<?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>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
        <language>en-us</language>
        <webMaster>webmaster@taxtmi.com</webMaster>
        <managingEditor>editor@taxtmi.com</managingEditor>
        <ttl>60</ttl>
        <item>
<title>Customs duty and surcharge rates on precious-metal goods are revised, with new tariff entries and import conditions for spent catalyst.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99783</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99783</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Customs exemption and cess schedules for gold, silver, coins and other precious-metal goods are revised by amending Notifications 11/2018-Customs and 11/2021-Customs. The concessional entries are expanded to cover additional tariff headings, including 7107, 7109, 7111, 7112 and 7118, while certain entries are omitted or substituted. Social Welfare Surcharge rates are updated for specified precious-metal goods, including spent catalyst or ash containing precious metals, gold and silver findings, and goods covered by the relevant exemption notification, with separate rates or nil treatment as prescribed. The changes also impose procedural conditions for imported spent catalyst or ash, including an undertaking on precious-metal content and a Ministry of Environment certificate. The notification takes effect from 13 May 2026.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Customs duty entries for gold and silver under India-UAE CEPA are revised through amended notification entries.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99782</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99782</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The customs notification amends Table III of Notification No. 22/2022-Customs for S. No. 12 by substituting the entries in columns (5) and (6), thereby revising the applicable duty-related rates for gold and silver under the first tranche of the India-UAE CEPA scheme. The amendment operates prospectively and takes effect from 13 May 2026.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Customs duty on gold, silver and platinum imports under specified schemes is increased by amendment.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99781</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99781</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The customs notification amends Notification No. 57/2000-Customs by substituting the rate entry in the table against Sl. No. 1, column (4), so that the existing 4.35% duty on gold, silver and platinum imported under the specified schemes is replaced with 10%. The amendment is issued under section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and takes effect from 13 May 2026, thereby increasing the applicable import duty rate for the covered imports.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Customs duty on precious metals and related goods increased to 10% under amended import notification.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99780</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99780</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Customs duty rates under Notification No. 45/2025-Customs are amended to increase the rate from 5% to 10% for specified entries relating to precious metals and related goods, including gold, silver, platinum, spent catalyst or ash containing precious metals, and certain precious metal residues. A new entry for spent catalyst or ash containing precious metals is inserted with a 10% duty rate, while the broad entry for other specified precious-metal goods is also set at 10%. The notification takes effect from 13 May 2026.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Interest subvention under export credit rules clarified for delayed UIN generation and claim timing.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99779</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99779</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Interest subvention support under the Export Promotion Mission is clarified to address cases where UIN generation lagged behind disbursal of eligible pre- or post-shipment export credit. For FY 2025-26, claims may be filed where credit was disbursed on or after 02.01.2026 and the UIN is generated on or before 31.05.2026; subvention is admissible from the date of disbursal, not from UIN generation. From FY 2026-27 onwards, a UIN generated within 15 days of original disbursal remains valid for subvention, which also runs from disbursal. Banks must apply the rate prevailing on the loan disbursal date, and claims must be linked to the relevant year of disbursal.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Customs area extension for a container freight station: additional land notified for unloading and loading operations under customs control.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99778</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99778</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The Commissioner of Customs notified an additional 7,824 SQM of land adjoining M/s Indev Infra Private Limited's existing Container Freight Station as a customs area for unloading imported goods and loading export goods. The notification specifies the added customs area limits by reference to the schedule and map, subject to compliance with the Customs Act, 1962 and applicable government or customs instructions. As a result, the total notified CFS area stands at 45,864 SQM.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Directory filing period for waiver applications upheld, and rejection for delay was quashed for fresh merits consideration.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99777</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99777</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A waiver application filed beyond three months from the notified date could not be rejected solely as time-barred because the relevant notification used enabling language and the filing period was directory, not mandatory. The High Court held that the authority misdirected itself in law by treating the three-month period as an inflexible bar. The rejection order was quashed, and the application was directed to be reconsidered on merits in accordance with law; pending such reconsideration, the show cause notice, summary notice and order in original were kept in abeyance.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Natural justice in ex parte adjudication: matter remanded for reply to show cause notice with merits left open</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99776</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99776</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Ex parte adjudication orders were set aside because the petitioner had not been given an effective opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. The HC accepted that the petitioner could place material before the authority, including the objection that two orders had been passed for the same tax period on the same ITC mismatch ground. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show cause notice, with all merits contentions left open, subject to payment of 10% of the tax demand under the specified annexures.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reopening of assessment and overriding title rule upheld: gross-receipt entitlement under an AOP was taxable as business income.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99775</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99775</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Reopening of assessment was upheld where the recorded reasons showed fresh tangible material from impounded documents and a director's statement, and the assessee had not fully disclosed the crucial Clause 7 entitlement to 35% of gross sale receipts; no earlier opinion on the receipt's true character had been formed, so change of opinion did not apply. The Court also held that reopening must stand or fall on the recorded reasons alone. On the merits, the assessee's 35% entitlement under the AOP agreement was not a share of profit, because it arose from gross receipts before project expenses and was diverted by overriding title; it was therefore taxable as business income.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Commercial expediency governs interest deduction where borrowed funds are used through a subsidiary for business purposes.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99774</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99774</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Section 36(1)(iii) allows deduction of interest where the borrowing, the interest payment and use of capital for business are established, and the statutory phrase "for the purposes of business" is of wide import. The Court applied the test of commercial expediency, holding that interest need not be disallowed merely because borrowed funds were routed through a subsidiary or group concern, and it was not necessary that the advance should directly earn profits for the assessee. Accepting the Tribunal's view on the composite nature of the business and the business purpose of the borrowing, the Court held the interest on the bank loan to be allowable and set aside the High Court's contrary decision.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Curative petition standards prevent reopening unless Rupa Ashok Hurra parameters are met; defective petitions were dismissed.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99773</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99773</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Curative petitions were found defective because the registry-communicated defects had not been cured, and the Court nevertheless examined the matter on merits. Applying the parameters laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra, it held that no case was made out to entertain the petitions, and the request for listing in open court was rejected. The petitions were therefore dismissed, with the Court indicating that the extraordinary curative jurisdiction was not available on the facts presented.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment notices and limitation: SC required High Courts to first ermine whether cases fell in Assessment Year 2015-16.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99772</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99772</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[SC addressed the validity of reassessment notices where the decisive question was whether the matters related to Assessment Year 2015-16. It recorded the Revenue's concession that, for that year, reassessment notices would be time-barred in light of Rajeev Bansal; if a case falls in that year, the notices must be struck down without further adjudication. If the matters relate to any other assessment year, the assessees may raise all contentions available under the earlier order, and the High Courts must decide the cases accordingly. The impugned judgments were set aside and the matters remitted for fresh determination on that threshold issue first.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Natural justice in assessment requires full disclosure of departmental material before adverse findings can be made.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99771</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99771</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Where an assessing authority relies on disputed information to complete assessment, all material in the Department's possession must first be disclosed to the assessee. The High Court held that incomplete invoice-wise CBIC data could not justify an adverse assessment, and no adverse presumption could be drawn from material that was not complete or fully shared unless corroborated by other evidence. Because the assessment proceeded without full disclosure of the departmental record, the order was vitiated for breach of natural justice. The final assessment order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh assessment after disclosure of the material and grant of proper opportunity to the assessee.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Natural justice breach invalidated an assessment where relied-upon search material was not supplied to the assessee for rebuttal.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99770</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99770</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An assessment based on undisclosed relied-upon material, including server data, corroborative search documents and an Investigation Wing screenshot, was held unsustainable because the assessee was never furnished those materials or given an opportunity to rebut them. The Tribunal held that this denial of access breached audi alteram partem and the broader requirements of natural justice, rendering the assessment arbitrary and bad in law. The assessment order was quashed on that ground alone, and the merits of the additions were left open as academic.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Section 80P deduction upheld for credit co-operative society's bank interest earned on liquidity and operational deposits.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99769</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99769</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A credit co-operative society's interest income from deposits and investments with nationalised banks was held eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) because the funds were placed in the course of business to maintain liquidity and meet operational requirements. The ITAT applied co-ordinate Bench rulings on the same issue, found the principle squarely applicable on the facts, and noted that no binding contrary precedent was shown by the Revenue. The interest was treated as attributable to the assessee's business of providing credit facilities to members, so the disallowance was unsustainable and the deduction was allowed for the assessment years under appeal.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Concessional corporate tax rate turns on prior-year turnover verification, with remand for examination of audited financials.