<?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=Highlights" 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>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:49:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
        <language>en-us</language>
        <webMaster>webmaster@taxtmi.com</webMaster>
        <managingEditor>editor@taxtmi.com</managingEditor>
        <ttl>60</ttl>
        <item>
<title>Inventory-based e-commerce exports are permitted for Indian-made goods, lifting B2C and inventory-model restrictions for qualifying exports.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103485</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103485</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Schedule I now permits e-commerce entities to operate an inventory-based e-commerce model exclusively for exporting goods or products manufactured or produced in India. Such exports must comply with the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, the Handbook of Procedures, and the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2015. For exports permitted under this new entry, the existing restrictions on business-to-consumer transactions and inventory-based e-commerce under entries 15.2.1 to 15.2.4 do not apply. The amendment takes effect from its publication in the Official Gazette.]]></description>
<category>FEMA</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
<enclosure url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103485.jpg" type="image" />
<media:content url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103485.jpg" medium="image" />
        </item>
        <item>
<title>One-time Advance Authorisation to TRQ conversion for raw sugar receives an extended application window until 7 September 2026.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103484</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103484</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Eligible holders of Advance Authorisations under SION E-52 may submit applications for a one-time conversion to Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) for raw sugar imports from 3 September 2026 through 7 September 2026, inclusive. The extended application window aligns with the extended TRQ Scheme application period, and 7 September 2026 is the final submission date. All conditions prescribed for the conversion under the earlier public notice and corrigendum remain applicable. DGFT may amend, modify, relax or withdraw provisions, subject to the Foreign Trade Policy and applicable law.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
<enclosure url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103484.jpg" type="image" />
<media:content url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103484.jpg" medium="image" />
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Customs assessment information portal centralises rulings and guidance to promote consistent classification, valuation, transparency and informed compliance nationwide.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103483</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103483</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The National Assessment Centre Portal provides a common digital repository for trade stakeholders and Customs formations to access NAC decisions, legal precedents, CAAR rulings, audit objections, advisories, alerts, meeting records and assessment-related material. Keyword-based search and document download functions support access to information on classification, valuation, policy-intervention issues and trade facilitation. Each NAC must use role-based credentials to upload, update and manage records within its allocated commodity and functional domain, with priority for issues raised in CCFC/PTFC discussions. Regular use and updating are intended to promote consistent assessments, reduce divergent practices, improve compliance and strengthen transparency and certainty in Customs administration.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
<enclosure url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103483.jpg" type="image" />
<media:content url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103483.jpg" medium="image" />
        </item>
        <item>
<title>EMI scheme documentation rationalisation reduces application uploads while retaining financial certification and eligibility declarations for deferred customs duty.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103482</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103482</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Eligible Manufacturer Importer Scheme applications for deferred payment of customs import duty will require substantially reduced data and document uploads from 15 September 2026. Applicants need no longer provide prior EXIM, GST compliance, turnover, factory-premises, plant-and-machinery, goods, or job-worker particulars previously required. Uploads are limited to an MSME UDYAM certificate where applicable, a UDIN-bearing Chartered Accountant certificate, and authorised-signatory authorisation. The revised form retains declarations on manufacturing or qualifying job work, GST collected but not deposited, financial solvency, insolvency, prosecutions, and prior EMI applications. Chartered Accountants must give reasons for negative net worth or negative net current assets. False declarations may lead to EMI suspension, action under customs law, and future scheme ineligibility.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
<enclosure url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103482.jpg" type="image" />
<media:content url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103482.jpg" medium="image" />
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Customs out-of-charge verification for regulated imports now requires category-specific licensing, labelling, quality, shelf-life and importer documentation.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103481</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103481</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[PGA-facilitated Bills of Entry for cosmetics, drugs and medical devices require Customs verification of category-specific licences, permissions, registration certificates, invoices, packing lists, country-of-origin certificates, labels, storage-premises licences and batch quality certificates before out-of-charge. Imported products must correspond with approved registrations or import permissions in name, pack size, quantity and labelling particulars. Drug imports require residual shelf life exceeding 60%; APIs must carry a scannable QR code containing prescribed traceability information. Medical devices with applicable shelf life must meet minimum residual shelf-life requirements based on their total shelf-life period. Importers must provi.....]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
