; a later substituted requirement does not apply to earlier notices. Challenges to an officer's authority require assessment under function-specific proper-officer provisions, delegated powers and rank-based notifications. Where those instruments do not reveal a patent jurisdictional defect, and challenges involve disputed evidence, natural justice, party roles, quantification or penalties, the statutory appellate remedy remains the appropriate forum.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Debatable taxability of enhanced compensation interest prevents penalty, leading to deletion of the related penalty.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471524</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471524</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Penalty for additions relating to interest received on enhanced compensation cannot be sustained where the taxability of that interest is a debatable legal issue and judicial views diverge. The absence of a settled legal position prevents penalty from being imposed merely because the addition was made. Penalty connected with such interest income was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Royalty characterisation of cricket live-feed fees turns on the distinction between copyright and broadcast rights.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797323</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797323</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Fees received for live transmission or live feeds of cricket matches are characterised as royalty receipts where the service generating the income falls within Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). The central legal distinction concerns copyright and broadcast rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in light of the order in Deputy Director of Income Tax International Taxation v. Shine Satellite Public Company Ltd.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was declined where the investigation's principal nexus and proceedings lay in Mumbai.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797883</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797883</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) remains discretionary even where an SFIO investigation order is issued from Delhi. The principal nexus may instead lie where the investigated companies maintain their registered offices and records, the relevant Registrar of Companies and insolvency proceedings are located, and consequential prosecution would arise. An affidavit filed by an SFIO officer at its Delhi headquarters does not establish Delhi as the central forum. On these factors, Mumbai was treated as the appropriate and convenient forum, and territorial jurisdiction was declined.]]></description>
<category>Corporate Laws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Resale Price Method supports foreign associated enterprise testing where independent trading margins provide functionally comparable uncontrolled transactions.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797672</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797672</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Resale Price Method permits reliance on one or more comparable uncontrolled transactions. Where the foreign associated enterprise is the less complex entity, its margins from trading similar goods with independent parties may provide valid comparables. A high-sea, back-to-back merchant-trading arrangement with secured USD purchases and sales, and without material inventory, market, collection, foreign-exchange or working-capital risks, differs functionally from manufacturing comparables. A time gap does not invalidate a comparable absent a material difference in functions, assets or risks. Benchmarking based on the foreign associated enterprise's comparable transactions was accepted, with no adjustment beyond that voluntarily offered.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>On-money taxation confines assessment to embedded business profit where no evidence supports a higher margin.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798210</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798210</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Unaccounted business receipts evidenced by third-party loose sheets require corroboration and a demonstrated nexus with the taxpayer; project-specific details and conduct in offering related profit supported the receipt quantum. Only the embedded profit in established on-money receipts is taxable, and an admission made to buy peace does not conclusively determine the applicable rate; absent material supporting a higher margin, profit was estimated using an 8% presumptive-tax benchmark. No further telescoping applies where unaccounted expenditure has already been treated as funded from those receipts. A challenge to penalty initiation is premature until a penalty order is made.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Proper-officer functions permit DRI recovery notices, while active participation in prohibited-goods smuggling supports personal penalties.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798400</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798400</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers appointed as customs officers and assigned proper-officer functions may issue recovery notices under the Customs Act. Assignment of functions relating to assessment and recovery distinguishes the statutory roles under the relevant provisions and defeats a jurisdictional objection to such notices. Personal penalties for smuggling prohibited goods are sustainable where an admitted arrangement with de facto importers enabled clearance of concealed goods for cash consideration, demonstrating an active and serious role in the operation. The recovery notice and penalties consequently remain valid on these grounds.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Motor-vehicle accessory classification places exclusively vehicle-used CNG/LPG kits, cylinders and containers under the higher tax rate.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798382</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798382</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Multi-valve CNG/LPG gas kits, cylinders and containers used exclusively in motor vehicles fall within the motor-vehicle accessories category rather than the separate LPG cylinders and containers entry. Classification depends on whether the goods serve as an adjunct, accompaniment or addition enabling convenient, effective or comfortable motor-vehicle use; indispensability to vehicle operation is not required. Their undisputed exclusive motor-vehicle use supports accessory classification, resulting in taxation at the higher rate applicable to motor-vehicle accessories.]]></description>