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99768</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99768</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Paragraph (e) of the 1st Schedule to the Finance Act, 2018 permits a domestic company to be taxed at 25% for A.Y. 2018-19 if its total turnover or gross receipts for F.Y. 2015-16 do not exceed the prescribed threshold. The Tribunal noted that the return form for A.Y. 2018-19 did not provide a separate field for that earlier-year turnover, so the claim could not be denied merely for want of disclosure in the form. As the assessee relied on audited financial statements indicating turnover below the limit, the matter required verification of those financials and other relevant material by the Assessing Officer. The impugned order was set aside and the issue remanded for such verification.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Genuineness of political donation claim under section 80-GGC failed on surrounding facts, so deduction was denied.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99767</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99767</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Deduction for donation to a political party under section 80-GGC was denied because the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the alleged contribution on the overall facts. Although the payment was routed through banking channels and receipts were produced, the Tribunal found these factors insufficient, noting material indicating circuitous donation transactions, absence of any supporting material showing the party's presence or nexus with the assessee, and the unusual circumstance that this was the assessee's only claimed philanthropic activity and a substantial profit-linked claim. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance. The challenge to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A was treated as premature and not entertained.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Defective penalty charge under section 270A and bona fide reliance on Form 16 justified deletion of penalty.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99766</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99766</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Penalty proceedings under section 270A require a clear sequential charge: the Assessing Officer must first identify under-reporting and then specify whether it is attributable to a particular form of misreporting. Where the notice alleged only under-reporting but the penalty order proceeded on under-reporting in consequence of misreporting, without stating the exact statutory clauses invoked, the proceedings were held invalid for breach of natural justice. Independently, the assessee's reliance on Form 16 showing the amount as exempt, together with full disclosure of material facts, was accepted as a bona fide explanation falling within section 270A(6)(a), supporting deletion of the penalty.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Reassessment notice validity and bogus purchase additions: ITAT upheld reopening, but remanded the purchase dispute for fresh verification.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99765</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99765</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ITAT upheld the reassessment notice because the record showed prior approval of the Principal Commissioner on the notice under section 148A(b), and both the notice and approval were within the statutory time limit, so the challenge on limitation and lack of approval failed. On disputed bogus purchases, the Tribunal held that invoices, ledgers and banking entries were not enough where Investigation Wing and GST material indicated accommodation entry suppliers and there were deficiencies in transport and purchase-to-sale linkage. It found that the existing factual examination was inadequate to sustain either full disallowance or a restriction to 15%, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and enquiries.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Mandatory prior intimation under section 143(1)(a) is required before denying concessional tax treatment in return processing.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99764</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99764</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Prior intimation under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) is mandatory before making a proposed adjustment to deny a claimed concessional tax rate under section 115BAB. Where the CPC disallowed the concessional rate and applied the normal rate without first issuing intimation and considering the assessee's response, the adjustment was treated as invalid in law. The Tribunal also noted that, because the statutory time limit for issuing a fresh intimation had expired for the relevant assessment year, no liberty could be granted to restart the processing. The consequential intimation, rectification order, and appellate order were set aside.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Search-linked reassessment and cross-examination requirements shape Section 68 scrutiny; reassessment upheld, additions remanded for fresh inquiry.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99763</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99763</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[In search-linked reassessment under the post-01.04.2021 regime, a search, a post-assessment statement, and field verification were treated as fresh tangible material supporting a reasoned belief of escapement; the challenge based on change of opinion and absence of incriminating material was rejected. For the unexplained cash credit issue, the Tribunal found that the Revenue relied substantially on an adverse third-party statement that was uncorroborated, while the assessee was denied cross-examination, amounting to a serious breach of natural justice. It also noted that Section 68 applies only to credits received in the relevant year, not opening balances, and remitted the additions for fresh adjudication after cross-examination and proper inquiry.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Valid issuance of reassessment notice must be proved within limitation; section 292BB cannot cure a jurisdictional defect.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99762</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99762</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Issuance of notice under section 148 was held incomplete unless the notice was dispatched and had gone beyond the issuing authority's control, and where service was by post the notice had to be properly addressed under section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Here, the original notice was sent to an incomplete address, returned, and only forwarded with the complete address after limitation had expired; the record also did not conclusively show when it was handed to postal authorities. On that footing, timely issuance was not proved, section 292BB could not cure the jurisdictional defect, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Redevelopment flat exchange falls outside section 56(2)(x), so the deemed income addition was deleted in full.