<?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>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
        <language>en-us</language>
        <webMaster>webmaster@taxtmi.com</webMaster>
        <managingEditor>editor@taxtmi.com</managingEditor>
        <ttl>60</ttl>
        <item>
<title>Condonation of delay in statutory appeal allowed after limited delay, with the matter remanded for decision on merits.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468632</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468632</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The writ court interfered where a statutory appeal had been rejected solely for being filed 36 days beyond limitation. Accepting the explanation that the appeal was filed after knowledge of the original order, the court found it appropriate to condone the delay and restore the matter for consideration on merits. The appellate authority was directed to hear the appeal afresh, so the limitation objection did not defeat substantive adjudication.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Taxability disputes fall within the rate-of-duty exclusion, leaving High Court appeal under excise law not maintainable.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790524</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790524</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held not maintainable where the proposed substantial question of law concerned taxability of the transaction, because such a dispute falls within the exclusion in Section 35L(2) as a question relating to the rate of duty. The court treated the issue of whether the transaction amounted to sale of goods or service under the Finance Act, 1994 as a taxability question for assessment purposes, and therefore outside High Court appellate jurisdiction. The appeal was rejected on maintainability, with the matter lying, if at all, before the Supreme Court under Section 35L.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Excise duty on manufacture bars later levy on pre-commencement stock, so post-date clearance did not create liability.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791593</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791593</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Additional Excise Duty introduced from 11.07.2014 could not be imposed on goods manufactured and brought into stock before that date merely because they were cleared later. Excise liability arises on manufacture or production, while collection at removal is only a mode of recovery; since no levy existed when the goods were manufactured, the later statutory introduction could not retrospectively fasten duty on pre-levy stock. The demand was therefore unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Excise</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Clandestine removal proved by transport records and admission, but separate partner penalty failed without a distinct role.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791594</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791594</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Recovered lorry receipts from factory premises, together with an un-retracted partner's admission, were treated as sufficient evidence of clandestine removal; the extended period, duty demand, interest and penalty against the firm were sustained. The Tribunal rejected the challenge to valuation because the invoice-based method matched the admission and supporting records. A separate penalty on the partner under Rule 26(1) was set aside because no distinct, independently established role was shown once the firm had already been penalised, and duplicate penalty was held unwarranted in the absence of a separate attributable act.]]></description>
<category>Excise</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Photograph printing as manufacture: transforming soft-copy images into photo books falls outside service tax on photography services.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791597</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791597</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Printing photographs from soft copy onto paper and binding them into photo books was treated as manufacture because the process materially changed the identity and nature of the input into a distinct commercial product. On that basis, the activity fell within the printed matter classification under Chapter 4911 and was covered by the relevant service tax exemption notifications. The contrary view advanced by the Revenue was rejected in light of earlier precedent. Service tax on photography services was therefore not leviable, and the demand with consequential penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Extended limitation for service tax cannot apply without suppression or wilful evasion where exemption and non-taxability are supported.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791598</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791598</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Extended period of limitation for service tax could not be invoked where the assessee produced breakup of receipts and supporting records showing both sale of goods and composite installation-related activity, and where those materials supported the claim that the taxable service value remained within the threshold exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-Service Tax. The demand failed because the assessee's conduct reflected a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable, and the record did not show wilful suppression or intent to evade tax. As a result, the demand for service tax, interest and penalties was held unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Business facilitator services in rural banking areas qualified for service tax exemption, defeating the demand.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791599</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791599</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Services provided by a business facilitator or direct sourcing agent to a banking company in rural and remote areas were covered by Entry 29(g) of Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax, because the record showed the activities were carried out in rural locations in relation to banking business there. The service tax demand was therefore not sustainable.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Service tax proceedings remitted to show-cause stage after orders were set aside, with exemption and limitation issues to be reconsidered.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791600</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791600</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[In service tax proceedings, the Karnataka HC set aside the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal and remitted the matter to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice. The Court followed its earlier order in connected matters and directed the authorities to consider the observations already made, including the character of services under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 28.06.2012, and limitation. The petitioner was permitted to file a fresh reply, and the consequential recovery action by attachment of the bank account was ordered to be rescinded.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Service tax adjudication remitted to show-cause stage as related liability, exemption, reverse charge, and limitation issues remained open.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791601</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791601</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Service tax adjudication was set aside where the impugned Order-in-Original was found inconsistent with directions issued in connected matters. The Court treated the dispute as requiring fresh consideration on liability under Section 65B(44), the negative list, exemption notifications, reverse charge, and limitation, and therefore remitted the matter to the stage of reply to the show cause notice. The assessee was allowed to file a fresh reply, and the authority was directed to decide the case afresh while keeping all contentions open.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Bail in PMLA proceedings may be granted where trial progress, witness examination, age and incarceration support relief.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791602</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791602</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[In a PMLA prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 linked to predicate corruption offences, bail may be justified where the trial has substantially progressed, key witnesses have been examined, and the accused is of advanced age with prolonged incarceration. The Court treated these factors as sufficient to set aside the impugned order and enlarge the appellant on bail, subject to Trial Court conditions.]]></description>
<category>PMLA</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Importer's failure to prove imports and absence of due diligence sustained FEMA liability, though penalty was reduced.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791603</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791603</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An importer who, after notice, failed to furnish or preserve documentary proof of import was held liable to adverse inference and penalty under the FEMA framework and RBI directions, because the duty to produce evidence of import rested on the importer and not merely on the authorised dealer. Liability under Section 42 was also upheld against the person responsible for the company's business during the contravention period, as the managing director produced no proof of due diligence. The Tribunal sustained the findings of contravention and responsible-person liability, but reduced the penalty on proportionality grounds.]]></description>
<category>FEMA</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>FEMA compliance on import remittances requires lawful utilisation or repatriation; unsupported third-party adjustments do not cure contravention.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791604</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791604</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Foreign exchange remitted for a specific import purpose must be applied to that purpose or lawfully realized and repatriated; ad hoc third-party adjustments are not sufficient without admissible evidence or RBI permission. The Tribunal rejected the attempt to justify unutilised remittance through supplies and refunds routed via a separate company, holding that distinct legal entities could not be treated as interchangeable for FEMA compliance. It also noted that customs proceedings were independent and did not determine FEMA liability. The appellant was found in contravention of Section 10(6) of FEMA read with Regulation 6(1) of the 2000 Regulations, but the penalty was reduced as excessive on the facts.]]></description>
<category>FEMA</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Service direction not uploaded in time: dismissal for want of notice steps was set aside</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791605</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791605</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A party cannot be penalised for non-compliance with a direction to serve notice on the corporate debtor when the relevant order was not uploaded on the tribunal record in time for compliance before the next hearing date. The NCLAT noted that directions to take steps for service were passed, but the corresponding orders were uploaded only after the subsequent dates fixed for hearing. Applying the principle that no litigant should suffer for the fault or delay of the court, it held that the dismissal of the Section 7 petition for want of service steps was unsustainable and set aside the dismissal order.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Condonation of delay in refiling requires a credible date-wise explanation; unsupported excuses will not justify leniency.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791606</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791606</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A liberal approach may be applied to delay in refiling, but only where the applicant gives a satisfactory, credible and date-wise explanation for the entire period. Explanations based on illness, family exigencies, alleged foreign travel and difficulty in procuring legible records were found unsupported by convincing material and lacking a continuous chronology of diligent steps to cure defects. In insolvency proceedings, procedural leniency cannot be applied mechanically when the delay remains inadequately explained, so sufficient cause was not established and the delay in refiling was not condoned.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Mandatory certified-copy compliance in insolvency appeals controls maintainability and cannot be cured by delay condonation.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791607</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791607</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Compliance with the certified-copy requirement for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is treated as mandatory, and an appeal filed or refiled without the impugned order's certified copy, or without seeking exemption from filing it, is not properly instituted. The text also states that delay condonation cannot cure that basic defect: the appellate tribunal must first determine whether a valid appeal exists before granting indulgence on delay. On that reasoning, the procedural defect makes the appeal incompetent at the threshold and undermines the order condoning delay.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Company Court jurisdiction and involuntary lease transfer principles guided rejection of differential premium claims in liquidation.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791608</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791608</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was considered in the context of the Official Liquidator's application concerning involuntary transfer of leasehold rights. The High Court upheld the Company Court's jurisdiction to decide the issues raised by the Official Liquidator, rejected MIDC's claim for differential premium on the footing that the transfer in liquidation was an involuntary formal transfer, and left the question of extension charges to be addressed when MIDC lodges its claim in liquidation. The special leave petition was dismissed, with the SC declining to interfere on the facts.]]></description>