<category>VAT</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Rule 26 abetment penalty fails where clandestine removal and confiscability of allegedly purchased excisable goods lack corroborative evidence.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798383</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798383</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Penalty for abetting clandestine removal under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that the goods were liable to confiscation. Although an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied on had been provided and was not used, recovery of a diary and notepad did not establish the truth of their contents. In the absence of affirmative corroboration of unaccounted manufacture, raw-material procurement, transport, clearance, buyers, or unaccounted consideration, clandestine removal was not established. As the allegedly purchased goods were not proved liable to confiscation, no Rule 26 penalty was imposable.]]></description>
<category>Excise</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Pipeline intermixing of SKO with HSD/MS is not manufacture, preventing higher differential excise duty on interface clearances.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798384</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798384</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Intermixing superior kerosene oil (SKO) with high-speed diesel or motor spirit during pipeline transfer does not constitute manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the goods are not listed in the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A departmental circular cannot, without statutory support, require duty on SKO at the higher HSD/MS rate. Nor can manufacture be sustained on a ground absent from the show-cause notice. Consequently, the higher differential central excise duty demand on interface-SKO clearances was unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Excise</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Employee group insurance credit remains available where mediclaim and accident cover serve employment-related employer liability purposes.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798385</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798385</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Cenvat credit is admissible on group mediclaim and group personal accident insurance policies obtained for employees where they are connected with employment and employer liability. The exclusion in Rule 2(l)(C) applies to specified services, including life and health insurance and vacation travel benefits, when used primarily for employees' personal use or consumption. Policies not obtained for vacation purposes and distinguishable from life-insurance policies specifically covered by the exclusion do not fall within that bar. Accordingly, employer-provided group medical and personal accident cover qualifies for Cenvat credit.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Composite works contracts with transferred goods fall outside repair service taxation, while extended limitation requires deliberate tax evasion.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798386</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798386</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Composite irrigation-canal contracts involving labour and transfer of property in goods, with VAT paid on the goods component, fall outside Management, Maintenance or Repair Service, which applies to service contracts simpliciter. The resulting service-tax demand is unsustainable. Extended limitation requires deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax; payment of VAT and the absence of such intent do not support its invocation. A one-time manpower supply activity may be taxable in nature, but no demand survives where its taxable value, after excluding exempt values, remains below the applicable threshold exemption.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Manpower supply classification failed where worker members directly engaged clients, and reimbursed wages were excluded from taxable value.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798387</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798387</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Activities of an organisation formed by women workers to provide training, employment security and direct client engagement did not amount to manpower recruitment or supply agency service, because it was comprised of the workforce rather than supplying manpower as a service. The service-tax demand was therefore unsustainable. Reimbursed wages paid to members performing the work could not be included in taxable value unless established as consideration for a taxable service. As the remaining registration fee was negligible and below the taxable limit, adopting gross collections without excluding wage reimbursements was unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Composite works contracts escaped service tax before taxable works contract service commenced; later-period tax and interest remained appropriable.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798388</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798388</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Composite construction contracts involving both material supply and civil construction activity were not liable to service tax before works contract service became taxable on 1 June 2007. The applicable framework did not permit taxing such indivisible works contracts during the earlier period. Service tax and applicable interest voluntarily paid for the period from 1 June 2007 to March 2008 were subject to appropriation. Consequently, the pre-1 June 2007 demand and related penalties were set aside, while appropriation of tax and interest for the subsequent period was sustained.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Indirect-tax refund claims fail without proof that tax incidence was retained, despite non-levy clarification or non-recovery protection.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798389</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798389</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Indirect-tax refund requires the claimant to establish independently that the tax incidence was not passed to the service recipient. A non-levy or non-recovery notification concerning electricity transmission and distribution services protects against recovery of tax not levied, but does not itself create an unconditional right to recover tax already collected and deposited. A non-taxability clarification likewise does not remove refund requirements. Where contractual consideration is inclusive of Service Tax, the statutory presumption of passing on applies unless rebutted by primary records, such as invoices, ledgers, credit notes, reduced consideration, or proof of repayment to the recipient.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Extended limitation fails where advertising-space tax disputes arise from disclosed records and bona fide interpretational uncertainty.