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99761</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99761</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Receipt of a new residential flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement was held not to be receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration within section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal, relying on its earlier decision in Anil Dattaram Pitale v. ITO, found that the transaction was an exchange linked to redevelopment rather than a taxable transfer attracting deemed income. The addition made under section 56(2)(x) was therefore deleted in full, and the appeal was allowed on merits.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Indirect transfer taxation: offshore share sale not taxable in India, so no withholding obligation arose under the then-prevailing law.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99760</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99760</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[On the law applicable in September 2005, the offshore transfer of shares of a Mauritius company by non-resident shareholders was not taxable in India under section 9(1)(i), because the Tribunal applied the look-at test and followed Vodafone International Holdings to hold that an indirect transfer through a foreign company could not be treated as a direct transfer of Indian assets. Since the underlying gain was not chargeable to tax in India at the time of payment, section 195 did not create any withholding obligation, and later retrospective insertions in section 9(1)(i) could not fasten liability on the payer. The deletion of liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was upheld.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Appellate enhancement without procedure cannot introduce a new head of income after section 54F controversy is resolved.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99759</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99759</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Appellate proceedings cannot be used to introduce a new head of income or enhance an assessment without following the prescribed procedure. Where the original dispute concerned only denial of deduction under section 54F on the basis of alleged multiple residential units and a claimed sham transfer, and the appellate authority accepted that the transfer was lawful, that controversy stood concluded. The further step of taxing the share-sale consideration under section 56 amounted to an unauthorised enhancement and a change in the basis of assessment. The appellate order was therefore unsustainable, and the deduction under section 54F was directed to be allowed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Cash payment disallowance under section 40A(3) sustained where the assessee failed to prove the Rule 6DD exception.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99758</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99758</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Cash expenditure was disallowed under section 40A(3) because the assessee failed to substantiate the claimed Rule 6DD exception with supporting ledger accounts or confirmation from the payee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had dealt with the payee and that most payments were made in cash, so the case did not fall within the statutory exception. The disallowance was therefore upheld for the lead year and applied to the remaining assessment years, with all four appeals dismissed.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Presumptive taxation and unexplained income: rice trading receipts taxed twice under section 69A were deleted, while unsupported salary claims failed.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99757</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99757</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Where the assessee failed to produce cogent evidence of employment, salary receipt, commission or brokerage, the Tribunal upheld denial of the claimed standard deduction and treated the returned income as unexplained money under section 69A for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21. By contrast, where the assessee had opted for presumptive taxation under section 44AD and produced confirmations, sample bills and related business details, the Tribunal accepted that rice trading business was carried on and held that the same receipts could not again be taxed as unexplained money under section 69A, as that would amount to double taxation. The section 69A addition was deleted for A.Y. 2022-23, and the rice trading finding was applied for A.Y. 2021-22.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Accumulation exemption under section 11(2) cannot be claimed twice, and unutilised funds become deemed income under section 11(3).</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99756</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99756</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An accumulated amount claimed as exempt under section 11(2) in AY 2012-13 could not be re-claimed as exempt in AY 2017-18 when the assessee had already obtained exemption for that accumulation and no material showed otherwise. The Tribunal treated the fresh claim as a double exemption. It also found, on the assessee's accounts and Form 10B, that the current year's income met the year's expenditure, while the disputed accumulated amount was not applied and remained in reserves. As the accumulation stayed unutilised until expiry of the permitted period, section 11(3) applied and the balance became deemed income. The Revenue's appeal was allowed and the addition was restored.]]></description>
<category>Income Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Unjust enrichment and refund of Extra Duty Deposit: loan-funded customs payment did not defeat refund, and delayed interest was payable.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99755</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99755</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A refund of Extra Duty Deposit was held not hit by unjust enrichment where the disputed amount had been shown as recoverable in the relevant balance sheet, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate, and the payment had been made from a promoter's loan that was a transaction distinct from the import itself. The Tribunal found that such loan funding did not amount to passing on the duty incidence to another person, so credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unsustainable and the refund was payable to the appellant. It also held that interest was payable on the delayed refund in accordance with the Customs Act, applying the principle in Ranbaxy Laboratories.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Inconclusive laboratory testing prevented final customs classification, leading to remand for fresh testing on all relevant parameters.