<category>Corporate Laws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Settlement scheme implementation secured by keeping conflicting orders in abeyance and directing expeditious escrow payment steps.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791609</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791609</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An approved settlement scheme for payment to entitled investors was to be implemented through an escrow mechanism under supervisory control. Continued operation of the impugned orders, and the need for further directions from courts and authorities, were identified as obstacles to timely execution. To support prompt implementation, the impugned orders were kept in abeyance and all concerned courts and authorities were directed to act expeditiously. The directions also fixed a timeline for deposit or transmission of the settlement amount into the escrow account after de-freezing of the relevant accounts, so that the scheme could proceed in an orderly manner.]]></description>
<category>Corporate Laws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>SAD refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus may still be available where subsequent sale attracts NIL sales tax/VAT.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791610</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791610</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The refund scheme for special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus requires payment of customs duty at import, subsequent sale of the goods, and prescribed documentary proof of appropriate sales tax or VAT on that sale. The note states that the condition is not defeated merely because the applicable sales tax or VAT rate is NIL, where the sale is otherwise outside the levy and the importer satisfies the scheme's substantive requirements. On that basis, the refund conditions are treated as complied with.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Unlocking and activating export mobile phones is configuration, not use, so confiscation and penalties could not stand.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791611</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791611</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Unlocking and activating mobile phones for export was treated as configuration to make the goods usable in the destination territory, not as "taking into use" under the drawback framework. On that legal basis, the contrary clarificatory circular could not sustain allegations of mis-declaration, suppression, or ineligibility for drawback. As the foundation for confiscation failed, the connected redemption fine and penalties under the customs provisions were held unsustainable and were set aside.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Incomplete laboratory testing cannot support final customs classification; fresh testing and provisional clearance were directed to resolve uncertainty.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791612</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791612</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Incomplete laboratory testing cannot sustain final customs classification or confiscatory action where the competing BIS specifications remain indistinguishable on the available reports. Because the tests did not conclusively examine all material parameters, the goods could not be finally classified on that basis. The matter was remanded for fresh testing on all relevant parameters to determine the correct description, and provisional clearance was directed on execution of bond and bank guarantee to avoid hardship while the classification dispute remained open.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Refund of Extra Duty Deposit upheld on limitation and unjust enrichment grounds, with interest awarded on delayed payment.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791613</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791613</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A refund claim for Extra Duty Deposit was found not barred by limitation because the relevant Bill of Entry had been finally assessed within the one-year refund framework. The tribunal also held that unjust enrichment did not apply where the importer's books showed the amount as recoverable from customs and the deposit was supported by a loan from the promoter company with repayment evidence; the contrary finding rested on an incorrect financial year. As the refund was admissible to the claimant, credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund did not survive, and interest was payable on the delayed refund. The appeal succeeded and the transfer order was set aside.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Invalid reassessment approval by the wrong authority vitiates a delayed notice and makes the reassessment void ab initio.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791616</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791616</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment notice issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year required prior approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority under section 151(1)(ii). Approval granted only by the Principal Commissioner did not satisfy the statutory safeguard and therefore was invalid. The defective approval went to the root of jurisdiction, rendering the section 148 notice bad in law and the consequential reassessment order void ab initio.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Genuine share transaction evidence supported long-term capital gain exemption, as suspicion alone could not sustain the addition.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791617</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791617</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Documentary evidence of share transactions supported acceptance of the long-term capital gain claim and the related exemption under section 10(38), because the assessee produced contract notes, bank statements, demat records, and ledgers showing routing through registered brokers and banking channels. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not discredited these materials with specific evidence, had not proved price manipulation or any penny stock accommodation scheme, and had relied mainly on suspicion and general information. It also followed co-ordinate Bench and jurisdictional decisions supporting genuine share transactions where a clear documentary trail exists. The addition for alleged bogus capital gain and commission was deleted and the exemption claim was accepted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Charitable accumulation under section 11(2) cannot be reused as exemption without proof of actual application within time.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791618</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791618</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Income accumulated and claimed exempt under section 11(2) cannot be claimed again in a later year unless the assessee shows actual utilisation for the permitted charitable purposes within the statutory accumulation period. On the facts, the Tribunal found that the earlier accumulated amount had already been reflected as exempt, while the impugned sum had not been applied during the year and was separately dealt with in the current return and Form 10B. The claim was therefore treated as an impermissible second exemption, and the unutilised accumulated income attracted taxation under section 11(3).]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Unexplained income versus presumptive business receipts: unsupported salary claims failed, but rice-trading turnover was accepted as business income.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791619</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791619</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Unsubstantiated salary, commission and standard deduction claims were not accepted because the assessee produced no cogent evidence of employment, receipt or brokerage, so the additions as unexplained income were sustained. By contrast, rice-trading receipts supported by bills, confirmations and supplier details were treated as business receipts; income returned under the presumptive scheme did not require regular books of account, and section 69A could not be applied to recharacterise the same receipts as unexplained money. The result was that the salary and commission additions failed, while the rice-trading and presumptive-income additions were deleted, giving the assessee only partial relief.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment validity and unexplained deposits upheld where identity was established and the source of funds remained unproved.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791620</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791620</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment based on recorded reasons, supply of those reasons, and issuance of statutory notices was sustained where documentary evidence, identity records, PAN/Aadhaar-linked details, specimen signatures, and the society manager's statement established that the person assessed was the same person named in the notices despite a variation in name. The procedural objection that the notice was issued to a different person was rejected. The addition for unexplained cash and term deposits, together with related interest, was also upheld because the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the deposits on the society records, statement evidence, cross-examination material, and surrounding circumstances.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Penny stock additions fail when exchange trades, demat entries, bank routing, and disclosure lack any direct nexus to alleged operators.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791621</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791621</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Additions based on alleged penny stock accommodation entries were found unsustainable where the share transactions were executed through the stock exchange, securities transaction tax was paid, the shares were reflected in the demat account, and sale proceeds moved through banking channels. The assessee had also disclosed the transactions in the return of income. In the absence of direct material linking the assessee to entry operators, brokers, or any colourable device, generalized suspicion and the theory of human probabilities were insufficient to support additions under sections 68 and 69C. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed and the additions were deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Explained business cash deposits cannot be taxed as unexplained cash credits when turnover records and verified receipts support the assessee.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791622</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791622</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Cash deposits in a bank account were held to be explained business receipts, not unexplained cash credits under section 68, because the assessee supported the explanation with turnover, gross profit and net profit details and showed that the business involved cash, cheque and digital realisations from wholesale medicine sales. The record also showed that the appellate authority had verified the materials and accepted that a substantial part of the cash receipts had been deposited in the bank account. In the absence of any material to dislodge those verified findings, the addition was found unsustainable and the deletion in favour of the assessee was upheld.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Delayed Form 10-IC filing was held procedural, preserving eligibility for the concessional corporate tax regime.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791623</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791623</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Delayed filing of Form 10-IC did not defeat the assessee's claim to the concessional corporate tax regime under section 115BAA where the intention to opt for the lower rate was disclosed in the tax audit report and the return otherwise supported the option. The Tribunal treated the filing deadline for Form 10-IC as procedural and directory, not mandatory, because substantive eligibility for the benefit was not in dispute. Belated filing during assessment was therefore sufficient, and denial of the concessional regime was not justified.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Procedural filing of audit report cannot defeat exemption claim when Form 10B was already on record.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791624</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791624</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Entitlement to exemption under sections 11 and 12 was upheld where the audit report in Form 10B had been dated and filed along with the return, and both were already on record when the return was processed. The Tribunal treated the filing requirement as procedural and held that, even if there was any delay during the peak Covid period, it should not have been viewed adversely where the report was available to the Department. Denial of exemption on a late-filing objection was described as hyper-technical, and the disallowance made in rectification proceedings under section 154 was held unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Cash deposit source explanation accepted in part, with partial relief granted despite incomplete corroborative records.