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798390</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798390</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Mere sub-letting of hoarding sites to advertising agencies before 1 May 2006, without supplying services within the taxable category, did not attract service tax as Advertising Agency Service. For the period after 1 May 2006, extended limitation was unavailable where advertising agencies discharged tax on client consideration, including hoarding-space charges, making the arrangement revenue-neutral. Demand particulars derived from statutory records, regular returns were filed, and no positive concealment was identified. A bare allegation of suppression could not displace the bona fide interpretational dispute arising amid conflicting views; the related tax demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Clinical-trial testing exemption and employee bond forfeitures exclude service tax where regulatory approval rests with trial sponsors.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798391</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798391</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Clinical-trial testing and analysis performed by a clinical research organisation for sponsors holding trial approvals falls within the service-tax exemption where separate approval for the organisation is not issued under the regulatory framework. Strict construction does not justify imposing an impossible approval condition. Employee bond-forfeiture recoveries following premature resignation are compensatory for breach of a service commitment, not consideration for commercial training, coaching, or tolerating an act. Extended limitation requires fraud, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade tax; prior disclosure and a tenable exemption belief do not meet that standard. Consequently, no interest or penalties arise where the underlying tax demands fail.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Disclosure of relied-upon documents protects fair hearing rights, while evidentiary necessity governs retention of seized material.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798392</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798392</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a panchnama does not replace disclosure of documents relied upon to authorise retention of seized material. Affected persons must receive those documents to make an effective response; non-supply denies a fair opportunity, although fresh proceedings or remand may be inequitable after substantial delay and filing of a prosecution complaint. Retention is justified only where seized material is relied upon in a prosecution or supplementary complaint and is necessary to prove allegations at trial. Material not so relied upon must be released within a reasonable time, while authenticated photocopies may be retained and evidentiary documents kept until trial concludes.]]></description>
<category>PMLA</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Equivalent-value attachment under money-laundering law requires a proven proceeds-of-crime nexus and a real risk of frustrated confiscation.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798393</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798393</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Equivalent-value attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires a demonstrable nexus between the targeted property and proceeds of crime, including evidence that tainted funds were passed on or layered and are unavailable for direct attachment. A subsidiary relationship or an unrelated gift to a holding company does not, by itself, establish that nexus or justify disregarding separate corporate identity. Provisional attachment also requires a substantiated likelihood that property will be concealed, transferred, or otherwise dealt with to frustrate confiscation. Existing mortgages, arbitration measures, and insolvency proceedings subjecting property dealings to the NCLT process do not establish that risk. Dealings with the properties remain governed by the insolvency process.]]></description>
<category>PMLA</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Proceeds-of-crime attachment reaches non-accused holders when legitimate property sources and absence of criminal nexus remain unestablished.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798394</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798394</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act may extend to proceeds of crime held by any person, including a person not named as an accused in the FIR or ECIR. Sections 5 and 8 focus on tracing and freezing tainted property rather than the holder's accused status. Where the property holder fails to establish disclosed, ancestral, or other legitimate sources capable of explaining acquisition, the statutory burden remains undischarged and attachment may be sustained. A prior Supreme Court order warrants release only where it demonstrably concerns the attached properties and directs such relief.]]></description>
<category>PMLA</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Going-concern sale implementation permits consequential reliefs, but preserves agreed acquisition costs and independent statutory compliance.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798396</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798396</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Going-concern sales in liquidation may receive consequential directions needed to implement the sale effectively, including recognition of revised shareholding and listing arrangements, release of charges, updating credit records, unfreezing accounts, continuity of litigation under new management, continuation of subsisting licences and entitlements, and change of corporate status from liquidation to active. These measures operate subject to applicable filings, fees, ownership-change compliance and independent statutory powers. The clean slate doctrine prevents pre-transfer unpaid claims from being imposed on the purchaser after distribution of sale proceeds. Relief cannot, however, preserve all receivables, create a fresh limitation period, waive stamp duty, taxes or registration charges accepted under sale terms, or grant concessions beyond the transaction documents.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Company investigation safeguards require recorded statutory satisfaction and prior hearing before external agencies receive tracking-information directions.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798397</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798397</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Company-affairs investigations require the Tribunal to satisfy the statutory conditions for investigation, record rational reasons demonstrating necessity, apply its mind to the prescribed circumstances, and give the affected company or persons a reasonable opportunity of hearing. These safeguards apply before investigative steps are initiated or external agencies are asked to provide tracking information, because such directions may have civil, economic and reputational consequences. Directions to the Enforcement Directorate and Central Bureau of Investigation for tracking information issued without recorded satisfaction, reasons or prior hearing are unsustainable. Any reconsideration of their necessity must follow a hearing and an order made in accordance with law.]]></description>