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99754</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99754</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Inconclusive laboratory testing could not sustain final classification of imported goods where the competing IS specifications contained overlapping but distinct parameters and neither report examined all prescribed parameters. The Tribunal held that the CRCL Vadodara and Visakhapatnam reports were incomplete because they did not test every relevant criterion, so they could not conclusively establish whether the goods were thinner for synthetic paints and varnishes or petroleum hydrocarbon solvent. Following the principle that incomplete examination cannot support confiscatory consequences or final classification, the matter was remanded for fresh testing by a Government laboratory on all parameters. Pending redetermination, provisional clearance on bond and bank guarantee was allowed on the importer's declared classification.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Export drawback rules: unlocking mobile phones for overseas use is configuration, so misdeclaration, confiscation, and penalties fail.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99753</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99753</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Unlocking or activating exported mobile phones was held to be only a configuration step to make the phones usable abroad, not taking the goods into use under the drawback rules. In light of the Delhi HC ruling in AIMS Retail Services, and the dismissal of the departmental challenge by the SC, the foundation for alleging misdeclaration and suppression failed. As that legal basis did not survive, confiscation of the exported phones, the redemption fine, and the penalties could not stand. The Tribunal therefore set aside the impugned order and granted consequential relief.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Certified copy requirement invalidates appeal institution when omitted, and delay condonation cannot cure the foundational defect.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99752</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99752</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[An appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was found invalidly instituted where it was filed and refiled without the certified copy of the impugned order and without seeking exemption from producing it. The SC held that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires the certified copy to accompany every appeal, and non-compliance goes to the root of institution rather than constituting a curable refiling defect. Because the appellant had not applied for the certified copy within limitation and had shown no diligence, the NCLAT was required first to verify valid institution before considering delay. Its failure to do so vitiated the condonation order, which was set aside.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Court-process delay in uploading orders cannot prejudice compliance with service steps; dismissal for non-service was set aside.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99751</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99751</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Non-upload of judicial orders prevented the appellant from being fairly bound to take fresh service steps, because the directions were not available to the Registry in time for compliance. Applying actus curiae neminem gravabit, the NCLAT held that a party cannot be prejudiced by delay attributable to the court process itself. The dismissal of the Section 7 petition for non-service was set aside, the petition was restored, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for disposal in accordance with law after hearing the parties.]]></description>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Foreign exchange remittance for imports must be used or repatriated; third-party adjustments cannot cure FEMA contravention.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99750</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99750</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Foreign exchange remitted for imports had to be used for the declared overseas supplier or, if the goods were not imported, realised and repatriated; the Tribunal held that the appellant could not rely on alleged third-party adjustments or business compulsion to treat the remittance as duly utilised. It found no legal basis or RBI permission for setting off payments and refunds through separate entities, and held that Customs proceedings did not affect independent FEMA liability. The contravention under Section 10(6) of FEMA read with Regulation 6(1) was upheld, but the penalty was reduced as the quantum was moderated in the interests of justice.]]></description>
<category>FEMA</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>FEMA contravention and managing director liability sustained, but penalties reduced for proportionality.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99749</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99749</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Delay in issuing the show cause notice did not defeat the FEMA contravention claim because the company had been alerted early and still failed to produce exchange control copies, bills of entry, or any other proof that goods were imported against the remittances. The Tribunal therefore sustained the finding of contravention of Section 10(6) read with Regulation 6(1), distinguishing authorities relied on by the appellants on their facts. It also upheld separate liability of the Managing Director under Section 42, since he was responsible for the company's business and showed no due diligence to prevent the breach. The penalties on both appellants were, however, reduced as excessive.]]></description>
<category>FEMA</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Works contract classification and threshold exemption defeated service tax demand, with extended limitation held unavailable.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99748</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99748</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Receipts from a composite activity involving both sale of goods and supply of services could not be taxed as pure service income without first classifying the activity as works contract and considering the composition scheme; the demand on the full receipt value was therefore unsustainable. The appellant was also found eligible for the small service provider threshold exemption for the relevant year, supporting a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable. In that position, suppression with intent to evade was not established, the extended period of limitation was unavailable, and the demand, interest and penalties were barred by limitation.]]></description>