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791625</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791625</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Cash deposit in the assessee's bank account was examined as potential unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee explained that the funds arose from liquor business receipts and were reflected in audited books, while the lower authorities rejected the claim for lack of full supporting records. On the material available, the Tribunal accepted that the audited accounts and auditor verification supported the source explanation to some extent, though complete corroborative documentation was not produced. It therefore did not sustain the addition in full and granted partial relief by accepting 50% of the disputed cash deposit as explained.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Agricultural land deduction claim requires verified revenue records before section 54B relief can be allowed.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791626</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791626</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Deduction under section 54B depended on whether the sold land had been used for agricultural purposes during the two years before transfer. The assessee relied on girdawari and other revenue records, while the Revenue disputed the correctness of the khasra entry and pointed to gaps in the documentation. Because the authenticity and accuracy of the revenue evidence were not conclusively verified on the existing record, entitlement to the deduction could not be finally determined. The matter was remanded to the first appellate authority for verification of the documentary evidence and fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the claim.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Cash payment disallowance under the statutory limit upheld where Rule 6DD exception was not proved by evidence.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791627</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791627</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Delay in filing the appeals was condoned on reasonable cause, as the assessee showed lack of tax knowledge, reliance on professional advice, and ill health supported by medical material. Additional grounds challenging reassessment were not admitted because no convincing factual foundation was shown to support non-compliance with the mandatory reassessment requirements. Disallowance of cash purchases was upheld under the cash payment rule because the assessee failed to produce ledger accounts, confirmations, or other evidence to bring the payments within Rule 6DD, and the statutory limit was exceeded.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Seized loose paper alone cannot sustain a section 69B addition without corroboration or cross-examination of the third party.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791628</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791628</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A seized loose paper showing a property transaction, by itself, was treated as insufficient to sustain an addition under section 69B where it did not expressly record any cash payment by the assessee. In the absence of independent enquiry, corroborative evidence, or material proving the alleged cash component, the Tribunal held that the document could not justify the addition. It also noted that denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the third party from whose possession the paper was seized offended natural justice. The addition was therefore deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Gross profit estimation must use a comparable five-year average when the immediately preceding year is not representative.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791629</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791629</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Where income is estimated by gross profit rate and the immediately preceding year is not comparable because turnover and market conditions have materially changed, the average gross profit rate of the preceding five assessment years is the proper benchmark; if that average is below the declared rate, no addition arises. The gross profit estimation issue was decided in favour of the Revenue, subject to recomputation on that basis. The deletion of disallowance of business promotion expenses was set aside for factual verification, as the supporting bills and invoices had not been properly examined by the Assessing Officer; the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment based on unverified accommodation entry allegations fails absent independent application of mind to the assessee's return.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791630</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791630</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment under section 148 was invalid where the recorded reasons referred only to alleged accommodation entries on the basis of an investigation report, without independent application of mind to the assessee's return or financial material. The assessee also showed that no transactions or receipts existed with the named concerns and that the company was in its first year of operation. On those facts, the reopening was not sustained and the reassessment order was quashed in favour of the assessee.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Appellate enhancement beyond the appeal scope is impermissible, and section 54F deduction was allowed.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791631</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791631</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An appellate authority cannot enlarge the scope of an appeal by introducing a new head of income or making an enhanced addition beyond the subject matter of the original dispute without following the prescribed procedure. Here, the appeal arose only from denial of deduction under section 54F, and the issue relating to transfer of the residential property had already attained finality. The attempt to treat the share sale proceeds as income from other sources was therefore beyond the appellate dispute and amounted to unsustainable enhancement of income. The assessee was entitled to the claimed section 54F deduction, and relief was granted on the only substantive issue addressed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Ex parte denial of infrastructure deduction remanded for fresh adjudication after the assessee was denied opportunity to file evidence.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791632</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791632</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Deduction claim under section 80IA(4) was sent back for fresh adjudication because the first appellate authority decided the matter ex parte without written submissions or supporting evidence from the assessee. In the absence of any material showing mala fide or deliberate non-compliance, and in view of the request to place evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the eligibility claim required reconsideration on merits. The appellate orders were set aside and the matters restored for denovo examination, with directions to the assessee to cooperate and furnish material relevant to eligibility under section 80IA(3) and section 80IA(4).]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Delayed return filing and Form 10B exemption issue remanded for fresh consideration after unexamined Covid-related extension claim.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791633</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791633</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Denial of exemption based on delayed filing of the return and Form 10B was not finally sustained, because the appellate authority had not examined the assessee's contention that the delay in filing the return was linked to the Covid period and that applicable extensions or reliefs may apply. As the first appellate authority did not adjudicate the issue on merits, the matter was set aside for fresh consideration. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of hearing, and the dispute was remitted for de novo adjudication in accordance with law.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Protective addition for alleged bogus purchases was deleted where no direct link to the transactions was shown.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791634</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791634</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Protective addition for alleged bogus purchases was deleted because the assessee was not directly linked to the impugned transactions in the relevant year, and the assessment record did not show a clear basis for selecting the assessee alone for protective taxation. The deletion was upheld as free from infirmity on the facts recorded. Once the Revenue's challenge failed, the assessee's cross objection became infructuous.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Withholding tax on foreign share transfers depends on chargeability in India, and retrospective amendments did not create past TDS duty.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791635</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791635</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Payments for acquisition of shares of a Mauritius company from US resident shareholders were discussed in the context of section 195, which applies only where the sum paid is chargeable to tax in India. The note explains that, on the transaction date, the prevailing law after Vodafone did not tax indirect transfer of foreign shares merely because their underlying value was linked to Indian assets. It further states that the retrospective insertion of Explanations 4 and 5 to section 9(1)(i) expanded the chargeability fiction, but did not create a withholding obligation for a past transaction when that fiction was not then on the statute book. On that basis, no section 195(2) application or default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) arose.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 80P deduction on interest from co-operative bank deposits upheld, with relief limited to the original claim.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791636</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791636</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A primary credit co-operative society is entitled to deduction under section 80P on interest income earned from investments or deposits with co-operative banks that are themselves co-operative societies, and the benefit cannot be denied merely on that basis. The Tribunal followed the binding view approved by the Supreme Court and held the lower authorities' disallowance unsustainable. It also clarified that any deduction allowed under section 80P(2)(d) would remain confined within the overall deduction originally claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i).]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Redevelopment flat exchange not taxable under section 56(2)(x); delay in appeal filing was also condoned.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791637</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791637</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Delay in filing the first appellate appeal was condoned because it was neither intentional nor deliberate and sufficient cause was shown, with the assessee intending to pursue the matter on merits. In a redevelopment arrangement, receipt of a new residential flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat was held not to be receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration. On that reasoning, the deeming fiction in section 56(2)(x) did not apply, and the addition was deleted. The appeal was allowed and the assessment addition was set aside.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Limitation for reassessment notice under section 148: lack of proof of timely issuance made section 292BB inapplicable.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791638</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791638</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A notice under section 148 was held time-barred because the Revenue could not prove valid issuance within the limitation period under section 149(1)(b). The original notice was returned for incomplete address, and the later dispatch with the covering letter was beyond the deadline; in the absence of conclusive evidence that the notice had left the Assessing Officer's control in time, the presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act did not apply. Section 292BB was confined to defects in service and could not cure non-issuance or invalid issuance within limitation. The reassessment was therefore void ab initio and quashed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment on fresh search material upheld, but section 68 loan addition remitted for cross-examination and further verification.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791639</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791639</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment under the amended post-1 April 2021 regime was upheld because fresh tangible material from search proceedings, including a sworn third-party statement and field verification results, was treated as sufficient for reopening and the earlier incriminating-material test was held inapplicable at that stage. However, the addition of unsecured loans under section 68 was not finally sustained because it depended mainly on an uncorroborated third-party statement and post-search enquiries, while the assessee was denied effective cross-examination and the record also required verification of repayments and amounts already assessed. The loan addition was therefore set aside for fresh adjudication after cross-examination and further enquiry.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Mandatory prior intimation under return-processing rules is required before denying concessional tax treatment and adjusting tax liability.