<category>Corporate Laws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Redemption of restricted second-hand imports requires reasoned discretion; restriction alone cannot justify absolute confiscation or substitute statutory penalties.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798398</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798398</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Restricted import of second-hand goods, other than capital goods, requires authorisation under the Foreign Trade Policy. Their restricted status may make them liable to confiscation, but does not by itself justify absolute confiscation. Denial of redemption on payment of fine requires specific, reasoned exercise of discretion under the Customs Act; absent recorded reasons, redemption should remain available. Penalties for improper importation and penalties for false or incorrect declarations rest on distinct statutory bases. A penalty imposed under one provision cannot be enhanced or substituted under the other without the requisite legal basis. The original redemption option and penalty framework were restored.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Extended limitation requires deliberate suppression; pile fabrics fall under the specific tariff heading, while exemption eligibility requires fresh review.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798399</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798399</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Extended limitation for customs duty requires deliberate non-disclosure of material facts with intent to evade duty; prior departmental knowledge and acceptance of the declared classification therefore precluded extended-period liability. Specific classification of woven warp cut-pile fabrics under CTH 5801, rather than headings based on constituent textile material, applied because the pile-fabric heading governed their essential character; the live consignments remained so classified. Alternative CVD and SAD exemption claims may be raised after clearance absent fraud but require fact-based determination of notification conditions, requiring remand for merits review. Prior acceptance also negated blameworthy conduct, so confiscation and penalties did not survive.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment of excess export duty fixes refund limitation and starts statutory interest after the prescribed payment period.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798401</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798401</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Excess export duty first quantified through departmental reassessment is governed by the reassessment date for refund limitation and statutory interest. Refunds based on an alleged legal error must follow the self-contained mechanism under Section 27 of the Customs Act; the Limitation Act and Article 265 cannot independently override that regime. Where the excess payment was not reflected in the original assessment records, reassessment ascertains the refund entitlement, rendering a pending correction request and refund claim maintainable. Interest under Section 27A runs after three months from reassessment until actual payment, at the notified rate.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Provisional release security must remain proportionate to disputed customs duty, and compliance cannot bar merits review of its demand.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798402</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798402</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 110A permits bond, security and conditions for provisional release pending adjudication, but requires a case-specific and proportionate exercise of discretion. For non-prohibited goods involving tariff classification and differential-duty disputes, security should correspond to the disputed duty and be assessed on relevant material, including classification test reports. Compliance with interim security to maintain business operations does not end the importer's grievance or appellate entitlement. A tribunal cannot treat revenue protection as sufficient and dispose of the challenge without deciding the validity and extent of the security demand on merits.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Statutory revision governs disputed customs confiscation facts, making writ review unsuitable where waiver and notice remain contested.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798403</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798403</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Statutory revision under the Customs Act is the appropriate forum for examining confiscation of baggage goods where the alleged waiver of notice and hearing, oral show-cause notice, and their voluntariness and legal effect are disputed. Although an alternative remedy does not absolutely bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226, its exercise is discretionary and is unsuitable where contested factual questions require examination of the record. The legality of confiscation, penalty, and compliance with the notice requirement remains open for determination by the revisional authority in accordance with law.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Customs notice safeguards: disputed facts over detained gold preclude writ-based release and require adjudication on merits.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798404</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798404</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Mandatory safeguards under Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act require more than a mechanical pre-printed waiver; such a waiver alone does not meet the notice requirement. Signed contemporaneous statements and a subsequent written acknowledgement may, however, record non-declaration through the Green Channel, receipt of an oral show cause notice, and a request for merits adjudication. Where allegations of coercion, fabricated records, or Red Channel declaration conflict with those records, they require evidentiary assessment and cannot be resolved in Article 226 proceedings. Release of detained gold through mandamus is therefore unavailable absent an undisputed statutory violation, while confiscation and penalty remain for competent adjudication.