<enclosure url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103481.jpg" type="image" />
<media:content url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103481.jpg" medium="image" />
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Non-resident bank Rupee accounts: annual branch-list and temporary-overdraft reporting obligations are withdrawn with immediate effect.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103480</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103480</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Authorised Dealer Category-I banks are no longer required to submit annual lists of offices or branches maintaining Rupee accounts of non-resident banks, or report temporary overdrawals by overseas branches or correspondents exceeding permissible limits where unadjusted within five days. These reporting requirements are dispensed with immediate effect, reducing periodic and event-based reporting obligations for accounts of non-resident banks. Any permissions or approvals required under other applicable laws remain unaffected.]]></description>
<category>FEMA</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
<enclosure url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103480.jpg" type="image" />
<media:content url="https://www.taxtmi.com/file_folder/infographics/marquee_103480.jpg" medium="image" />
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Expiry of a CGST prohibition order requires release of detained goods without affecting the underlying departmental investigation.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103479</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103479</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Expiry of the extended six-month validity of a CGST prohibition order causes it to cease automatically, without requiring separate revocation. Goods detained solely under that order cannot remain under detention after expiry and must be released. Release of the goods does not affect the legality of the departmental investigation or the evidentiary material already collected, which remain available for the investigation.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Composite show-cause notices spanning multiple financial years are jurisdictionally invalid, allowing writ review despite an alternative appellate remedy.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103478</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103478</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Under the 2017 Act, a single show-cause notice covering multiple financial years is impermissible because limitation applies independently to each year and cannot be bypassed by clubbing years. Separate year-wise demands raised under such a notice do not cure the jurisdictional defect. A notice issued without or in excess of statutory jurisdiction may be challenged through writ jurisdiction despite an available appellate remedy where the defect is apparent on its face and requires no factual inquiry. The composite notice, consequential order-in-original and related steps were quashed, while revenue authorities remained free to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Inverted duty refunds cover higher-taxed packaging inputs for packaged tea, while rate-reduction guidance does not bar claims.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103477</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103477</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Packing materials, labels, cartons and plastic containers used to market packaged tea qualify as inputs used in the course or furtherance of business and may generate refundable accumulated input tax credit under the inverted duty structure. The refund analysis does not distinguish between principal and ancillary inputs, and identical GST rates on bulk and packaged tea do not exclude credit arising from higher-taxed packing materials. The rate-reduction circular concerning accumulation caused by GST-rate changes on the same goods does not apply where accumulation arises from packing materials, and it cannot restrict a refund otherwise available under the statute. The refund sanction was sustained and the Revenue appeal was dismissed.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Inverted duty refunds include packaging inputs where administrative circulars cannot restrict statutory input tax credit entitlement.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103476</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103476</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Refund of unutilised input tax credit under an inverted duty structure extends to packing materials, labels, cartons and plastic containers used to market packaged tea. Section 54(3)(ii) treats such materials as inputs and does not distinguish between principal and ancillary inputs; comparison of bulk tea and packaged tea without considering packaging inputs is therefore incorrect. Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST addresses credit accumulation caused by a rate reduction on the same goods at different times and does not apply where bulk and packaged tea bear the same tax rate. Administrative circulars cannot add to or curtail the statutory refund entitlement.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Input tax credit mismatch requires transaction-level verification; demands must remain within show-cause notice and applicable verification periods.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103475</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103475</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Input tax credit denial based solely on a GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatch requires transaction-level verification of reconciliations, invoices, records and supplier-tax-payment conditions; a mismatch alone does not establish ineligibility. Section 16(2)(aa) does not apply to the disputed period, while Rule 36(4) must be applied as operative during each relevant portion. Tax demands must remain within the grounds and tax heads proposed in the show-cause notice, supported by a reasoned computation and factual basis. The CBIC ITC-verification mechanism applies only from April 2019 to 8 October 2019, requiring separate examination of later periods under the applicable substantive provisions.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Valuation reference used to extend assessment limitation was invalid where no genuine asset valuation inquiry was required.