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791640</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791640</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An adjustment made during processing of a return under section 143(1)(a) cannot validly deny the concessional tax rate under section 115BAB unless the assessee is first given mandatory prior intimation of the proposed adjustment in writing or electronically and an opportunity to respond. The Tribunal applied the statutory precondition in the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) and treated it as mandatory, so the CPC's direct levy of tax at the normal rate without prior notice was held procedurally defective and unsustainable. The consequential adjustment and related orders were liable to be set aside.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Documented share transactions on stock exchange channels cannot be branded bogus on suspicion alone without specific rebuttal evidence.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791641</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791641</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Documentary evidence of share purchase and sale through demat accounts and a SEBI-registered broker on a recognised stock exchange was treated as sufficient to support the long-term capital gain claim. General allegations of price rigging, abnormal price movement, or investigation reports were held insufficient without independent inquiry or specific cogent material linking the assessee to manipulation or an accommodation entry. On that basis, the addition treating the gain as bogus was deleted, and the related disallowance of alleged commission expenditure also failed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment approval and limitation were upheld, while disputed purchase additions were remanded for fresh factual verification.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791642</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791642</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment proceedings were upheld where the notice recorded prior approval of the specified authority and the record showed initiation within the amended limitation period, so the jurisdictional objection failed. On the disputed purchases, adverse material from investigation and GST authorities indicated accommodation entries and bogus invoices, but the assessee relied on books, stock records, invoices, bank entries and sales evidence. As transportation proof, purchase-to-sale correlation and rebuttal of third-party material remained deficient, the Tribunal held that actual receipt of goods and supplier genuineness required further verification and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 11 exemption survives when Form 10B is filed before the return due date, despite missing an earlier filing deadline.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791643</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791643</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Exemption under section 11 cannot be denied where the prescribed audit statement, Form No. 10B, is furnished on or before the due date for filing the return under section 139(1), even if it was filed after an earlier internal filing date. On the stated facts, the form was uploaded before the extended return due date, so the statutory condition in section 11(2)(a) read with section 13(9) was satisfied. Accordingly, disallowance at the processing stage was not sustainable, and the assessee remained entitled to the exemption claim.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Fair notice in penalty proceedings requires the exact limb of default; bona fide Form 16-based exemption claim protected the assessee.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791644</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791644</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Penalty under section 270A was unsustainable where the show-cause notice did not clearly specify whether the allegation was under-reporting or misreporting, and the penalty order shifted between those limbs without giving effective notice. That uncertainty prevented a proper rebuttal and breached fair notice requirements. On the facts, the assessee had disclosed the relevant particulars and claimed exemption based on the employer-issued Form 16 under a bona fide belief, which was supported by the surrounding material and fell within the statutory protection for bona fide explanations. The penalty was therefore deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Demonetization cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income when audited books and recorded sales explain the source.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791645</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791645</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Cash deposits made during the demonetization period were not treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 where the assessee maintained audited books, day-to-day records, cash book, ledger, VAT returns, stock register, bills and bank deposit slips, and showed the deposits as sale proceeds. The authorities accepted that the deposits arose from disclosed cash sales and did not dispute the recorded sales or the nexus between the sales and the bank credits. Since section 68 requires a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source of the credit, the mere acceptance of specified bank notes after 08.11.2016 did not make the receipts unexplained. Taxing the deposits again also amounted to double taxation of the same turnover, so the addition was deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Political donation deduction claims fail where surrounding facts show a lack of genuineness and suspected bogus routing of funds.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791646</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791646</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A political donation deduction claim under section 80GGC was examined in light of search material concerning unrecognised political parties and alleged fund routing through intermediaries. The surrounding circumstances, the absence of evidence of the party's presence or activity in the assessee's place of residence, and the scale of the contribution were treated as insufficient to prove genuineness, leading to disallowance of the deduction. A separate objection that penalty proceedings under section 270A were premature was rejected because only initiation of penalty action was in issue and no final penalty order was under challenge.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment limitation under the relaxation framework barred notices for assessment year 2015-16 issued after 01.04.2021.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791647</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791647</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A reassessment notice for assessment year 2015-16 issued on or after 01.04.2021 was held to be beyond the extended limitation period under the relaxation framework. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's position that such notices could not survive for that assessment year, and therefore treated the notice under section 148, the order under section 148A(d), and the consequential assessment order as unsustainable. The reassessment was quashed on limitation grounds, and the merits grounds became academic.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Concessional tax rate for domestic company depends on verified turnover in the preceding year; audited accounts needed for threshold check.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791648</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791648</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A domestic company claimed concessional tax at 25% for the relevant assessment year on the basis that its turnover in the preceding financial year did not exceed the prescribed threshold. The audited balance-sheet was produced in support, but the return form did not provide a specific column for the turnover particulars. Because the existing record was not sufficient for a final factual finding, verification of the audited financials and related details was required. The matter was therefore sent back for examination of turnover or gross receipts, and the concessional rate would apply if the threshold was not exceeded.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Bank interest from operational funds can qualify as business income for cooperative society deduction under income tax law.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791649</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791649</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Interest earned by a credit co-operative society from deposits with nationalised banks was treated as business income where the funds were operational surplus kept for liquidity and business requirements. Applying earlier Tribunal decisions, the income retained its business character and qualified for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No contrary binding precedent was shown to disturb that settled position, so the society was held entitled to the deduction on the bank interest.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Natural justice in assessment requires supply of relied-upon material before adverse conclusions are drawn.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791650</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791650</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An assessment based on search material, a screenshot and other corroborative evidence was vitiated because the assessee was not shown to have received the underlying documents, statements or relied-upon material for rebuttal. The record did not establish that such material had been supplied before adverse conclusions were drawn. A quasi-judicial assessment must afford a fair opportunity to meet the case, and withholding relied-upon material breaches natural justice and renders the proceeding legally unsustainable. The assessment order was therefore liable to be quashed, and the consequential proceedings did not survive.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Natural justice in tax assessment requires full disclosure of adverse material before prejudicial findings are drawn.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791651</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791651</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An assessment based on import-discrepancy material was held unsustainable where the Department relied on incomplete CBIC data and did not share all material with the assessee. The Court applied the principle of natural justice, holding that adverse tax conclusions cannot be drawn from material affecting liability unless the assessee is given full disclosure and a meaningful opportunity to rebut it. Any further material received by the Revenue could be used only after being shared and after fresh opportunity to respond. The assessment order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reopening of assessment and borrowed satisfaction: recorded reasons must show independent application of mind before jurisdiction can be assumed.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791652</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791652</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reopening under section 147 requires recorded reasons to show independent application of mind and tangible material; mere reproduction of an investigation report is described as borrowed satisfaction and is said to be insufficient to assume jurisdiction. The note states that, on the facts discussed, the Assessing Officer had not recorded material capable of justifying reopening, so the jurisdictional requirement was not met. It also records that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed for inordinate delay, with no plausible or bona fide explanation offered for condonation.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment notices and limitation: High Courts must first ermine the applicable assessment year before deciding time-bar under prior ruling.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791653</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791653</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment notices concerning Assessment Year 2015-16 are stated to be barred by limitation, as the Revenue conceded that such notices would be time-barred in light of the earlier view of the Court. The Supreme Court directed the jurisdictional High Courts to first determine the applicable assessment year on remand. If the cases are found to relate to Assessment Year 2015-16, the notices must be treated as time-barred; if not, the assessees may raise all available contentions in accordance with the earlier order governing the connected batch. The impugned judgments were set aside and the matters remitted for fresh determination.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Curative jurisdiction applies only within narrow limits, and defective petitions failing those limits were not entertainable.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791654</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791654</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Curative petitions are entertainable only within the narrow parameters recognised by the Supreme Court, and a petitioner must comply with the required defects and procedural requirements. Here, the petitions remained defective despite notice from the Registry, and the Court found no basis on merits to invoke curative jurisdiction. The petitions therefore did not satisfy the strict conditions for curative relief and were not entertainable.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Interest deduction for composite business borrowing upheld where funds were commercially expedient and linked to associated share investment.