https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes and Corporate Laws in India https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89308 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC set aside the Order-in-Original and Summary Order under Section 73 of GST Act due to violation of principles of natural justice. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the petitioner's reply to show-cause notice and supporting documents filed on 20.12.2024 before passing the order on 20.02.2025. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that administrative authorities must comprehensively examine all submitted evidence before rendering a decision. The court underscored the fundamental requirement of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings, mandating a thorough review of all representations and documentary evidence. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89308 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89309 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC ruled that GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 for non-filing of returns for over six months can be remedied. The petitioner is permitted to approach the designated authority within two months, submit pending returns, pay tax dues, interest, and late fees. If all statutory requirements are fulfilled, the authority must expeditiously consider restoring the GST registration in accordance with legal provisions. The court's directive provides an opportunity for procedural rectification and reinstatement of the petitioner's tax registration status. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89309 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89307 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC dismissed the writ petition challenging tender conditions related to GST inclusion. The court held that the tender document clearly stipulated rates should be inclusive of taxes, and after GST regime introduction, 'sales tax' must be interpreted as GST. The petitioner cannot challenge tender terms post-contract execution after voluntarily participating in the bidding process. The court emphasized that tender conditions, once accepted and acted upon, are binding and cannot be unilaterally varied by a bidder. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the principle that bidders cannot seek additional payments when tender documents explicitly require tax-inclusive rates. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89307 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89306 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC held that the SCN issued on 29th September 2023 was not properly brought to the petitioner's notice, violating principles of natural justice. Given the lack of opportunity to be heard and no reply filed, the court remanded the matter back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority. The decision requires the department to ensure proper communication of show cause notices and provide adequate opportunity for the petitioner to respond, effectively setting aside potential proceedings and mandating a fresh review of the case. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89306 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89305 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC allowed the writ petition challenging detention and confiscation of 4 MPD machines intended for stock transfer between BPCL locations. The court found no tax evasion, noting e-way bill was generated prior to detention order and goods were not for trade. Relying on precedent cases, the court quashed the detention orders dated 10.7.2023 and 29.1.2021, determining the seizure was technically improper under GST Act provisions and violated procedural guidelines. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89305 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89304 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC held that the impugned notifications and show cause notice (SCN) were procedurally defective due to violation of natural justice principles. Citing precedent in a similar case involving Neelgiri Machinery, the court determined that the petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity for personal hearing. Despite portal modifications after 16th January 2024, the court found substantial procedural irregularities. Consequently, the court set aside the original order and remanded the matter back to the concerned adjudicating authority for fresh consideration, ensuring the petitioner receives proper opportunity to present their case. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89304 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89302 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC held that the Section 148 notice for reassessment was invalid due to procedural non-compliance. The notice was issued beyond the three-year limitation period for assessments exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs, requiring mandatory approval from Principal Chief Commissioner under Section 151(ii). Since approval was obtained from Principal Commissioner under Section 151(i) instead of the requisite authority, the notice was jurisdictionally defective. The court consequently quashed the reassessment proceedings, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal and rendering the entire reassessment process null and void. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89302 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89303 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC ruled that the petitioner may discharge outstanding tax liabilities pursuant to Circular No. 238/32/2024 GST dated 15th October, 2024. The court directed the tax authority to accept all dues, including taxes, interest, penalties, and charges as per the demand notice. Since the petitioner failed to deposit taxes during the Covid-19 period and did not contest the department's counter affidavit, the court held that the petitioner can voluntarily settle the tax liability by making appropriate deposits, which the department must accept in accordance with applicable legal provisions. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89303 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89301 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC allowed the petition, finding that the accountant's inadvertent error should not prejudice the taxpayer's substantive rights. The court held that under Section 119(2)(b), the revenue authority was duty-bound to exercise discretionary jurisdiction liberally, considering the bona fide nature of the delay. While interest on the refund was denied per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2015, the court directed the respondent to process the income tax return and refund the principal amount. The decision emphasized that technical delays should not result in unjust enrichment of the revenue department, particularly when the taxpayer's substantive entitlement is uncontested. