Tax
LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Monthly Digest: March 2026
SUPREME COURTFox Mandal & Company Takes ₹3.9 Crore Service Tax Dispute To Supreme CourtCase Title : Fox Mandal And Company vs Commissioner Case Number : Diary No. 3350 of 2026Fox Mandal & Company has moved the Supreme Court against a CESTAT order in a service tax case involving demands of about ₹3.9 crore against the law firm. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe will hear the special leave petition on April 6 after the petitioner's counsel sought time to...
Clandestine Gold Transport & High Purity Satisfy “Reasonable Belief” Under Customs Act: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court on 31 March restored the adjudicating authority's confiscation of 1,999.90 grams of gold, holding that clandestine transport and high scientific purity of bullion establish a “reasonable belief” of smuggling under the Customs Act. A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar allowed the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata's appeals, reinstated the confiscation and penalties, and set aside the Tribunal's order that had granted relief to the...
CBDT Clarifies Principal Commissioner Can Condone Delay In Filing Form 10A
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has clarified that the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax may condone delay in filing Form 10A for registration of trusts and institutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Board issued the clarification through Circular No. 01/2026 dated 23 March 2026 to resolve ambiguity regarding the competent authority to condone such delay. Section 12A of the Act prescribes the conditions for claiming tax exemption...
LiveLawBiz Direct Tax Monthly Digest: March 2026
SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Search Powers Over Digital Devices Under Income Tax Act, 1961, And 2025 ActCase Title : Vishwaprasad Alva vs Union of India Case Number : WP(C) No. 114 of 2026 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 102The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the search and seizure powers over digital devices under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its corresponding provision, Section...
ITAT Ahmedabad Remands ₹97.35 Lakh Addition To Income For Cash Deposits, Imposes ₹10 thousand Cost On Taxpayer
A motorcycle sub-dealer from the Panchmahal district, Gujarat, has secured a fresh opportunity before tax authorities after the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside an addition of ₹97.35 lakh towards unexplained cash deposits, while imposing a cost of Rs 10,000 for earlier non-compliance. A coram of Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha observed that the addition was made largely due to non-compliance and lack of...
Cross-State ITC Transfer Cannot Be Denied on Amalgamation: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied on the ground that the transferor and transferee companies are located in different States in a case of amalgamation. A Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held, "The transfer of the ITC on amalgamation of the company is permissible as per the provision of Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules. Neither of the provision prohibits or debars transfer of the ITC on the...
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹6.25 Lakh Service Tax, CENVAT Demand Against Advertising Company
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has recently set aside a demand of Rs. 6,25,706 against an advertising company, holding that the extended period of limitation was not invocable and that no excess CENVAT credit was availed. The order was passed by a coram comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, which held that the demand raised by invoking the extended period was unsustainable as there was no suppression of facts...
Virtual Services Treated As Rendered In India: Bombay High Court Denies NIL TDS Certificate To China-Based Entity
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant a nil withholding tax certificate under Section 197 to a China-based company, holding that services delivered through emails and video conferencing can be treated as rendered in India, while also declining to interfere as the core tax dispute is pending before appellate authorities. A bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar observed that “the rendition of these services, even if done virtually, equate to and is the same as a...
Delhi High Court Grants Interest on Delayed Customs Duty Refunds To Mobile Importers, Denies Relief To Lava
The Delhi High Court has held that mobile importers, including Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., are entitled to interest on refunds of excess customs duty paid by them.A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by multiple importers, including Jaina Mobile India, Intex Technologies, and UT Electronics (Petitioners), all of whom had been granted refunds of excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) but were denied interest.However, no interest on...
Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Against Sports Events Company As Time-Barred, Calls It Change of Opinion
The Delhi High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings against a Delhi-based sports events company, holding that the notice issued on July 30, 2022 was time-barred and that reopening the case on issues already scrutinized amounted to a mere change of opinion, rendering the entire exercise invalid.A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar allowed the writ petition filed by the company, setting aside the reassessment notice, subsequent orders, and the ex-parte assessment order...
Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment, Special Audit Against Huawei For AY 2013-14; Upholds Reopening For AY 2015-16
The Delhi High Court has granted partial relief to Huawei Telecommunications (India) in a batch of petitions challenging special audit directions and reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department.A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar partly allowed the petitions, setting aside the special audit directions and reassessment notices for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, while sustaining the proceedings for AY 2015-16.The case arose from a search and seizure...
Limitation To Pass Transfer Pricing Order Cannot Be Extended By Treating Remand As Fresh Reference: Karnataka High Court
Rejecting the income tax department's attempt to treat a Tribunal remand as a fresh transfer pricing reference to extend limitation, the Karnataka High Court has held that no order can be passed once the statutory time limit expires. A single-judge bench of Justice Nagaprasanna emphasised that there is a “world of difference” between a reference made by the Assessing Officer to the Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA(1) and a remand of the matter by the Tribunal, rejecting the Revenue's...