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791655</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791655</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Interest on borrowed capital is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) when the borrowing is for business purposes and satisfies commercial expediency. The Court held that funds used through a subsidiary or shareholding arrangement were still connected with the assessee's composite business, because the operations were interlinked and under common management. Deduction could not be denied merely because the borrowed money passed through an associated concern before being applied to the share transaction, and the revenue disallowance was unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment and business income rules: fresh tangible material can justify reopening, and fixed gross receipts may be taxable revenue.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791656</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791656</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 is valid where fresh tangible material and recorded reasons show that the true nature of a receipt was not earlier examined; it is not barred by mere change of opinion. On the taxability issue, a contractual entitlement to 35% of gross sale proceeds, independent of project expenses and not linked to profits, is a gross revenue receipt. The receipt is therefore taxable as business income in the assessee's hands and cannot be treated as an exempt share of profit.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Directory time limit under GST waiver rules cannot be treated as an absolute bar to merits consideration.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791657</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791657</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The Karnataka High Court held that the time limit for filing a waiver application under Section 128A of the CGST Act was directory, not mandatory, because the notification used the expression "may" for applications filed within three months from the notified date. The department could not treat that period as an absolute bar and reject the application solely as delayed. The rejection was therefore quashed, and the waiver request had to be considered in accordance with law, with the related GST proceedings kept in abeyance pending such consideration.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Ex parte tax adjudication remanded for fresh reply and merits hearing, with conditional compliance terms retained.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791658</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791658</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Ex parte adjudication under section 73 may be remitted where the assessee is denied an effective opportunity to reply and place material before the authority. The Karnataka HC, on the facts described, set aside the impugned orders and directed fresh adjudication from the stage of the show-cause reply, treating the petitioner's request for reconsideration as justified. The remand was made subject to compliance with terms requiring payment of 10% of the demanded tax in the specified orders, so the demand was not extinguished but kept open for reconsideration on merits.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Liquidation waterfall prevails over state tax charge; statutory charge did not create secured creditor status under insolvency law.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791559</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791559</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The article examines whether a state tax department can claim secured creditor status in liquidation on the basis of a statutory charge under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether liquidation proceeds must follow the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 waterfall. It explains that the statutory charge did not amount to a security interest within Section 52 read with Section 53(1)(b)(ii) of the Code, that Rainbow Papers was factually and legally distinguishable, and that Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over conflicting state law. The indemnity-based distribution proposal was rejected as inconsistent with the Code's priority scheme.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>CIRP cooperation limits: statutory auditors are not treated as management personnel, and disclosure demands require possession or access.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791560</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791560</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 19(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is analysed as a cooperation provision limited to personnel, promoters, and others associated with the corporate debtor's management, and the text states that an external statutory auditor does not ordinarily fall within that class. It further notes that disclosure obligations depend on proof that the person actually possesses or can access the requested records; absent such proof, coercive production directions are not supportable. The note also says that, once CIRP had materially advanced, directions to complete pending audit work and to tender resignation with a no-objection certificate lacked a sufficient statutory basis.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Condonation of refiling delay requires a defect-wise explanation and diligence; unexplained delay led to rejection of the appeal memo.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791561</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791561</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Condonation of a 193-day refiling delay requires a coherent, defect-wise and date-wise explanation showing sufficient cause, even though the standard is applied with liberality. The explanation here was held unsatisfactory because the defects flagged by the Registry were generic and the applicant was already aware of the handwritten and vernacular documents filed with the appeal, yet did not cure the defects diligently despite repeated s. The method of excluding the seven-day curing period from each defect cycle was also rejected as an incorrect way to compute delay. The delay was therefore not shown to be beyond the applicant's control, and condonation of refiling delay was refused; the appeal memo was also rejected.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Post-liquidation settlement must follow section 230 route; section 12A withdrawal is unavailable once liquidation begins.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791562</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791562</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Once liquidation of a corporate debtor has commenced, withdrawal under section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not available, and any settlement must proceed through a scheme under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with regulation 2B of the Liquidation Process Regulations. An application to keep liquidation in abeyance was found to lack sustainable grounds, and the tribunal's decision was upheld because Rule 48 of the NCLT Rules permits dismissal for default or decision on merits.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Customs valuation depends on admissible evidence, with section 138 safeguards controlling reliance on statements and electronic records.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791578</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791578</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used to reject declared transaction value unless the mandatory safeguards in section 138B are followed, including examination of the maker where available. Electronic printouts and laptop material also require statutory compliance under section 138C and reliable proof of seizure and authentication before they can support allegations of undervaluation or misdeclaration. Once such evidence is excluded, declared value cannot be discarded or re-determined under the Customs Valuation Rules without dependable proof of extra consideration, misdescription, or incorrect thickness. Confiscation and penalties likewise fail when founded on unreliable evidence and unproven undervaluation.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Burden to prove consignment transfer failed, so inter-State sales, assessment competence, limitation, and penalty were all sustained.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791550</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791550</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The Andhra Pradesh sales tax scheme allowed a Deputy Commissioner to exercise assessment powers through the hierarchy under section 4A, so the assessment order for 2000-01 was competent. The assessment was also within time because section 14(3) extended limitation to six years where accounts or other documents were produced after inspection. For inter-State movement, the dealer bore the burden under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act and rule 14(3) to prove consignment transfer, but the prescribed documents were not furnished, so the goods were rightly treated as inter-State sales. Penalty was sustained because the underlying assessment stood and the penalty provisions applied under the sales tax law.]]></description>
<category>VAT</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Statutory first charge under tax law can create secured debt in liquidation, but CST dues remain unsecured.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791563</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791563</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A statutory first charge created by operation of law under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was treated as a security interest for liquidation purposes, so VAT dues qualified as secured debt; however, because the creditor did not exercise the Section 52 realisation option under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the security was treated as relinquished for distribution under Section 53. CST dues did not enjoy any comparable statutory first charge under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and remained unsecured governmental dues. Non-disclosure in the claim form, absence of charge registration, waiver or acquiescence did not defeat the statutory secured status for the VAT component.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Collaboration agreement and project assets remain part of CIRP valuation when termination is not legally established</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791564</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791564</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Where a collaboration agreement has not been lawfully terminated and the real estate regulator continues to treat the landowner and developer as promoters responsible for completing the project, the project assets remain attributable to the corporate debtor for insolvency purposes. An arbitral award that does not declare lawful termination of the agreement, and that rejects transfer of the project land, does not establish the debtor's lack of continuing interest. On those facts, the unsold inventory and subject property could not be excluded from valuation or from the Information Memorandum in CIRP, and the request for exclusion was rightly rejected.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Pre-existing dispute under insolvency law fails when debtor's own correspondence and acknowledgment show admitted operational debt.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791565</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791565</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A section 9 insolvency petition is maintainable where the creditor shows an unpaid operational debt and the debtor's objections do not amount to a genuine, pre-existing dispute supported by contemporaneous material. Here, correspondence on delivery delay, defects, deductions and account reconciliation did not displace the debtor's own consequence sheet and later communication acknowledging a payable amount, which established admitted liability above the statutory threshold. The Tribunal therefore treated the quality and delay objections as insufficient to bar admission of the petition, because the dispute was not bona fide in the face of the debtor's own computation and acknowledgment.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Preferential transfer rules and avoidance powers: resolution professional actions upheld, with one related-party payment treated as preferential</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791566</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791566</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A resolution professional may appoint a transaction auditor and file an avoidance application without prior committee approval, and non-joinder of the transferee companies did not vitiate the summary proceedings. On preferential transfers, Section 43 requires a transfer to a creditor, surety or guarantor for antecedent debt or liability that places the recipient in a better position than under liquidation; for related parties, the longer look-back period applies. On the material recorded, the transfer to one related party was not shown to meet the statutory ingredients, while the transfer to another related party was treated as preferential because it was linked to admitted creditor status and was not established to be in the ordinary course of business.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Aircraft generator classification under CTH 8501 prevailed, defeating extended limitation, duty penalty, and customs broker penalty.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791577</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791577</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Integrated drive generators and starter generators used with turboprop or turbofan aircraft engines were held classifiable under CTH 8501, because CTH 8511 is confined to electrical ignition or starting equipment and generators used with spark-ignition or compression-ignition internal combustion engines. On that classification dispute, the extended limitation period was not invocable and the consequential penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act failed, since no suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade duty was established. Penalty on the customs house agent under section 117 was also rejected because that residuary provision applies only where an independent contravention is shown and no express penalty otherwise exists.