Tax
Income Tax Act | S.54 Relief Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Delay In Registration If Sale Proceeds Invested Within Time: ITAT Chennai
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely due to delay in registration if investment in new residential property is made within the prescribed time. Section 54 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 offers individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) an exemption from long-term capital gains tax. This exemption applies when they sell a residential house property and use the proceeds...
Customs Brokers Cannot Be Punished For Bona Fide Classification Claims Made On Basis Of Importer Instructions: CESTAT Mumbai
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a penalty imposed on a licensed Customs House Agent (CHA), holding that merely claiming an exemption or classification as per the importer's instructions does not amount to misdeclaration or misconduct. A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., a Customs Broker,...
Delhi High Court To Examine Whether Delhi Jal Board Qualifies As 'Local Authority' & Works Contract Services Would Attract 12% GST
In yet another writ petition, concerning works contract services provided to Delhi Jal Board, where its status as a 'Local Authority' was called-into-question, the Delhi High Court has stayed the summary Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. A Division Bench comprising, Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain noted that few similar disputes relating to whether when rendering works contract services to Delhi Jal Board, the Construction Company treated it as...
GST Act | Orissa High Court Quashes Recovery Proceedings Premised On 'Mistaken Identity' After Verifying Payment Receipt From Bank
The Orissa High Court in a matter involving 'mistaken identity' where one individual was assessed despite having a cancelled registration number (GSTIN), has quashed Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman noted the 'mistaken fact' in Section 73 adjudication proceedings. It was clarified that Section 73 was invoked on the premise there was an alleged mismatch in figures disclosed by...
Writ Petition Not Maintainable After GSTAT Becomes Functional; Assessees Must Avail Remedy U/S 112 GST Act: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, holding that the availability and operationalisation of the statutory appellate remedy before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, the petitioner had challenged an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/OGST Acts for...
SVLDR Scheme Can't Be Invoked For Fresh SCN Issued After Deadline Even If Arising From Same Dispute: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed a retail business' plea seeking benefit of government's tax amnesty scheme for a second show cause notice issued to it post the cut-off date, in pursuance of the first SCN.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain clarified that mere reference to earlier SCN doesn't make subsequent SCN eligible under Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (SVLDR Scheme). It observed,“The mere fact that the SCN-II makes a reference to SCN-I would not mean...
“Illegal, Arbitrary & Colourable Exercise Of Power": Karnataka High Court Quashes Consolidated GST Show Cause Notice Clubbing Multiple FYs
The Karnataka High Court held that issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act. The bench opined that a composite notice for multiple financial years enables the Department to blur the statutory distinction between Section 73 (non-fraud, etc.,- 3 year limitation) and Section 74 (fraud etc., - 5 year limitation). If certain years fall under Section 73, but the entire block is treated under ...
Customs Act | No Time Bar For Shipping Bill Conversion Under Section 149: CESTAT Mumbai
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department against ADF Foods Ltd., holding that exporters can seek conversion of shipping bills from one export incentive scheme to another even after several years, as long as the law does not prescribe any time limit. A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) upheld the earlier relief granted to the...
Service Tax | Windmill Installation, Commissioning Services Construable As 'Input Service', Credit Admissible: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input used in setting up of a Windmill, away from factory premises, on the strength of nexus of the inputs with output activity, electricity generation. A Division Bench comprising, Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi in twin writ petitions has set aside order of CESTAT Ahmedabad that disallowed CENVAT credit on the ground that credit of inputs and input services utilized away from the factory site...
Centre Notifies Reallocation Of Territorial Jurisdiction Of DRTs In West Bengal Under RDB Act
The Central Government has notified a reallocation of territorial jurisdiction among four Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in West Bengal through a notification dated December 16, 2025, issued by the Ministry of Finance under Section 3 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The notification amends the earlier jurisdictions notified on March 15, 2017, and reorganises how cases are distributed among the Kolkata and Siliguri DRTs. Under the earlier notification, Debts...
Income Tax Act | Reassessment U/S 147 Valid If Original Order Did Not Consider S. 80HHC Claim Earlier: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court held that reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is valid if the original order is completely silent on the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to assess or reassess income that has escaped assessment. Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar stated that the original order of assessment is wholly silent in regard to the ...
IGST Act | Place Of Supply Depends On Where Movement Terminates, Not Where Goods Were Handed To Carrier: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that for the purpose of determining the place of supply under Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act, the factor is the location where the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient and not the place where the goods are handed over to the common carrier. Section 10(1)(a) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, provides that the place of supply for goods that are moved, whether by the supplier, recipient, or another party, is...