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103474</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103474</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reference to a Valuation Officer for a company's fixed assets immediately before expiry of the assessment period was treated as an impermissible attempt to extend the completion deadline. A valuation was unnecessary to examine an alleged bogus depreciation claim because it could be disallowed on the available material. Nor was a genuine valuation required for alleged unaccounted payments: asset-related material and explanations were already on record, later show-cause notices did not question asset valuation, and no satisfactory reason was given for earlier inaction. The reference was characterised as a colourable and illegal use of power to invoke time exclusion, and was quashed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Fraudulent GST registrations using misused PAN and Aadhaar credentials require stronger identity-verification safeguards and preventive measures.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103473</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103473</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Fraudulent GST registrations obtained through misuse of PAN and Aadhaar particulars require effective preventive measures. The High Court granted the Commissioners responsible for central and state GST administration and the Commissioner of Police a final opportunity to devise a solution to curb registrations secured by another person using a taxpayer's identity credentials. The focus is on strengthening safeguards against identity-based GST registration fraud.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Revised-return scrutiny requires a fresh statutory notice, while exempt-income and research deductions receive defined limits.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103472</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103472</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Scrutiny assessments founded on revised returns require a statutory notice tied to the operative revised return; its absence is an incurable jurisdictional defect not cured by participation, and assessments for three years were quashed. Pre-amendment annual Form 3CL quantification could not defeat or cap weighted research-and-development deductions where substantive approval existed, but eligibility required limited verification. Rule 8D disallowance required account-based satisfaction, excluded investments yielding taxable foreign dividends, and could not automatically increase book profit under the self-contained minimum alternate tax regime. Expenditure improving access to an existing factory remained revenue expenditure where no capital asset or proprietary advantage was acquired.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>ITAT territorial jurisdiction follows the Assessing Officer's location, requiring appeals and cross-objections only before the appropriate Bench.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103471</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103471</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ITAT ordinary territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who issued the assessment order, rather than the assessee's location or that of the Commissioner (Appeals). The President's procedural rule-making power does not extend to transferring a pending appeal between Benches situated in different States. Where the assessment order originated from an Assessing Officer at Chennai, the Mumbai Bench lacked jurisdiction over both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's related cross-objection. Both were dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to approach the appropriate Bench; merits remained open.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Assessment Transfer Without Statutory Authority Nullifies Transferee Assessment and Consequential Penalty for Inaccurate Income Particulars</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103470</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103470</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Transfer of an assessment case under section 127 by a Joint Commissioner lacking statutory power is jurisdictionally invalid. An assessee must also be afforded an opportunity of hearing before transfer between Assessing Officers. Participation in subsequent assessment proceedings, or failure to object within thirty days, cannot cure a transfer made by an incompetent authority. Consequently, an assessment made by the transferee Assessing Officer is non est, and a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars founded on that assessment cannot survive. The assessment and consequential penalty were quashed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Corpus Donations and Charitable Accumulation: Cricket infrastructure grants and procedural fairness protect charitable income exemptions</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103469</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103469</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Infrastructure grants expressly earmarked for stadium construction, credited to a corpus fund and applied for that purpose qualify as corpus donations exempt under section 11(1)(d). Accumulation under section 11(2) cannot be denied solely for delayed Form No. 10 filing where condonation was sought before assessment and subsequent relief applies. The statutory 15% accumulation under section 11(1)(a) is automatic and does not depend on Form No. 10. Additions made without a show-cause notice violate natural justice. A cricket association's activities do not attract the commercial-activity proviso absent evidence of trade, commerce or business. Depreciation, unspecified section 13 allegations and unsupported receipt enhancements require a factual and legal basis.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Misreporting penalties require proven statutory circumstances; omitted interest income attracts under-reporting treatment absent evidence of deliberate misreporting.