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Limitation, place of provision, and VAT-service split barred service tax on audit-based demands and software licence sales.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791553</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791553</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was stated to be unavailable because the records disclosed the transactions, the assessee cooperated with audit, and the department did not establish fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade tax. Services linked to an exhibition held in Switzerland were stated to fall under the place-of-provision rule for events, so provision was outside the taxable territory and service tax was not leviable. The software licence transaction was treated as a sale with VAT on the sale element and service tax only on the service component, making a full-value service tax levy unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Financial creditor status requires actual disbursal and time value of money; collateral for another loan does not create secured debt.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791567</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791567</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Financial creditor status under insolvency law requires actual disbursal against consideration for time value of money; collateral given only to secure another party's borrowing does not by itself create a secured financial debt. Post-dated cheques were treated as a promise to pay, not as creating a mortgage, charge or hypothecation over the corporate debtor's assets. On these facts, the claimant could not be treated as a financial creditor or secured financial creditor, but its claim could be considered as that of an other creditor. Rejection of the claim on delay was also unsustainable because the claim was filed within the invitation period and the record did not support a delay-based rejection.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Personal guarantor liability survives resolution plan where unpaid dues remain enforceable and Section 95 action stays within limitation</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791568</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791568</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 95 insolvency applications against personal guarantors were treated as within limitation because the default had already been invoked, the debt was crystallised by prior adjudication, and later developments, including the COVID-related extension, preserved timeliness. The challenge based on limitation was rejected. The tribunal also held that approval and implementation of a resolution plan for the corporate guarantor do not, by themselves, discharge a personal guarantor's co-extensive liability unless the plan expressly provides for such release. As the plan did not extinguish the unpaid balance, the personal guarantee remained enforceable and the plea of discharge was rejected.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Approved scheme of arrangement binds dissenting creditors and bars parallel suits on the same underlying claims.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791571</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791571</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An approved scheme of arrangement binding on the requisite majority also bound dissenting specified creditors, and its release and assignment clauses were treated as part of the collective settlement structure. Claims linked to the payment default and connected broker claims were validly assigned to 63 Moons on the settlement trigger event, with future recoveries to accrue to that assignee. Having accepted benefits under the scheme, the creditors could not treat the same underlying claims as separately enforceable in parallel civil proceedings against consenting brokers. The challenge to the scheme was rejected, and continuation of the parallel proceedings was impermissible in derogation of the approved arrangement.]]></description>
<category>Corporate Laws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Statutory presumption for signed cheque liability survives bare security-cheque plea and supports reversal of acquittal</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791545</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791545</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A signed cheque admitted by the accused attracts the statutory presumption of debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and a bare plea that it was a blank security cheque does not rebut that presumption without cogent evidence. The insistence on proof of a final settlement before applying Section 139 was held legally unsustainable, and the acquittal on that basis was reversed. The complaint was also found maintainable because the complainant's authority to institute and pursue the proceeding was established, and delay in disposal did not by itself bar appellate interference with a perverse acquittal.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Job-work valuation: customer-supplied free inputs not automatically includible, and extended limitation fails without suppression.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791548</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791548</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[In a job-work valuation dispute, the value of customer-supplied free materials was held not to be automatically includible in the assessable value of intermediate products cleared by the job worker under Rule 4(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, so the related demand could not stand. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the assessee had taken a bona fide valuation view and the record did not show suppression or wilful misstatement; consequently, interest and penalty were not sustainable. The order was set aside with consequential relief.]]></description>
<category>Excise</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Input service nexus with manufacture sustains CENVAT credit, and ISD-distributed credit cannot be denied without challenging the distributor.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791549</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791549</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[CENVAT credit on chartered aircraft services remained admissible where the services had a demonstrable nexus with manufacture or business activities integral to manufacture, even after the post-01.04.2011 definition of input service. The Tribunal treated services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture as covered under Rule 2(l), and rejected the objection that further documentary proof of actual use was required. It also held that credit distributed through a registered Input Service Distributor could not be denied to the recipient unit in the absence of proceedings against the distributor. The demand was therefore dropped and the Revenue's challenge failed.]]></description>
<category>Excise</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Valid service at the correct address is essential for limitation; unsupported postal presumption cannot bar the appeal.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791552</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791552</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Limitation for an appeal under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 runs from valid communication of the order to the assessee at the correct address, and a rebuttable presumption of postal service cannot substitute for proof of proper service. On the record, there was no reliable material showing that the show cause notice or the order in original was served at the appellant's correct registered premises, despite another registered address being on file. The dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was therefore unsustainable, and the matter required remand for decision on merits.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>CENVAT credit on deposit insurance premium upheld for banks as an input service under the settled banking tax controversy.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791554</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791554</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Banks were held entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on deposit insurance premium paid to DICGC, because banking activity was treated as a service and the premium was treated as an input service for credit purposes. The Court followed the Kerala High Court's detailed ruling on the same controversy, noted that the Bombay High Court had taken the same view, and held that no distinguishing feature or valid revenue objection justified a different conclusion. The issue was therefore treated as settled and the assessee's entitlement to the credit was upheld.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Improper service of adjudication order justified quashing bank attachment and leaving statutory appeal open.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791555</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791555</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Where service of the adjudication order was not satisfactorily established under the Finance Act, 1994, the Calcutta HC interfered with the resulting coercive recovery and quashed the bank account attachment. The Court noted that mere assertion of dispatch by speed post was insufficient without proof of delivery in the manner required by the statutory service framework, and it also referred to a connected proceeding where exemption on receipts from governmental authorities had been accepted on facts. While preserving the merits of the tax dispute, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to pursue the statutory appeal in accordance with law, subject to compliance with costs.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Bail condition modification remains open despite dismissal of an earlier challenge; fresh hearing required on the application's merits.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791557</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791557</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Dismissal of an earlier special leave petition against a bail order does not bar the court that granted bail from later considering modification of bail conditions. A request to alter those conditions must be examined on its own merits, and refusal to consider the application without such consideration was unsustainable. The matter was therefore remitted to the High Court for a fresh hearing on the modification request, preferably before the judge who granted bail, with all merits left open.]]></description>
<category>PMLA</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Statutory charge limited to VAT dues under insolvency law; resolution plan left intact, with distribution adjusted under the waterfall.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791558</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791558</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A statutory charge under the Gujarat VAT Act extended only to the VAT component of a composite dues claim, so secured-creditor status could be recognised only to that extent and not for the CST component. The entry of 'N.A.' in Form B did not amount to waiver of a statutory charge, because waiver requires intentional abandonment of a known right and the charge was already on notice in the proceedings. After that limited recognition, the approved resolution plan was not liable to be rejected; the proper course was only to adjust distribution under the insolvency waterfall in line with the appellant's secured status for VAT dues.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Delay condoned, but no ground found to interfere with NCLAT's insolvency judgment; appeal dismissed.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791569</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791569</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Delay was condoned, but the Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the NCLAT's impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal. The order leaves the appellate tribunal's decision undisturbed and disposes of pending applications accordingly.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Condonation of delay in a first appeal granted where sufficient cause existed and the appellant was restored to appellate hearing on merits.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791570</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791570</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Delay in filing a first appeal against a Securities Appellate Tribunal order was condoned on payment of costs because sufficient cause was shown through personal difficulties, financial strain during the pandemic, family illness, and difficulty receiving the order after an address change. The Court treated the statutory first appeal as a valuable factual remedy and held that the appellant should not be foreclosed from contesting the matter before the appellate forum. The appeal was restored for decision on merits.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Essential character test for unassembled elevator imports fails where critical installation components are missing; goods classified item-wise.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791572</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791572</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff applies only when incomplete or unassembled goods, as presented, already have the essential character of the complete article. An unassembled elevator package was found not to meet that test because key structural and installation-critical items such as guiderails, brackets, fishplates and enclosure elements were missing, so it could not function as a complete elevator at import stage. The consignment was therefore not classifiable as a complete lift under Tariff Item 84281011. Each imported component had to be classified separately under the specific headings applicable to its own description, including headings for rubber, iron or steel articles, parts, pulleys, indicators, control panels, cables and related items.