<category>Service Tax</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Customs notification expands inland container depot coverage to Village Namli, Ratlam for import unloading and export loading.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99747</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99747</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[CBIC amends the customs notification governing inland container depots by inserting Village Namli, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, as a notified place for unloading imported goods and loading export goods or any class of such goods. The amendment expands the list of approved locations under the Customs Act framework and permits customs handling operations at the newly added site, subject to the notification's terms.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Mandatory hearing before refund rejection requires authorities to consider a requested personal hearing and follow prescribed procedure.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99746</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99746</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Rejection of a refund claim without considering the taxpayer's request for a personal hearing and without fixing a hearing date violated the prescribed statutory procedure. The High Court noted that the reply to the show cause notice had expressly sought a virtual hearing, yet the authority proceeded to reject the claim without granting that opportunity. As the Rules required hearing before a refund application could be rejected, the order was held to suffer from procedural breach. The refund rejection was quashed and the matter remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Interest on delayed GST payment applies only to net cash liability after the amended proviso to section 50(1).</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99745</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99745</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Retrospective substitution of the proviso to section 50(1) means interest on delayed GST payment is chargeable only on the portion discharged through the electronic cash ledger, i.e. the net cash liability. The existing demand therefore had to be tested against the amended legal position, and the authorities were required to reconsider the matter afresh after giving the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing. The petition was disposed of by remitting the issue for fresh decision under the amended proviso.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Confiscation under Section 130 vests title in Government, so detention-case release terms cannot be imported into confiscation proceedings.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99744</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99744</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Interim release conditions imposed in writ petitions challenging confiscation orders under Section 130 were upheld because detention matters under Section 129 were not comparable. The Court held that once confiscation is ordered under Section 130, title to the goods and conveyance vests in the Government, and the release mechanism under Section 129 no longer applies. Accordingly, interim terms framed for detention proceedings could not be imported into confiscation cases, and the appellants were not entitled to parity with orders passed in other Section 129 matters. The refusal to modify the interim orders was found to be in accordance with law, and both writ appeals were dismissed.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Pre-deposit compliance under protest: amounts already paid may count toward the statutory deposit requirement in disputed tax matters.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99743</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99743</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Amounts paid and collected under protest during the period of disputed tax liability were treated as part of compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement, because there was no express provision excluding such deposits from consideration. The High Court noted, prima facie, that the taxpayer had already paid TCS under protest from 1 April 2021, and that those sums related to the disputed liability period but had not been included in the quantification. Rejecting the contention that the payments amounted to an admission of liability for the later period, the Court modified the earlier interim condition and held that no further 10% deposit was required for the petition to proceed on merits.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>GST evasion allegations can support general penal prosecution, and prima facie evidence of fake firms led to bail refusal.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99742</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99742</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The U.P. GST law did not exclude prosecution under the general penal law for alleged creation of fake firms, fictitious invoices and wrongful input tax credit claims, because its without prejudice clause preserves other penal provisions and does not bar an FIR for offences under general criminal law. The Court rejected the plea that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was inapplicable merely because GST offences were also alleged. On the facts, prima facie material showed involvement in creating a fictitious firm, generating false e-way bills through another bogus concern, and evading tax without actual movement of goods, so bail was refused.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Contractual food supply to corporates is service under SAC 996337 and taxable at the residual GST rate, not restaurant service.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99741</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99741</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Contractual supply of food to corporate clients was held to be a supply of service, not restaurant service, because the provider was engaged in menu finalisation, hygiene and quality oversight, delivery coordination, and personnel deployment under service agreements. The activity did not involve its own restaurant, eating joint, mess or canteen premises, and did not fall within outdoor catering or hotel accommodation. It was classified under SAC 996337 as a residual food and beverage service, outside entries 7(i) to 7(v) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), and therefore taxable under entry 7(vi) at 18% GST. The advance ruling was affirmed.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Substance over form in GST classification: e-commerce fulfilment held taxable as courier and logistics, not exempt GTA service.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99740</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99740</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Classification of e-commerce fulfilment activity turned on commercial substance, not contractual labels. The Appellate Authority found that hub-based collection, sorting, transshipment, tracking and last-mile doorstep delivery had the characteristics of organised courier and logistics operations, so the activity was not a genuine goods transport agency service despite a consignment note and separate recovery of transport charges. It also held that no independent transportation contract existed between the platform customer and the service provider, so the customer could not be treated as the recipient of GTA service. Exemption for GTA service to unregistered recipients was therefore unavailable, and the supply was liable to GST as a taxable courier/logistics/fulfilment service.]]></description>