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103468</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103468</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Under-reporting and misreporting of income attract distinct penalty treatment: under-reporting is penalised at 50% of the tax payable, while under-reporting resulting from misreporting attracts 200% only where specified factual circumstances establish misreporting. Omission of interest income constituted under-reporting, but non-resident status, reliance on an accountant, limited technological knowledge, and later payment of tax and interest did not establish deliberate misreporting. Departmental detection and non-response to notices alone were insufficient for the enhanced penalty. The penalty was therefore restricted to under-reporting, with recomputation. Statutory and show-cause notices, along with opportunities to respond during penalty proceedings, satisfied hearing requirements where the taxpayer did not use those opportunities.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Bona fide disclosed legal claims on slump-sale negative net worth do not constitute inaccurate particulars for penalty purposes.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103467</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103467</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable where a taxpayer fully discloses a slump-sale transaction, consideration and negative net worth, but computes capital gains by treating negative net worth as nil on a bona fide legal interpretation. A claim that is ultimately unsustainable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars merely because a quantum addition is sustained or not contested. Divergent Tribunal views and admission of a substantial question of law support the conclusion that the treatment of negative net worth was genuinely debatable. The penalty deletion was sustained and the Revenue's appeal failed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Business Dependence Establishes Associated Enterprise Status; Domestic Tested Party and Fresh Regulatory Affairs Benchmarking Required</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103466</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103466</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Business dependence on regulatory affairs and compliance processes established an associated-enterprise relationship, which was sustained because the relationship had also been accepted in transfer-pricing documentation. Foreign associated-enterprise selection as the tested party was rejected where reliable foreign comparable data was not readily accessible and geographical and economic conditions differed; the assessee was retained as the tested party. Domain-specific regulatory affairs services were not treated as KPO services merely by reference to the Rule 10TA definition, and comparables from diverse RD, engineering, IT, advertising and gaming activities were unsuitable. Fresh benchmarking and comparable selection were directed in line with the assessee's FAR profile after a hearing opportunity.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Trade discounts received by milk resale agents are explained income, preventing estimated additions as unexplained money.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103465</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103465</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Trade and quantity discounts received by a milk resale agent constituted an explained source of income where bank statements showed that sale proceeds were deposited into a joint account with the dairy and withdrawn by the dairy on the same day. Treating those discounts as unexplained money was therefore unwarranted. Profit estimation at 70% of the total discounts, with only 30% allowed for storage and distribution expenses, lacked a proper basis. The addition relating to the discounts was deleted.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Foreign withholding tax remains non-deductible where eligible for double-taxation relief, even if no Indian credit is usable.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103464</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103464</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Foreign withholding tax eligible for double-taxation relief under sections 90 or 91 cannot be deducted as business expenditure merely because nil Indian tax liability prevents use of the credit. Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii) applies based on eligibility for relief, not actual allowance or utilisation; the claimed deduction was therefore rejected. An additional legal claim for that deduction, raised before the first appellate authority, required examination on merits where the return and Form 67 contained the relevant material. Rule 46A did not justify threshold rejection, although the claim ultimately failed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Year-end expense provisions require independent TDS compliance despite tax disallowance, subject to vendor-level verification of withholding liability.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103463</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103463</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[TDS obligations on year-end expense provisions remain independent of any suo motu disallowance for non-deduction of tax. Such disallowance is intended to secure compliance with withholding requirements but does not eliminate liability for TDS default or consequential interest. General tax-audit disclosures, without vendor-wise details, credited amounts, accounting treatment, and the basis of provisions, cannot establish the nature or extent of TDS liability. Verification is required of subsequent invoice-based TDS deduction, reversal of ad hoc provisions, and entries claimed to be outside TDS requirements before determining default and consequential liability.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reverse burden for foreign-marked gold requires traceable proof, while unlinked silver and cash cannot be confiscated.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103462</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103462</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[For foreign-marked gold, the reverse burden applies once the statutory conditions are met, requiring specific, credible and traceable evidence linking lawful acquisition to the seized articles. General business records and GST invoices that do not correspond to the seized gold, explain its foreign markings, or reconcile with relevant accounts do not discharge that burden; confiscation of the gold was therefore justified. For silver bullion, the burden does not shift without reasonable belief of smuggling, supported by a nexus beyond stock discrepancies; relief from confiscation was sustained. Cash may be confiscated as sale proceeds only on cogent evidence linking it to smuggled goods, not suspicion. Penalties were correspondingly reduced to 50 per cent.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Writ jurisdiction cannot order release of detained gold when alleged Customs notice breaches require resolving disputed facts.