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reverse burden in customs cases distinguishes gold, silver and cash confiscation based on reasonable belief and evidentiary nexus.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798405</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798405</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 123 of the Customs Act shifts the burden of proving lawful acquisition of notified goods only after reasonable belief of smuggling is established through material evidence. Foreign markings, concealment, carrier statements, high purity and inconsistent explanations may support that threshold, while general invoices and stock records lacking a traceable link to seized gold do not discharge the reverse burden. Silver bullion without foreign markings, clandestine transport, or evidence of illicit import does not attract the presumption merely because of stock discrepancies. Indian currency requires cogent evidence connecting it to sale proceeds of smuggled goods before confiscation; suspicion cannot replace proof.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Unexplained investment and rural agricultural land: explained cash and statutory distance rules eliminated tax additions.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798408</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798408</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Unexplained-investment addition under Section 69 could not be sustained where the cash-payment computation incorrectly treated the stated total purchase cost as consideration paid in addition to the registered value, available funds explained the actual cash payments, and no corroborative evidence established unexplained investment. Rural agricultural land was not a capital asset for capital-gains purposes where, for Assessment Year 2011-12, distance had to be measured from municipal limits existing on the relevant notification date rather than subsequently expanded limits. Diversion of land at the purchaser's request did not alter its agricultural character for the transaction. Consequently, no taxable unexplained investment or capital gain arose.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Tax-deduction obligations survive expenditure disallowance, while year-end provisions require vendor-wise verification before default liability is determined.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798409</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798409</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Suo motu disallowance of expenditure for failure to deduct tax does not extinguish the separate obligation to deduct and deposit tax under the tax-deduction regime, nor does it preclude consequences for default. Liability concerning year-end expense provisions depends on verified facts rather than aggregate tax-audit disclosures. Relevant verification includes whether provisions identify particular vendors and credited amounts, whether liabilities arise from estimates or invoices, whether entries were reversed, and whether tax was deducted when invoices were received. Deletion of tax and interest demands requires examination of these vendor-wise provisions and subsequent tax-deduction compliance.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>BSNL voluntary retirement compensation qualifies as retrenchment compensation, creating exempt capital-receipt treatment for employees under the scheme.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798410</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798410</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Compensation received by BSNL employees under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 is characterised in substance as retrenchment compensation rather than voluntary-retirement compensation taxable beyond the separate statutory exemption. On that characterisation, the payment constitutes a capital receipt and is exempt from income tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The treatment follows coordinate decisions addressing the same scheme compensation.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment jurisdiction requires specific notice, reasoned satisfaction, independent approval, and fair access to adverse third-party material; otherwise proceedings are void.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798411</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798411</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment jurisdiction requires a valid statutory notice, clear and specific jurisdictional satisfaction, and approval showing independent scrutiny. Omnibus notices that retain mutually inapplicable contingencies without identifying the relevant search, documents, or alleged income fail to establish jurisdiction. A reassessment cannot materially depart from the recorded satisfaction by adopting a different basis for taxing the transaction. Where reliance is placed on third-party material or statements, the affected person must receive the underlying material and an effective opportunity for cross-examination when specifically requested. Defective notice, vague satisfaction, mechanical approval, and denial of procedural fairness render the reassessment proceedings and resulting order void from inception.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Foreign tax credit eligibility bars business-expense deduction even where no Indian tax liability permits credit utilisation.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798412</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798412</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Foreign withholding taxes eligible for double-taxation relief under sections 90 or 91 fall within Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii), even when nil Indian tax liability prevents use of the foreign tax credit. Such taxes therefore cannot be claimed as business expenditure under section 37(1). An additional claim for that deduction may be examined in appellate proceedings where foreign-source income, taxes paid and credit claimed were already disclosed in the return, computation and Form 67, so that no further fact-finding is required; Rule 46A does not warrant threshold rejection. Eligibility for relief, rather than actual credit utilisation, determines the deduction bar.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Unexplained expenditure additions fail when purchase evidence, bank payments and GST reconciliation establish the source of expenditure.