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89301 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89300 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT set aside the CIT(E)'s order rejecting 80G registration for a private university established in Telangana. The appellate tribunal found the lower authority's rejection arbitrary and cryptic, lacking substantive reasoning. Despite DR's argument about insufficient evidence, ITAT noted the university's substantial infrastructure, including a 107-acre campus with 4,000 students and 240 faculty members. The tribunal directed CIT(E) to reconsider the 80G approval application comprehensively, taking into account the university's existing 10(23C)(vi) approval and educational activities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, mandating a fresh evaluation of the university's charitable status. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89300 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89298 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT remanded the case back to CIT(A) regarding income from other sources calculation. The tribunal identified an unresolved discrepancy between the assessee's claimed 5.28% and the proposed 15% addition of capital grants and subsidies. The CIT(A) was directed to re-examine the income classification, provide a detailed analysis of the income source, and ensure the assessee receives a fair hearing in accordance with principles of natural justice. The matter requires further adjudication to determine the precise tax treatment of the contested income sources. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89298 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89297 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT held that the assessee's appeal lacks merit. Despite multiple notices through e-filing portal, the assessee failed to respond or provide explanations for non-compliance. The tribunal affirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) based on the assessee's non-disclosure of income discovered during survey proceedings. The ex-parte order was deemed valid, as the right to be heard is not absolute when sufficient opportunities are provided. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) creates a presumption of concealment in absence of satisfactory explanation. The penalty was correctly levied and confirmed by lower authorities, and the assessee's appeal was consequently dismissed. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89297 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89296 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 The ITAT examined whether the PCIT could invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 when the AO had already raised specific queries, received detailed responses, and passed an order under Section 143(3). The tribunal held that where the AO conducted an inquiry and considered the assessee's submissions, it does not constitute a case of lack of inquiry but potentially an inadequate inquiry. Consequently, the PCIT cannot set aside the original assessment order. The tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and allowed the assessee's grounds, emphasizing that procedural scrutiny does not automatically justify revisional jurisdiction when substantive examination has occurred. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89296 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89295 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT upheld the Assessment Officer's (AO) order regarding unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The tribunal found no credible evidence supporting the assessee's claim that the deposits represented sale proceeds from her father's property. The assessee failed to provide documentary proof or explain the source of 18 cash deposits made between 04/05/2010 and 08/13/2010. The reopening of assessment under Section 147 was deemed valid, as the AO had proper reason to believe income had escaped assessment. The tribunal emphasized that at the reassessment stage, the existence of material is crucial, not its adequacy. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed, confirming the original tax demand. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89295 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89294 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT partially allowed the appeal. The tribunal held that technical delays in reinvestment of capital gains should not automatically disqualify tax exemptions under Sections 54F and 54B, provided the fundamental intent of reinvestment is fulfilled. However, the exemption claim for agricultural land purchased in the brother's name was rejected, as the statute explicitly requires ownership in the assessee's name. The AO was directed to recompute taxable capital gains by allowing proportionate exemptions for investments made beyond prescribed time limits, while disallowing the exemption for the brother's land purchase. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89294 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89293 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s order, dismissing Revenue's appeal. The tribunal confirmed the consistent accounting method for project revenue recognition, rejecting AO's computation of addition under Percentage Completion Method. The tribunal noted the project ultimately resulted in a loss and the assessee's share was incorrectly calculated. The key principles of accounting consistency and proportional revenue recognition were applied, finding no procedural or computational errors in CIT(A)'s original order. The interest expense addition related to land co-owners was also deleted, with the tribunal agreeing that no interest was chargeable on advances. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was comprehensively dismissed. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89293 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89292 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 CESTAT determined the classification of imported Wireless Access Points (WAPs) under CTI 8517 6990, referencing the Delhi HC judgment in Ingram Micro. The tribunal held that WAPs employing MIMO technology without LTE standards qualify for 'nil' duty rate under Notification No. 24/2005. The Revenue's contentions were rejected, with the court emphasizing that the High Court's ruling directly addressed the classification issue. Consequently, the Commissioner's denial of duty exemption was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89292 Customs Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89291 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 CESTAT dismissed revenue's appeals regarding Target Plus Scheme (TPS) utilization. The tribunal found that imported plastic granules had a legitimate nexus with ready-made garment exports, as confirmed by DGFT's acceptance of license conditions. The court emphasized that imported goods under TPS must be for actual use by importers or supporting manufacturers. The decision aligned with precedent in similar cases, specifically referencing a prior ruling involving Sunstar Overseas Ltd. The tribunal validated the assessee's compliance with TPS and Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) requirements, consequently rejecting revenue's proposed proceedings and upholding the original license benefits. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89291 Customs Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89290 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 CESTAT adjudicated a customs dispute regarding imported dry dates' country of origin. The tribunal determined that packing material and circumstantial evidence cannot conclusively establish goods' origin. Documentary evidence including Certificate of Origin from Dubai Chamber of Commerce Industry, Bill of Lading, and commercial invoices substantiated United Arab Emirates as the legitimate country of origin. The tribunal rejected re-assessment findings proposing Pakistan origin, finding insufficient documentary proof. Consequently, the original assessment order was set aside, and the importer's appeal was allowed, emphasizing that packaging materials alone cannot definitively determine product origin. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89290 Customs Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89289 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 CESTAT ruled that the impugned order against the appellants is set aside. The tribunal found no substantive violations of SCMTR, 2018 regulations or Customs Act provisions, specifically noting that the regulations were not fully operational for the specific port during the relevant period. The court determined that no evidence supported allegations of improper export procedures, and consequently, the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties were unwarranted. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, effectively nullifying the original order by the Commissioner of Customs. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89289 Customs Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89288 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 CESTAT analyzed the admissibility of statements under sections 108 and 138B of the Customs Act, determining that statements cannot be relied upon if procedural requirements are not followed. The tribunal found no substantive evidence beyond the challenged statement to support penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty under section 114 was set aside, as confiscation under section 113(d) was unsustainable since export had occurred. The appellate order quashed the commissioner's penalty order, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by invalidating the challenged penalty based on procedural and evidentiary deficiencies. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89288 Customs Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89287 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 CESTAT allowed the appeal challenging customs duty demand for cocoa powder imports from Malaysia. The Tribunal found that the department failed to verify the country of origin certificate and could not substantiate claims of incorrect regional value content. The Malaysian government confirmed the 35% regional value requirement was met. No valid grounds existed to deny nil rate customs duty under the exemption notification. The original demand for differential duty and interest was consequently set aside, with the appellant's import documentation deemed valid and compliant with regulatory requirements. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89287 Customs Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89286 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 CESTAT adjudicated a complex customs valuation dispute involving imported machinery under EPCG scheme. The tribunal found manipulation of documents, suppression of correct payment details, and willful misstatement by the importer. The key findings include: (1) extended period under Section 28(4) was justified due to deliberate concealment, (2) EPCG license benefits could be challenged despite non-cancellation by DGFT, and (3) the importer failed to discharge burden of proof regarding declared value. The tribunal ordered duty recalculation, allowed partial notification benefits, set aside goods confiscation, and maintained penalties against the company and its employee, emphasizing the need to deter statutory violations. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89286 Customs Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89285 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 NCLAT dismissed the insolvency application under Section 95 of IBC, finding the consent decree invalid as a guarantee instrument. The tribunal held that the decree lacked independent documentary evidence establishing voluntary personal guarantee, was obtained during a moratorium period, and was fundamentally vitiated by fraud among related parties. The court emphasized that a consent decree cannot create fresh legal obligations or serve as conclusive proof of debt, particularly when the guarantee was not properly invoked and the parties were interconnected through familial business relationships. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89285 TaxLaws Highlights TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89284 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 AT adjudicated a money laundering case involving seizure of office files and digital evidence under PMLA. The tribunal directed ED to release unreferenced seized documents to the appellant, while permitting ED to retain photocopies for potential future investigations. ED must obtain appellant's endorsement on photocopies regarding authenticity. Documents already incorporated in criminal proceedings or chargesheet remain non-returnable. The appellant must provide an affidavit undertaking not to challenge photocopy authenticity. The order mandates compliance within six months post statutory limitation period for high court appeals, effectively resolving the evidentiary dispute without examining case merits. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89284 PMLA Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89283 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 AT ruled that the attachment of property under Section 5 of PMLA is illegal and unsustainable. The Enforcement Directorate failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements for property retention, specifically under Sections 17(4) and 20. The statutory conditions for attachment were not met, as the property was already in ED's custody, thereby negating the legal prerequisites of possession by a person and potential risk of concealment or transfer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, effectively invalidating the property attachment. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89283 PMLA Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89281 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC held that the arbitral award was patently illegal due to manifest disregard of contract terms. The court's jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited to examining the correctness of Section 34 proceedings. The impugned judgment correctly set aside the awards by finding that the arbitral tribunal ignored explicit contractual clauses and misinterpreted the General Conditions of Contract. The court emphasized that when contract terms are unambiguous, prior negotiations should not be considered, and interpretations defeating the contract's purpose cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without cost. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89281 TaxLaws Highlights TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89282 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 AT set aside provisional attachment order against appellant company's bank accounts due to violation of natural justice principles. The tribunal found that the appellant was not provided an opportunity of hearing as mandated under Section 8 of the Act of 2002, despite significant allegations of money laundering. Although Wadhawans allegedly exercised control over the company, the court determined that factual issues could not be adequately addressed without proper hearing. The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to issue notice and provide appellant an opportunity to present its case, thereby ensuring procedural fairness in the provisional attachment proceedings. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89282 PMLA Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89280 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC found the ex parte dismissal of criminal appeal violative of natural justice principles under Articles 14 and 21. The lower court's order was set aside due to procedural irregularities in appeal hearing, specifically the dismissal without providing opportunity of representation. The HC remanded the matter back to the Appellate Court with explicit directions to: (a) rehear the appeal on merits (b) ensure proper legal representation (c) appoint amicus curiae if appellant is unrepresented (d) independently dispose of the case without being influenced by HC's observations. The petitioner was also granted liberty to pursue alternative legal remedies if deemed appropriate. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89280 TaxLaws Highlights TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89279 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC challenging dismissal of a complaint for want of prosecution. The court held that repeated absence of the complainant, failure to avail statutory remedies, and unexplained delay did not constitute procedural irregularity warranting extraordinary judicial intervention. The applicant's own conduct in failing to appear and prosecute the complaint precluded equitable relief. The court emphasized that inherent powers cannot be exercised to circumvent statutory provisions or revive proceedings already concluded, particularly where specific remedies exist and the default is attributable to the party seeking relief. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89279 TaxLaws Highlights TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89299 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 The MCA issued an amendment to the Companies (Filing of Documents and Forms in XBRL) Rules, 2025, mandating companies filing financial statements under XBRL to additionally attach signed financial statements in PDF format through eForm AOC-4 XBRL. The amendment, effective 14 July 2025, requires companies to submit authenticated financial documents including Board's report and auditors' report, expanding existing digital filing requirements. The modification aims to enhance transparency and comprehensive digital documentation of corporate financial disclosures. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89299 Corporate Laws Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89278 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority due to procedural irregularities in serving the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The SCN was uploaded in the 'Additional Notices Tab' prior to 16th January 2024, which was not readily visible to the Petitioner, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Court found that the Petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity to be heard, and consequently, directed the matter to be reconsidered by the original authority, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to due process. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89278 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89277 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC dismissed the writ petition challenging an ex-parte demand order of Rs. 33,68,140/-. Despite arguments of procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice, the court found that sufficient opportunities were provided to the petitioner. The HC directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act by 15th July, 2025, with a stipulation that the appellate authority shall hear the matter on merits if the prescribed pre-deposit is made within the specified timeframe. The petition was disposed of without interfering with the original ex-parte order. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89277 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89276 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC allowed the petition challenging the adjudication order related to input tax credit under CGST/WBGST Act. The court set aside the existing order and directed the adjudicating authority to re-adjudicate the show-cause notice, taking into consideration the newly inserted sub-section (5) of Section 16, which was effective from 1st July, 2017. The decision follows the precedent established by Jharkhand HC and aligns with the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No.22/2024, providing a special procedure for rectification of orders involving input tax credit contraventions. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89276 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89275 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC set aside N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax and N/N. 56/2023-State Tax due to procedural irregularities in serving show cause notice. The court found that the notice was uploaded without providing adequate opportunity for personal hearing and reply. Relying on precedent from a similar case, the HC remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority, directing proper service of notice via email, ensuring the petitioner can file a comprehensive reply within thirty days and present submissions. The impugned order was quashed, with instructions for the department to adjudicate the matter in accordance with legal principles. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89275 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89274 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC ruled that detention of vehicle under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 was invalid. The statutory provision requires actual transportation of goods in contravention of law, which was absent in this case. Mere possession of an e-way bill without corresponding goods movement does not justify vehicle impoundment. The court strictly interpreted the penal provision, emphasizing that detention requires substantive evidence of statutory violation. Consequently, the court directed immediate release of the detained vehicle, finding the respondents' action ultra vires and without jurisdictional basis. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89274 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89273 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC denied interim relief in tax search and seizure matter. The court noted significant procedural delays, with petitioner approaching court 8 months after July 2024 search operations. Only a preliminary DRC 1A notice was issued, with no show cause notice yet served. Given the current stage of proceedings, no interim order was granted. The matter was scheduled for June 2025 monthly list, with petitioner permitted to make future applications if warranted. Respondents' actions will be subject to final writ petition outcome. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89273 GST Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89272 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC affirmed PCIT's order under Section 263, rejecting assessee's contentions regarding trade discounts. The court found no merit in the arguments challenging jurisdictional exercise and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a detailed examination of the appeal on merits. The key issue involves interpretation of Section 40(a)(ia) and potential disallowance of trade discounts. The HC determined that the Tribunal's previous order lacked substantive analysis and directed a comprehensive review of the case, emphasizing the need for a thorough assessment of the transaction's legal implications. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89272 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89271 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 HC held that for AY 1997-1998, the Tribunal erroneously interpreted Section 64(1A) by attempting to club the minor son's income in the father's hands, despite the previous year's (AY 1996-1997) income being already clubbed in the mother's hands. The court strictly construed the provision and determined that the minor's income (loss) was correctly considered in the mother's assessment for AY 1997-1998. The Tribunal's reasoning was rejected, particularly since the clubbing issue was not originally considered at the assessment stage and the previous year's order remained undisturbed. The decision ultimately favored the assessee's interpretation of income clubbing provisions. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89271 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89270 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT adjudicated a tax dispute involving MAT computation and interest levy. The tribunal held that the assessee's provision for doubtful debts, which was reduced from gross trade receivables and shown net in the balance sheet, constitutes a legitimate write-off not prohibited under Section 115JB. The tribunal found no legal basis for interest levy under Section 234A, as the return was filed before the statutory due date. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, eliminating the interest charge and validating the accounting treatment of doubtful debt provisions. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89270 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89269 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT adjudicated a tax penalty dispute, finding the Assessment Officer's (AO) penalty notices under sections 270A and 271AAB were legally defective. The tribunal held that the notices were vague, failed to specify precise charges, and did not provide the assessee a fair opportunity to defend against alleged income reporting violations. Consequently, the tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, determining the AO's actions were jurisdictionally flawed and violated principles of natural justice. All appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, effectively nullifying the proposed penalties. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89269 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89268 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 The ITAT allowed set-off of short-term capital loss (on which STT was paid) against short-term capital gains (on which STT was not paid), following precedent from prior tribunal and high court decisions. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify and grant credit for taxes deducted at source, with the assessee's appeal allowed for statistical purposes after considering the pending rectification application. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89268 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89267 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal regarding capital gains deduction. Despite initially claiming deduction under an incorrect section (54), the tribunal held that procedural errors do not preclude legitimate tax benefits if substantive eligibility criteria are met. The tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer with directions to evaluate the deduction claim under section 54F based on evidence submitted. The assessee was granted an opportunity to furnish additional documentation and present arguments. The appellate order effectively reinstated the potential tax exemption by focusing on the substantive legal entitlement rather than technical procedural defects. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89267 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89266 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT adjudicated a tax dispute concerning salary income earned in the United Kingdom. The tribunal rejected the assessee's first contention challenging the CPC's intimation under section 143(1)(a), noting that automated processing does not invalidate adjustments. The tribunal found no merit in the procedural challenge and directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to conduct a de novo adjudication. The case was restored for comprehensive reassessment, mandating proper opportunity for the assessee to present details regarding salary income, tax deduction at source, and related issues. Grounds 2-4 were allowed for statistical purposes, with explicit instructions to prevent unnecessary procedural delays. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89266 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89265 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT determined key issues regarding income from house property and maintenance charges. The tribunal held that maintenance charges for specific services like security, housekeeping, and infrastructure maintenance should be classified as business income under section 44AD, not income from house property. For the Purvankara Flat, the property was deemed let out under section 23(1)(c), with annual value calculated based on fair rental value since the property remained vacant and was not self-occupied. The AO's assessment of annual value using municipal/fair rental value was upheld. Maintenance charges were directed to be accepted as business income, while the deemed let-out property's valuation was confirmed, partially allowing the assessee's appeal and partially dismissing other grounds. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89265 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89264 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT held that the subject lands qualify as agricultural lands under section 2(14)(iii)(b), exempting them from long-term capital gains taxation. The tribunal considered evidence including Patta certificates, Chitta Adangal, and revenue records demonstrating agricultural classification. Referencing prior Madras HC precedents, the tribunal affirmed land's agricultural status based on official documentation, irrespective of actual cultivation. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order confirming capital gains addition and allowed the assessee's appeal. Additionally, regarding section 14A disallowance, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance proportionate to the exempt income earned during the relevant previous year. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89264 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89263 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT adjudicated a tax exemption dispute under section 10(23C)(iiiab), reversing the Assessing Officer's (AO) denial of exemption. The AO had initially rejected the exemption claim due to alleged non-compliance with return filing requirements. ITAT determined that no mandatory condition exists linking return filing under section 139(4C)(e) with exemption eligibility. The tribunal conclusively held the assessee eligible for the claimed tax exemption, allowing the assessee's appeal and deleting the contested addition, thereby providing a favorable judicial interpretation that prioritizes substantive compliance over procedural technicalities. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89263 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89262 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT dismissed the appeal regarding tax deduction at source for Leave Travel Concession (LTC) payments to employees. The tribunal found no reasonable cause under section 273B for failing to deduct tax on foreign travel reimbursements. Despite being a leading corporate entity with substantial intellectual resources, the assessee could not substantiate its claim of bonafide belief about tax non-deductibility. The tribunal rejected the assessee's explanation of lack of knowledge as insufficient, confirming the original demand by the Assessing Officer for non-compliance with tax deduction requirements. The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s appellate order. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89262 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89261 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT ruled on multiple grounds related to assessment reopening and income determination based on seized diaries. The Tribunal upheld the assessment order with key modifications: (1) land trading profit to be computed at 13.14% instead of 15%, (2) share trading profit to be calculated at 8%, (3) Maalkhaate trading income to be estimated at 10%, and (4) allowing telescoping of income already taxed in preceding years with peak additions. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's objections regarding jurisdiction, reopening validity, and seized document interpretation while directing the Assessing Officer to recompute certain income components based on specific guidelines provided in the order. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89261 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89260 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:37:43 +0530 ITAT denied depreciation claim for highway infrastructure. The tribunal held that the assessee was merely a licensee without ownership rights over the immovable assets, which belonged to NHAI. Per section 32 of Income Tax Act, depreciation requires asset ownership, either wholly or partially. The construction, erected with licensor's permission under section 52 of Indian Easements Act, 1882, did not confer ownership status. Referencing precedent in North Karnataka Expressway Ltd., the tribunal emphasized that National Highway ownership remains vested with the Union, irrespective of private sector involvement in development and maintenance. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed, affirming that the definition of "owner" cannot override special legislative provisions governing national highway ownership. https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89260 Income Tax Highlights TaxLaws TaxTMI https://www.taxtmi.com/newsletter?notifId=06/11/2025 https://www.taxtmi.com/newsletter?notifId=06/11/2025 Daily Updates Tax