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Transaction value in export valuation prevails over moisture variation, and non-disclosure of relied-upon documents breaches natural justice.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791575</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791575</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Export valuation under the Customs Act had to be based on transaction value where the dispute concerned only moisture variation and not the genuineness of the sale. The departmental moisture test could not displace the declared value without valid reasons, and duty was required to be worked out on the transaction value. The assessment was also unsustainable because the exporter was not furnished the relied-upon laboratory report and other materials, amounting to a breach of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after disclosure of the relevant documents and compliance with procedure.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Limitation and penalty in customs demand partly failed as extended period and section 114A penalty were set aside.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791576</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791576</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Customs duty demand was sustained only for the normal period of limitation, while the extended-period demand was set aside for want of support. The penalty under section 114A was also set aside, reflecting the limited survival of the demand. The matter was remitted for fresh determination of the interest payable on the surviving liability. The appeal was therefore allowed in part.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Exclusive Customs Act release mechanism bars criminal court jurisdiction over seized vehicle custody</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791579</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791579</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Where a special statute provides an exclusive mechanism for seizure, retention and provisional release of conveyances, a criminal court cannot invoke general criminal procedure to order release. The Customs Act, 1962 creates a self-contained scheme under Sections 110 and 110A, under which provisional release of a seized truck allegedly used to transport smuggled foreign-origin cigarettes must be sought before the proper officer or adjudicating authority. The Gauhati HC held that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to direct custody of the vehicle, and the release order in favour of the respondent was set aside.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Corporate food supply classified as service, not restaurant service, attracting the residual GST rate.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791581</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791581</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Supply of food to corporate clients was treated as a supply of service under tariff heading 996337, not as restaurant service. The activity was analysed against the contractual role in menu finalisation, quality control, hygiene checks, delivery and serving arrangements, and was held to be food service under Schedule II rather than a mere sale of goods. Because no restaurant, eating joint, mess or canteen premise was shown, the restaurant-service rate of 5% was rejected. The supply did not fall within entries 7(i) to 7(v) of the GST rate notification, so the residual entry applied and 18% GST was upheld.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Bogus invoicing and wrongful input tax credit may support penal prosecution alongside GST action; bail was refused.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791583</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791583</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Allegations of bogus invoicing and wrongful input tax credit under the GST regime did not bar invocation of the general penal law, because the earlier Division Bench ruling was held to permit FIR registration and prosecution on the same conduct, and the cited Supreme Court decision was found not to displace that position in light of the U.P. GST Act. The investigation material also prima facie indicated involvement in creating fictitious firms and facilitating large-scale tax evasion. Bail was therefore refused.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Writ relief for delayed GST appeal: 301-day delay condoned where refusal to hear would cause grave prejudice.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791584</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791584</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[In writ jurisdiction, a 301-day delay in filing a GST appeal may be condoned where the delay arose from circumstances beyond the appellant's control and refusal to hear the appeal would cause grave prejudice. Although the appellate authority remains bound by the statutory limitation in Section 107, the High Court held that rigid insistence on time-bar in the facts would be unjust, particularly where cancellation of GST registration could affect livelihood and business continuity. The appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Pre-deposit under GST includes tax paid under protest against the disputed demand, removing any further deposit requirement.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791585</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791585</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An amount of tax paid under protest for the disputed period had to be counted toward the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act because it related to the very liability under challenge and there was no statutory exclusion. Applying strict construction of the deposit condition, the Court treated the protested payment as satisfying the pre-deposit requirement on a prima facie basis, and the amount already deposited exceeded the prescribed threshold. Accordingly, no further pre-deposit was required.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Confiscation under Section 130 bars Section 129 release mechanisms once title vests in the Government.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791586</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791586</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Once confiscation is ordered under Section 130 and title in the goods and conveyance vests in the Government under Section 130(5), the detention-and-release mechanism under Section 129 cannot be used to secure release on a percentage deposit and bank guarantee basis. The Karnataka HC held that the interim directions for release of the goods and vehicles were consistent with the confiscation regime and did not require modification. The writ appeals challenging those interim orders were dismissed, leaving the Single Judge's directions undisturbed.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>GST interest under amended Section 50 is confined to cash ledger payments, with the demand remanded for reconsideration.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791587</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791587</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The amended proviso to Section 50 of the CGST Act, given retrospective effect from 1 July 2017, limits interest for delayed GST return filing to the portion of tax paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger. Interest cannot be computed on the entire output tax liability when the tax is discharged otherwise, so the demand in question was unsustainable on the basis adopted in the notice. The matter was therefore remitted to the departmental authorities for fresh consideration and a new decision after hearing the taxpayer in accordance with the amended Section 50.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Mandatory hearing before GST refund rejection renders order unsustainable if no effective opportunity is granted.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791588</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791588</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A refund rejection under the GST Rules is invalid where the authority does not grant an effective opportunity of hearing before passing the order. The text states that the refund application was rejected on limitation grounds even though the applicant had requested a personal hearing by virtual mode in response to the show cause notice. Because no effective hearing was afforded, the mandatory procedural safeguard was not complied with, and the rejection order was quashed. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law after following the prescribed procedure.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Appellate interference declined after the SC found no error in the CESTAT order and dismissed the civil appeal.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791589</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791589</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The SC found no error in the CESTAT Chennai order dated 14 January 2026 in the service tax appeal and therefore dismissed the civil appeal. The order records no further substantive reasoning and disposes of any pending applications accordingly.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>GST Special Leave Petitions withdrawn with liberty to seek High Court review after similar remand order</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791590</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791590</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Leave was granted to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions so the petitioners could pursue a review petition before the High Court after pointing to a similar High Court order that had set aside the adjudicating authority's decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court accordingly disposed of the petitions as withdrawn with liberty to seek review, without examining the merits of the GST dispute.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Cenvat credit for captive power plant inputs remains available where the plant supports manufacture of dutiable goods.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791508</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791508</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Cenvat credit on duty-paid capital goods and inputs used to set up and operate a captive power plant was held admissible where the electricity generated was used in manufacturing dutiable final products. The fact that the plant became a fixed structure did not defeat credit, because the controlling test was use in the factory for manufacturing activity; arguments based on the plant's excisability and turnkey-project authorities were rejected. Where ER-1 returns disclosed the credit position and the demand arose from audit verification, no suppression or intent to evade was established, so extended limitation and penalty were also unavailable.]]></description>
<category>Excise</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Benami transaction law applies to continued holding of property after amendment; provisional attachment upheld.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791509</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791509</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The amended benami transaction definition was held to cover not only an original transfer but also continued holding of property where consideration was paid by another person. On the admitted facts, the flats were acquired through consideration paid by the appellant, while the agreements stood in other names and the property remained held after the amendment came into force. The Tribunal rejected the retrospectivity objection because the statutory focus was on the continuing holding after amendment, and it also rejected the claim that no property existed in light of the allotment, consideration, and registered arrangements on record. The provisional attachment was therefore upheld.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Books rejection and profit estimation must rest on reliable records and rational past results, not arbitrary percentages.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791510</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791510</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Defects in salary and wage records, including inconsistent signatures, unverifiable cash payments, and missing worker details, justified rejection of the books under section 145(3) because they cast doubt on the completeness and genuineness of the accounts. Once the books were rejected, income had to be estimated on a rational basis; an 8% net profit rate was found arbitrary where past results were around 1% to 2% and no comparable material supported a higher margin. The estimation was therefore reduced to 3% of turnover, giving the assessee partial relief while sustaining the rejection of accounts.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Void assessment in deceased assessee's name bars section 263 revision; cash deposit explanation was not disproved.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791511</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791511</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An assessment framed in the name of a deceased assessee without validly bringing the legal heir on record is void ab initio and a jurisdictional nullity. Because such a non est assessment cannot support further proceedings, revision under section 263 could not be sustained. The explanation for cash deposits was also not disproved by any cogent material, and the deposits occurring on different dates did not by itself justify an adverse inference. The revision order was therefore invalid in law and the revision proceedings failed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Infrastructure deduction under section 80IA(4) denied where road signages were treated as ancillary, not eligible infrastructure work.