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798413</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798413</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Deletion of an addition for alleged unexplained expenditure is justified where the taxpayer substantiates purchases through invoices, ledger accounts, bank-payment records, supplier confirmations, transport documents, e-way bills, bill-T receipts and supplier GST returns. Differences between books and GST data require reconciliation, including whether book figures are GST-inclusive and GST figures GST-exclusive. Non-response by suppliers to information notices alone does not warrant an adverse inference when the taxpayer's evidence is unrebutted. Unexplained-expenditure provisions apply only where the source of expenditure remains unproved; documented banking-channel payments establish that source.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Trade and quantity discounts from dairy agency operations cannot be treated as unexplained money without justification.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798414</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798414</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Trade and quantity discounts earned by a dairy resale agent were explained receipts where bank records showed a joint account with the dairy, same-day deposit and withdrawal of sales proceeds by the dairy, and agency income limited to discounts. Treating those discounts as unexplained money and estimating taxable income by allowing only a portion as storage and distribution expenses lacked justification. The estimated addition was deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Functional comparability in transfer pricing requires regulatory affairs services to be benchmarked independently, not re-characterised as knowledge process outsourcing.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798415</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798415</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Transfer-pricing analysis treats enterprises as associated where an overseas entity's business is wholly dependent on regulatory affairs and compliance processes performed by the Indian entity, engaging section 92A(2)(g). The Indian entity remains the tested party where foreign comparable data cannot be readily accessed or verified. Regulatory affairs services cannot be re-characterised as knowledge process outsourcing unless they fall within Rule 10TA(g)'s exhaustive definition. Comparables performing materially different functions fail functional, asset and risk and comparability analysis; the arm's length price requires fresh benchmarking against functionally comparable entities after an opportunity to furnish relevant material.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Fully disclosed debatable slump-sale computation cannot support inaccurate-particulars penalty despite acceptance of the related capital-gains addition.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798416</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798416</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars does not arise where capital-gains computation on a slump sale, including treatment of negative net worth, rests on a bona fide and fully disclosed legal claim. Divergent Tribunal interpretations of the relevant provision and admission of a substantial question of law demonstrated that the issue was debatable. Acceptance of a quantum addition, including by not pursuing a ground to avoid further litigation, does not by itself establish concealment or inaccurate particulars. Penalty was therefore not leviable, and its deletion was sustained.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Misreporting penalties require independent statutory proof; omitted interest income alone remains under-reporting subject to the ordinary penalty rate.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798417</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798417</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 270A distinguishes under-reporting, penalised at 50% of tax on under-reported income, from misreporting, which attracts 200% only where the specified statutory circumstances are proved. Omitted interest income and its detection by the Revenue establish under-reporting but do not automatically establish misreporting; enhanced penalty requires independent evidence of the relevant statutory ingredients. Non-response to electronic notices alone is insufficient for that characterisation. Multiple reassessment, show-cause and penalty-stage notices may satisfy the opportunity-of-hearing requirement where the taxpayer does not use the available opportunities.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Corpus donations through documented donor intent protect infrastructure grants while charitable accumulation and exemption claims require proper computation.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798418</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798418</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Corpus treatment for infrastructure grants may be established through donor resolutions, earmarking, separate fund accounting and use for the specified infrastructure purpose; a separate written direction for each contribution is not necessary. Charitable entities may claim permitted statutory accumulation and, where applicable, accumulation despite delayed filing of the prescribed form when condonation relief applies. Additions for alleged double application require prior notice and an opportunity to respond. Promotion of cricket does not constitute trade, commerce or business without evidence of commercial operations. Depreciation cannot be denied without proof that asset cost was previously claimed as application, while additions for prohibited benefits and enhanced receipts require identified violations and evidentiary support.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Invalid transfer jurisdiction renders the assessment non est and prevents any penalty founded upon it from surviving.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798419</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798419</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Transfer of an income-tax case under Section 127 requires an order by a competent statutory authority, ordinarily following a reasonable hearing and recorded reasons. A work-allocation order by a Joint Commissioner lacking Section 127 transfer power cannot validly transfer jurisdiction to the officer completing the assessment. The assessee's participation in assessment proceedings or failure to object within thirty days does not cure this foundational jurisdictional defect. The resulting assessment is without jurisdiction and non est, and any penalty founded on that assessment cannot survive.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Transfer-pricing adjustment rectification reduced the upward adjustment to nil, leaving no surviving grounds and requiring effect in assessment.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798420</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798420</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Rectification of an upward transfer-pricing adjustment under section 92CA(4) reduced the adjustment to nil. As the taxpayer's grievance stood resolved through the rectification order, no grounds remained for adjudication. The Assessing Officer was required to give effect to that rectification, ensuring that the assessment reflects the nil adjustment and the corrected transfer-pricing position.