SUPREME COURTIncome Tax | Statutory Corporation Can Claim Deduction Under S 36(1)(viii) Only For Income Directly Derived From Long-Term Finance : Supreme CourtCause Title: NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXThe Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 10) held that any income earned by a statutory corporation outside its core activity of...
SUPREME COURT
Cause Title: NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 10) held that any income earned by a statutory corporation outside its core activity of providing long-term finance for industrial, agricultural, or infrastructure development in India cannot qualify for the 40% deduction available under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”).
A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed National Cooperation Development Corporation's appeal, reiterating that only profits directly derived from long-term financing activities, with repayment periods of five years or more for supporting the agricultural sector, are eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act.
HIGH COURTS
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: Indubaala Enterprises LLP v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors.
Case No: W.P. Nos. 31323, 31324 & 31330 of 2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a best judgment assessment passed under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 stands deemed withdrawn once the registered dealer files the pending returns along with payment of tax and applicable late fee, even if such returns are filed beyond the initially prescribed period.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the assessee, Indubaala Enterprises LLP, assailing multiple assessment orders on the ground of non-filing of GSTR-3B returns.
Bombay HC
Revenue Cannot Adjudicate Decade-Old SCNs On NPV Sales Tax Retention: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Computer Graphics Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Nos.: Writ Petition Nos. 2052 & 2054 of 2025 (F)
The Bombay High Court at Goa has set aside two show cause notices issued to a manufacturer seeking to levy central excise duty on the differential amount of sales tax/VAT retained by it under a Net Present Value (NPV) incentive scheme, holding that the Revenue cannot be permitted to adjudicate stale notices after an unexplained and inordinate delay.
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan allowed the writ petitions filed by the assessee, quashing show cause notices, which were sought to be adjudicated after a lapse of nearly nine and eight years, respectively. The Bench stated that in any case, as we find that the determination of the show cause notices shall defeat its purpose, on account of lapse of time as it will pose difficulty for the Revenue as well as the Assessee to track the necessary material, which will be necessary for effective adjudication and hence, according to us, the show cause notices cannot be adjudicated and are liable to be quashed and set aside only on the ground of gross delay in not adjudicating them, despite lapse of period of 9 and 8 years respectively.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) v. Milan Kavin Parikh
Case No.: Income Tax Appeal No. 1827 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that no income addition can be made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unless incriminating material is found during a search, even if the Revenue relies on information received from foreign authorities.
A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, which had deleted additions of nearly ₹28 crore made against the assessee, Milan Kavin Parikh.
GST Abolished Ad Tax, Doesn't Bar Municipal Licence Fees on Hoardings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Manoj Madhav Limaye & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. And connected matters
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10684 of 2018
The Bombay High Court recently held that the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax regime does not take away the power of municipal corporations in Maharshtra to levy licence fees on hoardings and sky-signs. The court clarified that GST abolished only advertisement tax and not regulatory charges imposed under municipal law.
A division bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna, made the observation while dismissing a large batch of petitions filed by outdoor advertising agencies, challenging the levy of licence fees on hoardings and sky-signs by the Pune Municipal Corporation.
Case Title: Godavari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Sindhi Vs Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune and Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 16464 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has stayed the entire income tax demand raised against a state-funded educational trust, holding that the tax authorities erred in bringing gross receipts to tax without accounting for expenditure.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, while allowing a writ petition filed by the assessee, Godavari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sindhi, set aside an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, which had directed the trust to deposit 15% of the disputed demand as a pre-condition for stay during pendency of the statutory appeal.
Calcutta HC
Case Title: Sandhya Rani Jana and Anr. v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Case Number: F.M.A. 70 of 2023
The Calcutta High Court held that when a victim's income tax return is filed, it is a reliable and authentic basis for assessing income in motor accident claims. The bench granted compensation of Rs. 39 Lakh to the claimants (mother and father) of the victim.