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791512</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791512</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Deduction under section 80IA(4) was examined in relation to income from erection of road signages and foot-over bridges claimed as infrastructure work. The Tribunal noted that the provision applies only to profits derived from developing, operating or maintaining an eligible infrastructure facility such as a road or bridge, and held that ancillary works like road signages do not by themselves qualify. It also stated that composite receipts cannot be fully treated as eligible unless the assessee segregates and proves that the profits arise exclusively from qualifying infrastructure activity. On that basis, the deduction claim was rejected and the disallowance was upheld.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 69A unexplained-money addition failed where bank credits were shown as agency receipts passed onward, leaving only commission income.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791513</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791513</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Cash and credit entries in an assessee's bank accounts were held not to be unexplained money under section 69A where the assessee acted as a Business Correspondent Agent and produced authorisation, bank statements, a transaction chart, and supporting material showing that customer collections were transferred onward, leaving only commission income. The Tribunal found that the deposited sums were received for transmission in the course of agency activity and were not owned by the assessee. As the statutory precondition for section 69A-assessee's ownership of unexplained money-was not met, the addition of the aggregated amount was deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 14A disallowance fails where dividend income is taxable and no exempt income exists in the relevant year.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791514</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791514</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 14A applies only to expenditure incurred in relation to income that does not form part of total income. Because dividend income became taxable from assessment year 2021-22 onwards under the Finance Act, 2020 amendment to section 10(34), the foundational condition for invoking Rule 8D was absent in the relevant year. Even if dividend income had arisen, it was not exempt income for that year. Accordingly, disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was not sustainable and was deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 153C jurisdiction fails without independent corroborative material linking the seized document to the assessee.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791515</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791515</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 153C jurisdiction requires incriminating material belonging to or relating to the assessee, supported by independent corroboration. A seized sale agreement found in a third party's premises, signed only by the purchaser and not by the vendors, was held insufficient by itself to link the assessee to the document. The satisfaction note also relied solely on that same document and did not identify additional material establishing jurisdiction. Deficiencies in the satisfaction note could not be cured later on appeal. On that basis, initiation under section 153C was invalid and the assessment made under it was unsustainable.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Public charitable trust registration cannot be refused for missing irrevocability or dissolution clauses when law supplies that effect.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791516</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791516</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A public charitable trust cannot be denied registration or renewal merely because the deed does not expressly state that it is irrevocable or provide for dissolution, where irrevocability arises by operation of law absent a reserved power of revocation. The absence of those clauses is not a statutory disqualification for registration under the charitable trust regime, and safeguards under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act address concerns over trust property and dissolution. An entry in Form 10AB reflecting that legal position is not false or incorrect information and does not amount to a specified violation. As the denial of registration under section 12AB was unsustainable, the consequential refusal of approval under section 80G also could not stand.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 50C does not apply to stock-in-trade; real estate inventory claim and connected penalties sent back for fresh consideration.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791517</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791517</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 50C applies only to transfers of capital assets for capital gains computation and does not govern sites held as stock in trade or business inventory. The Tribunal therefore required factual verification of the assessee's claim that the sites were part of a real estate business, with the Assessing Officer directed to examine books of account, land records and supporting material afresh. Because the quantum issue was restored for de novo consideration, the connected penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271(1)(c) were also remitted for fresh decision after reasonable opportunity to the assessee.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Chapter VI-A deduction claim fails when not claimed in the return and the return is filed after the due date.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791518</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791518</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A deduction under Chapter VI-A, including section 80P, was held unavailable where it was not claimed in the return of income and the return was filed after the statutory due date under section 139(1); the disallowance was therefore sustained. A separate challenge alleging an addition under section 143(1) also failed because the processed return reflected the same income as returned and no adjustment or disallowance had been made.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) can justify nil annual value, but factual proof of prior letting must be verified.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791519</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791519</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 23(1)(c) permits nil annual letting value where a property let out in an earlier year remains vacant in the relevant year and no actual rent is received or receivable because of that vacancy. The Tribunal accepted that vacancy allowance can apply if the factual foundation is proved, but noted that the record did not clearly establish whether rental income from the property had been offered in the immediately preceding year. The matter was therefore remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification of the relevant facts and a fresh order.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Uncorroborated loose paper cannot sustain a section 69B cash addition without independent evidence or cross-examination.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791520</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791520</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An addition under section 69B based solely on a loose paper seized from a third party was held unsustainable because the document did not expressly record cash payment by the assessee and no independent enquiry, statement, or other corroborative material established such payment. The Tribunal also noted that cross-examination of the person from whose possession the paper was found was not afforded, despite the document being relied on as the basis of the addition. On these facts, the loose paper alone was insufficient to support the cash addition, and the addition was deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Specialised ambulance services fall under TDS as professional services, while composite HLL and FSMS contracts need fresh scrutiny.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791521</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791521</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Ambulance-based emergency medical services were treated as specialised medical services rather than mere transport because the vehicles carried medical apparatus, medicines and emergency technicians for pre-hospital care and stabilisation; the payments to BVG were therefore held to fall under section 194J, not section 194C. By contrast, the contracts with HLL and FSMS involving sample collection, transport, storage, reporting and biomedical equipment maintenance were not sufficiently analysed on their actual terms, so the classification question under section 194J or section 194C was remanded for fresh examination. The governing principle is that TDS classification depends on the real and dominant nature of composite contractual services.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Real income principle limits taxation of routed interest, but TDS credit claimed in one name must be properly proved</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791522</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791522</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Interest routed through the assessee as a facilitator could not be taxed in his hands on the gross receipt, because the real income belonged to the lenders. However, where TDS was deducted in the assessee's name and credit was claimed by him, he had to prove with bank trail or other cogent evidence that the corresponding tax benefit was passed on to the actual lenders. In the absence of such proof, the TDS-related component remained taxable in his hands. Deduction under section 57 was not allowed to the extent claimed because the assessee failed to establish actual expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning the relevant income.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Documentary proof can defeat section 68 and 69A additions when identity, creditworthiness, genuineness and cash availability are established.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791523</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791523</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Credible documentary evidence can discharge the burden under sections 68 and 69A when it establishes identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of credits or cash availability, and additions cannot rest on technical objections alone. In this ITAT Mumbai note, additional evidence was admitted because the assessee had shown sufficient cause and the Assessing Officer received remand opportunity. Cash deposits were accepted as explained from recorded receipts and cash balances; partner capital contributions were treated as explained on the basis of banking and financial records, with no "source of source" requirement applied to a partnership firm; unsecured loans were held genuine despite no loan agreement; and cash found in search could not be taxed under section 69A or on a protective basis where ownership and substantive assessment lay elsewhere.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Prospective application of section 80AC bars late-filing disallowance of section 80P claim at processing stage.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791524</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791524</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The Tribunal held that the amended section 80AC, which extended the due-date filing condition to Chapter VI-A deductions including section 80P, applied prospectively from assessment year 2018-19 and not to assessment year 2015-16. It further held that a section 80P claim could not be denied as a prima facie adjustment under section 143(1) merely because the return was filed late, since the issue was debatable and fell outside the limited processing scope. The disallowance was therefore unsustainable, and the deduction claimed was allowed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Unexplained investment and 80G disallowance: small DVO variance without evidence cannot sustain addition, and disallowance cannot exceed the claim</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791525</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791525</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:38 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A marginal gap of about 6.42% between declared land consideration and a later DVO valuation, without direct or corroborative evidence of any extra cash payment, was treated as an estimation difference insufficient to support an addition for unexplained investment, and the deletion was upheld. For the 80G donation issue, the assessee had claimed only 50% of the donation in the return, so any disallowance had to be confined to the amount actually claimed and could not exceed that figure; the restricted disallowance was therefore sustained. The Revenue's challenge to both additions failed and the appellate order was upheld.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Case-Laws</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
<item>
<title>TMI Updates - Newsletter dated: May 14, 2026</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/newsletter?id=05/14/2026</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/newsletter?id=05/14/2026</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Newsletter for tax updates and legal information]]></description>
<category>Daily Updates</category>
<category>Tax</category>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>