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Stamp-duty valuation presumption rebutted where purchaser-funded land conversion, not market appreciation, caused the valuation difference.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798421</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798421</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 56(2)(x) permits reliance on stamp-duty value but its valuation presumption is rebuttable. Where an agreement to purchase agricultural land pre-dated the provision, subsequent conversion to non-agricultural use at the purchaser's expense could explain the higher stamp-duty value without establishing undisclosed consideration or independent market appreciation. The purchaser's inability to foresee prescribed banking-mode requirements for advance consideration was material. As the consideration related to the original land extent despite Government retention on conversion, the stamp-duty valuation difference did not justify an addition under Section 56(2)(x).]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Tribunal territorial jurisdiction follows the Assessing Officer's location, preventing adjudication by a Bench linked only to appellate proceedings.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798422</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798422</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal Bench is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order, not by the assessee's location or the appellate authority's location. Where the assessment order was issued by an Assessing Officer at Chennai, a subsequent appellate order at Mumbai did not confer jurisdiction on the Mumbai Bench. The related cross-objection, arising from the same assessment proceedings, could not be adjudicated there either. The Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection therefore required consideration by the appropriate Bench, with all merits remaining open.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Unexplained money addition fails where third-party records lack proof of the assessee's ownership or unaccounted fund receipt.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798423</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798423</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 69A requires proof that the assessee owned money or valuable assets not recorded in its books. Third-party loose papers, digital entries and statements alleging over-invoicing and cash kickbacks, without a search, cash seizure, asset, bank trail or other independent evidence linking unaccounted funds to the assessee, do not establish such ownership or receipt. An allegation that a supplier returned cash to a customer is also inconsistent with treating that cash as unexplained money of the supplier. Reliance on customer officials' statements without cross-examination further weakens the charge. The stated addition was therefore legally unsustainable and deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Revised-return scrutiny notices are jurisdictional, invalidating assessments when no fresh notice follows the operative revised return.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798424</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798424</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Valid revised returns replace original returns, requiring a fresh jurisdictional scrutiny notice; assessments based on revised returns without it are void, and participation or curative service provisions cannot remedy its absence. Trademark depreciation cannot be restricted again after the asset enters the opening intangible-asset block, and road-access payments without a proprietary capital asset remain revenue expenditure. Weighted research deduction cannot be denied solely for absent pre-amendment expenditure quantification, but substantive eligibility requires verification. Interest already taxed cannot be taxed again; sufficient own funds negate proportionate borrowing-cost disallowance absent a proven nexus. Exempt-income disallowance requires account-based satisfaction and cannot be mechanically added to book profit.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Alternative remedy doctrine yields where assessment ignores material on exempt stipend status, requiring fresh factual determination by the Assessing Officer.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798425</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798425</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Alternative statutory remedy does not preclude Article 226 review where an assessment is made without considering relevant facts and law. Payments received by a postgraduate medical student were treated as salary solely on university information, without addressing certificate and governmental material supporting their character as an exempt stipend. Because the stipend-versus-salary characterisation was a vital factual issue, an effective opportunity to submit supporting documents before the Assessing Officer was required. Relegation to the statutory remedy was therefore unsustainable, requiring fresh determination after consideration of the relevant material.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Search-derived third-party material requires Section 153C assessment, making reassessment under Sections 147/148 impermissible.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798426</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798426</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 20:13:11 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Search-derived incriminating material concerning a person other than the searched person must be assessed through Section 153C, subject to recording and transmission of the required satisfaction. Sections 147/148 apply only where material is independently sourced and cannot substitute for the search-assessment mechanism. The second proviso to Section 149 also barred recourse to Section 148 where the relevant search commenced before 31 March 2021. Consequently, reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 on third-party search material, including the notice and order under Section 148A(d), were invalid.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
<item>
<title>TMI Updates - Newsletter dated: September 08, 2026</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/newsletter?id=09/08/2026</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/newsletter?id=09/08/2026</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Newsletter for tax updates and legal information]]></description>
<category>Daily Updates</category>
<category>Tax</category>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>