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103461</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103461</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Writ jurisdiction cannot support mandamus for release of detained gold where alleged non-compliance with Customs Act notice and seizure safeguards depends on disputed facts. Statutory requirements for notice and release of seized goods must be observed, and a mechanical pre-printed waiver alone does not establish compliance. However, a passenger's signed statement and later written acknowledgement of receiving an oral show cause notice may constitute contemporaneous material that cannot be disregarded in favour of later allegations of coercion, fabrication, or prior declaration of goods. Such evidentiary disputes require determination before the competent Customs authority or another appropriate forum. The petition for release was dismissed without deciding confiscation or penalty.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Alternative statutory revision governs baggage confiscation disputes where notice waiver and document voluntariness require factual examination.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103460</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103460</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Availability of a statutory revision in baggage confiscation matters may warrant declining writ jurisdiction where alleged procedural breaches depend on disputed facts. Although an alternative remedy does not automatically preclude a writ petition alleging natural justice or jurisdictional defects, disputes over waiver of written notice, oral notice, the alleged statement and voluntariness of contemporaneous documents require factual examination in revision. The writ petition challenging confiscation of a gold bar and consequential penalty was not entertained, with merits left open for statutory revision. A revision filed within the stipulated period could not be rejected merely because the petitioner had first approached the High Court.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Clinical trial testing exemption covers sponsor-approved CRO services; employee bond forfeitures are not taxable training consideration.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103459</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103459</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Clinical Research Organisations performing sponsor-approved clinical trials qualify for service-tax exemption on technical testing and analysis of newly developed drugs, even though regulatory approval is issued to the sponsor rather than separately to the CRO. Employee bond deposits forfeited on premature resignation are compensation for breach of an employment undertaking, not consideration for commercial training or coaching or for tolerating an act. Extended limitation requires deliberate suppression or other specified conduct with intent to evade tax; prior departmental disclosures and a tenable belief in exemption negate that requirement. Consequently, the technical-testing and training-related demands fail, with the latter also time-barred. Interest and penalties cannot survive where no principal tax demand or intent to evade is established.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment-Based Export Duty Refund Limitation Starts When Excess Payment Becomes Ascertainable, With Interest Following the Statutory Refund Period</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103458</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103458</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Refund of excess export duty following reassessment of steel-slab shipping bills remains subject to statutory refund limitation; an alleged mistake of law cannot invoke general limitation law or Article 265 to bypass it. Where additional duty paid by challan was absent from shipping bills, Let Export Orders and contemporaneous assessment records, and a departmental recomputation constituted reassessment, the excess became ascertainable only on reassessment. A prior refund application read with a pending correction request was therefore within time. Interest on delayed refund runs from the day after three months from reassessment, rather than from the earlier application, because the claim could not be both premature before ascertainment and overdue for interest purposes.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Customs officer appointment validates DRI recovery notices while penalties stand for admitted participation in prohibited-goods smuggling conspiracy.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103457</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103457</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Personal penalties for participation in smuggling were sustained where the appellant and customs broker conspired with de facto importers to clear containers concealing prohibited R-22 gas and admitted acting for monetary consideration. This conduct established a serious role in the smuggling operation. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers appointed as customs officers and assigned proper-officer functions may issue show cause notices for customs-duty recovery. Assessment and recovery of short-paid duty are distinct statutory functions, so the earlier contrary jurisdictional view did not invalidate the notice. The jurisdictional challenge failed and the appeal was dismissed.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Extended limitation fails where departmental knowledge defeats suppression, while pile-fabric classification stands and exemption claims require merits review.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103456</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103456</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Departmental knowledge of identical imports and prior acceptance of the declared classification negated suppression and intent to evade duty; the extended-period duty demand and related interest were therefore set aside. Woven warp cut-pile fabrics were correctly classified under CTH 5801 because that specific heading for woven pile fabrics prevailed over general silk or rayon fabric headings, irrespective of rayon predominance. Exemptions not claimed at clearance may be claimed at adjudication, absent fraud, if substantive and procedural conditions are met; the alternative CVD and SAD claims require fresh merits determination, with any duty and interest confined to the normal period. Prior departmental acceptance also excluded deliberate misclassification, preventing confiscation and penalties.