<category>GST</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Inadmissible statements and electronic evidence cannot sustain undervaluation where contemporaneous import data is wrongly discarded.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99739</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99739</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied on to support undervaluation unless the procedure in section 138B was followed, including examination of the maker, a finding that admission was in the interests of justice, and an opportunity for cross-examination; absent that compliance, the statements were inadmissible. Electronic material retrieved from a laptop was also rejected because the seizure and handling were doubtful, retrieval was not properly shown to be in the presence of the concerned person, and the section 138C certificate was missing. With the contemporaneous import data wrongly discarded and no reliable proof of extra consideration or misdeclaration, rejection of transaction value, re-determination of duty, confiscation-related findings, and penalties could not stand.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Tariff classification of generators used with turboprop engines was held to fall under heading 8501, not heading 8511.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99738</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99738</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Integrated drive generators and starter generators imported for use with turboprop or turbofan engines were held classifiable under heading 8501, not heading 8511, because heading 8511 applies only to generators used with spark-ignition or compression-ignition internal combustion engines. Applying Rule 1 of the General Rules of Interpretation and the HSN notes, the Tribunal rejected the department's classification and accepted the importer's claim under heading 8501. It further held that a mere classification dispute did not justify the extended period of limitation or penalty under section 114A, absent collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression. The residuary penalty on the customs broker under section 117 was also set aside because it had acted on the importer's documents and instructions.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Bluetooth headset classification under CTI 8518 30 00 upheld; extended limitation and penalty under section 114A set aside.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99737</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99737</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Bluetooth wireless headsets, headphones, earphones, earbuds and neck bands were held classifiable under CTI 8518 30 00, following the Tribunal's earlier decision on identical goods, and the claimed exemption was denied. The demand for the normal period was sustained on that classification. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked in this classification dispute, and the penalty under section 114A, being dependent on the same basis, was set aside. The matter was remitted only for segregation of the demand within the normal period and computation of interest on the confirmed demand.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Natural justice and transaction value govern ad valorem export duty; moisture variation alone cannot displace declared sale price.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99736</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99736</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Non-supply of the relied-upon laboratory material and failure to follow the prescribed procedure before rejecting the declared moisture content breached natural justice, so the assessment could not be sustained and was remanded for fresh adjudication. For ad valorem export duty, transaction value remained the proper basis under section 14 where the invoiced sale proceeds were fully realised and there was no valid reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale price; moisture variation alone did not justify discarding that value. The impugned order was set aside and the matter sent back to the adjudicating authority.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Provisional release conditions for seized imported goods cannot exceed what is needed to secure duty and interest.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99735</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99735</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Conditions for provisional release of seized imported commercial goods were held excessive once the differential duty and interest were already secured. The Tribunal noted that the goods were not prohibited and were intended for further manufacture; in one matter, a cash deposit exceeded the secured amount, and in the other, a bond for full value with bank guarantee covering the differential duty and interest had already been furnished and release had followed. It held that revenue interest stood adequately protected, so further insistence was beyond reasonable limits. The release terms were modified and release of the seized goods was directed on execution of a bond for full value.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</category>
<category>TaxLaws</category>
<category>TaxTMI</category>
        </item>
        <item>
<title>Rule 2(a) does not treat unassembled elevator parts as complete lifts when essential components are missing.</title>
<link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99734</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99734</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 20:45:13 +0530</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Unassembled elevator components did not acquire the essential character of complete lifts under Rule 2(a) because several installation and operation items, including guiderails, structural frames, enclosures and balance weights, were not imported and had to be sourced locally. The imported goods could not independently perform vertical transportation, and further integration in India was required beyond mere assembly. As a result, classification under Tariff Item 84281011 was rejected. The components were then classified individually under their own headings where specifically covered, and the remaining elevator-specific items were treated as parts of elevators under heading 8431, more specifically 84313910, where no more specific heading applied.]]></description>
<category>Customs</category>
<category>Highlights</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>