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Restricted second-hand goods remain redeemable when absolute confiscation lacks specific reasons, and penalties must follow the applicable import provision.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103455</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103455</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Restricted second-hand parts of capital goods imported without the required authorisation may be confiscated, but restriction alone does not justify absolute confiscation without specific reasons. Where the goods are restricted rather than prohibited, redemption on payment of fine remains available. Penalty for importing such goods was treated under the provision applicable to improper import; enhancement under a separate provision operating on different premises was not sustainable. The appellate order directing absolute confiscation and enhancing the penalty was set aside, while the original order allowing redemption and imposing the applicable import penalty was restored.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 213(b) investigation safeguards require recorded satisfaction and prior hearing before agencies are asked for tracking information.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103454</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103454</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 213(b) requires recorded satisfaction, reasons showing application of mind, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an investigation into company affairs, or preliminary steps towards it, is directed. Requests to external investigative agencies for tracking information at the initial stage cannot proceed without a rational basis, compliance with those statutory conditions, and prior hearing of affected parties. Directions issued without these safeguards are contrary to natural justice and require fresh consideration after hearing the affected party.]]></description>
<category>Corporate Laws</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Going-concern liquidation sales support consequential implementation reliefs but cannot override auction terms, statutory compliance, or ungranted contractual concessions.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103453</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103453</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Residuary jurisdiction in liquidation permits incidental and consequential directions necessary to give commercial effect to a going-concern sale, including revised shareholding, fresh equity, listing-related steps, removal of historical encumbrances, and restoration of active corporate status, subject to applicable procedures and regulatory powers. A going-concern purchaser receives clean-slate protection from pre-sale liabilities, while pending proceedings may continue in the corporate debtor's name under new management without determining their merits. Subsisting licences, approvals and contractual rights continue subject to compliance obligations. Relief extending to all receivables or creating a fresh limitation period is unavailable w.....]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Anticipatory bail in money-laundering matters requires scrutiny of arrest necessity and is refused where prima facie involvement exists.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103452</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103452</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires more than formal satisfaction of statutory conditions: the necessity and need for arrest must also be assessed. Anticipatory bail remains an exceptional discretionary remedy, particularly in economic offences, requiring a balance between personal liberty and the investigating agency's need for interrogation and evidence collection. Relevant considerations include the accusation's gravity, the applicant's antecedents, risk of absconding, and the effect of pre-arrest protection on the investigation. Prima facie involvement in the alleged money-laundering offence led to refusal of anticipatory bail and dismissal of the criminal petition.]]></description>
<category>PMLA</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Equivalent-value attachment requires an established money trail and a genuine risk of frustrating confiscation proceedings.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103451</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103451</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Equivalent-value attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act requires that proceeds of crime have been passed on or layered and are unavailable with the person or entity to whom they were laundered. Attachment was not justified where subsidiary companies had no established money trail to the alleged kickback. Provisional attachment also requires a real likelihood that confiscation will be frustrated; mortgaged properties subject to admitted insolvency proceedings could be sold or transferred only under National Company Law Tribunal orders. The confirmation order was set aside, and the properties remained subject to the insolvency proceedings.]]></description>
<category>PMLA</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Retention of seized documents depends on prosecution reliance, with release required where evidentiary necessity is absent.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103450</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103450</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Fair-hearing requirements require supply of documents relied on in pleadings where the retention order is founded on them; service of a panchnama alone does not provide an adequate opportunity to respond. Retention of seized documents is justified only when they are relied on in a prosecution complaint or supplementary complaint and required to prove the case against an accused. Documents not so required must be released within a reasonable time, while authenticated photocopies may be retained. The retention direction was consequently limited to documents necessary as prosecution evidence.]]></description>
<category>PMLA</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Penalty for dealing in confiscable goods requires proof of knowing involvement and a complete evidentiary chain.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103449</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103449</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Penalty under Rule 26 for dealing in goods liable to confiscation requires proof that the person acquired, possessed or dealt with excisable goods knowing or believing them to be liable to confiscation. Allegations of clandestine removal require affirmative evidence across the production and supply chain, including unaccounted procurement and production, transport and clearance, identified buyers' receipt, and unaccounted consideration; recovered diaries or notepads alone do not establish their contents as true. Statements recorded during investigation may be relied on where examination and cross-examination opportunities were provided but not used, without violating natural justice.]]></description>
<category>Excise</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Alternate statutory remedy governs GST assessment challenge, with statutory appeal preserved and limitation objection barred for the permitted filing period.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103448</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103448</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Alternate statutory remedy was central to the GST challenge against an assessment order issued under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act for financial year 2018-19, raising issues of the Section 6(2)(b) bar and proper-officer jurisdiction. The High Court rejected the writ petition while allowing recourse to the statutory appeal. The Supreme Court declined to entertain the special leave petition but allowed a further 30 days to file the appeal without a limitation objection. All contentions, including the pre-deposit issue in light of payment under parallel Central Act proceedings, remain open.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Blocked input tax credit cannot satisfy GST appeal pre-deposit while credit restrictions continue, preserving appellate access after corrections.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103447</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103447</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Blocked input tax credit subject to a subsisting Rule 86A restriction cannot be debited, treated as payment, or appropriated towards the mandatory pre-deposit for a GST appeal. The restriction may be challenged or sought to be modified before the competent forum. An erroneous FORM GST DRC-07 attributable to the adjudicating authority, once rectified, should not deprive the taxpayer of the statutory appellate remedy. Electronic filing of the appeal must be enabled, with manual filing available if portal issues persist, subject to compliance with the prescribed pre-deposit.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Statutory appellate remedy before a functional GST Tribunal displaces writ proceedings while preserving limitation protection for prior litigation.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103446</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103446</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Availability of a statutory appellate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal requires a challenge to a GST penalty order to proceed through that forum once it becomes functional. A writ petition entertained solely because the appellate forum was non-functional need not continue after the Tribunal is operational. The petitioner may be relegated to the Tribunal with liberty to file an appeal within the stipulated period, and the Tribunal should not object to limitation for the period during which the writ petition was pursued. The appeal is to be decided in accordance with law after considering any interim order.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Post-decisional hearing for blocked electronic credit ledgers requires reasoned review of disputed input tax credit claims</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103445</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103445</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Blocking an Electronic Credit Ledger may be based on reasons to believe that input tax credit was fraudulently availed or is ineligible, including where suppliers are alleged to be non-existent or their registrations cancelled. Even where such statutory conditions are prima facie met, audi alteram partem requires a post-decisional hearing. The affected taxpayer must be allowed to submit a detailed representation and supporting records to substantiate the credit claim. The competent authority must grant a personal hearing and issue a reasoned, speaking determination independently of prior observations, without merits being conclusively adjudicated at the blocking stage.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Blocked input tax credit cannot fund an appellate pre-deposit while a valid electronic credit ledger restriction continues.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103444</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103444</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Blocked input tax credit cannot be used for an appellate pre-deposit while a valid Rule 86A restriction prohibits debit of the electronic credit ledger. Section 49(4) permits use of ledger credit towards output-tax payments only subject to prescribed conditions and restrictions; it therefore creates no absolute right to use blocked credit for pre-deposit. Rule 86A operates provisionally, requires recorded reasons for the restriction, and permits an unblocking application when the grounds no longer subsist. The unblocking request must be considered expeditiously, with a speaking order and reasonable opportunity before any proposed rejection.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Electronic credit ledger blocking remains permissible for determined GST recovery despite an interim stay on debiting available credit.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103443</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103443</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Post-determination recovery of determined GST dues may include blocking, including negative blocking, of the electronic credit ledger. The interim protection against recovery restricts only debit of credit already lying in the ledger towards recovery; it does not invalidate or suspend a prior ledger-blocking order. Recovery powers extend to prescribed modes involving money or goods under the proper officer's control, third-party recovery, distraint and sale of assets, and assistance from revenue authorities. Rule 86A governs provisional pre-determination blocking and does not limit post-determination recovery action. Electronic credit ledger blocking therefore remains permissible, subject to the protection against debit of available credit during the interim stay.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Interim protection from arrest allowed GST investigation questioning to proceed while requiring appearance before the Investigating Officer.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103442</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103442</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Interim protection from arrest during a GST investigation was granted to a person summoned in connection with alleged GST and input tax credit fraud. The investigating side confirmed that the relevant notices required attendance for interrogation and did not authorise arrest. The person was therefore directed to appear before the Investigating Officer in accordance with the notices, while receiving protection from arrest in the related criminal proceedings. The protection was limited to facilitating interrogation under the issued notices.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>GST rectification for patent errors cannot reopen ineligible input tax credit findings; challenges to the original determination remain available.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103441</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103441</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Rectification of patent errors in GST proceedings is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to revisit an original determination on under-declared ineligible input tax credit. Where no apparent error is established and supporting documents were not submitted, rejection of a rectification application remains undisturbed. The taxpayer may challenge the original determination independently in accordance with law, rather than seek substantive reconsideration through rectification.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Input tax credit apportionment rectification under Section 161 requires correction of SOP-related mistakes by the proper officer.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103440</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103440</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Rectification of a mistake in apportioning available input tax credit under the SOP was directed through Section 161 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The proper officer must rectify the identified ITC-apportionment error under the applicable SOP. Following the rectification order, the affected party may pursue an appropriate appeal.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Condonation of delay in income-tax appeals permits registration where bona fide departmental processing establishes sufficient cause.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103439</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103439</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 260A(2A) of the Income Tax Act does not expressly exclude application of the Limitation Act, declare the High Court functus officio after expiry of the appeal period, or contain restrictive wording barring condonation. Departmental processing, approval, preparation and execution of the appeal memorandum collectively established sufficient cause and bona fide diligence for a short delay. Merits of the proposed appeal should not be examined while deciding limitation, as that would compromise fairness at the admission stage. The delay was condoned, and the income-tax appeal was directed to be registered and listed for admission.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Priority of registered security interests prevails over unproclaimed, unregistered Income Tax attachments on secured property.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103438</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103438</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Priority under section 26E of the Securitisation Act favours a bank's registered security interest over an Income Tax attachment where the Department has not publicly proclaimed the attachment in the prescribed manner or registered its claim or attachment order with CERSAI. A prior attachment alone does not displace the secured creditor's statutory priority. The attachment and resulting encumbrance must be removed to the extent they obstruct recovery of the bank's secured dues, while the Income Tax Department may recover its dues from surplus sale proceeds or other assets in accordance with law.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Satisfaction note timing under section 153C invalidates delayed proceedings against persons other than those searched</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103437</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103437</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 153C proceedings against a person other than the searched person require a satisfaction note as a precondition. Where the searched person's assessment has concluded, the satisfaction note must be recorded immediately thereafter; a delay exceeding four years does not meet that requirement. Proceedings initiated for Assessment Year 2017-18 on the basis of such delayed recording were invalidated, and the related notice, consequential order and demand notice were quashed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>AI-generated fake precedents vitiate penalty adjudication, requiring fresh determination by an independent officer without unreliable legal material.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103436</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103436</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 23:40:43 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reliance on non-existent, falsely cited, or hallucinated AI-generated precedents undermines the sanctity of adjudication and vitiates the decision-making process. Artificial intelligence may serve only as an assistive tool and cannot replace independent legal adjudication. Use of even minimal fake or unreliable precedent renders a penalty decision unsustainable where that material informed the adjudicating authority's reasoning. The penalty-confirming order and the original penalty order were set aside, with proceedings revived for fresh adjudication by another officer of the same rank.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
<item>
<title>TMI Updates - Newsletter dated: September 07, 2026</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/newsletter?id=09/07/2026</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/newsletter?id=09/07/2026</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Newsletter for tax updates and legal information]]></description>
<category>Daily Updates</category>
<category>Tax</category>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>