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury stated that once an Income Tax Return is accepted by the Income Tax Authority, it becomes an authentic document with regard to the income of the victim.
Case Detail: Bidyut Autotech Private Limited and another v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal (HQ)
The Calcutta High Court in a matter concerning non-disclosure of Cess in monthly return GSTR-3B which came to be rectified by filing annual return in GSTR-09, has set aside appellate order. The High Court has directed the Authority to revisit the matter and consider subsequent rectification in GSTR-09 of initial error of non-disclosure.
In an order dated November 26, 2025 the Single Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai noted that at the time of finalization of the books of account, Petitioners realized their mistake and disclosed the entire amount of CESS in the annual report filed in form GSTR-9. The Calcutta High Court emphasizing on effect of Form GSTR-9 observed that non-consideration of the aspect that Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the Cess paid remained unavailed would contravene the Constitutional Principles. It was also stated that although Section 44(2) Amendment set a 3-year filing date for annual returns but same was without penalties or prohibition, therefore, late filing cannot be treated as barred.
Case Title: Himadri Speciality Chemical Limited v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4) & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 21228 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is impermissible when it is based on the same survey material that the Assessing Officer (AO) has already examined and accepted in earlier proceedings.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that the reassessment proceeding is clearly impermissible…It would be a clear case of “change of opinion”. Indeed, the principle that assessment of a given assessee for a given assessment year cannot be reopened by the relevant Assessing Officer on the ground of change of opinion is usually applied in the case of the same assessee for the same assessment year but there is no reason why such a principle cannot be extended and applied to a case like the one at hand.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Deepak Pandey vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Service Tax Division
Case No.: TAXC No. 153 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that service tax deposited during the course of investigation cannot be denied refund merely on the ground of limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, especially when the department itself later drops proceedings and acknowledges non-liability.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad allowed a tax appeal filed by a service tax assessee challenging the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ₹14.89 Lakh.
Delhi HC
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I Vs. M/S Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: ITA No. 690/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against M/s Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd., reaffirming that no substantial question of law arises where the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) conclusions are unsupported by cogent evidence and the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee in earlier years.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Mini Pushkarna was hearing an appeal filed by the Revenue for AY. 2012-2013, stated that that identical issues had been initiated by the Revenue since Assessment Year 2007-08 and had been consistently decided against it.
Case title: M/S Sirez Limited v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 405/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that internal disputes between the Directors of a company is not 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, preventing timely filing of its Income Tax Return, particularly in absence of convincing evidence.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Madhu Jain observed, “The internal dispute among the Directors of the company is not a genuine hardship, which can be the ground on which the delay can be condoned. Even otherwise, we are of the view, the dispute between the Directors, when the company is an ongoing concern cannot be the reason to not to file the ITR which is a statutory obligation on the part of the company.”
Case Title: Clyde Pumps Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4400/2022
The Delhi High Court held that legitimate transactional Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied when the assessee was unable to file TRAN-1 due to a GST portal glitch during the shift to the GST regime. The bench noted that since the form could not be filed in time, the distribution could not take place as per Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules within one month.
The bench, consisting of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, stated that due to a glitch in the GST portal, the assessee could not file the form TRAN-01, and since the form could not be filed in time, the distribution could not take place as per Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules within one month. Hence, the assessee cannot be deprived of the benefit of the ITC due to mere technical glitches or transitional creases which were ironed out subsequently.
Case Detail: National Fregrance vs. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court in a matter involving export of mouth freshner/pan masala, where two differing Test Reports were issued and refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) was denied, has flagged validity of Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) test reports.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain were hearing writ petitions filed by Exporters/Petitioners of tobacco products including pan masala and mouth fresheners who had challenged the letter issued by Customs directing not to issue IGST refund basis test report classifying their product as Gutka . The Petitioners put forth that second test report which arrived at a conclusion that products imported were 'Gutka' and not 'Mouth Freshners Pan Masala' was not tenable in absence of drawl of fresh samples.
Case Detail: Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner (Refund), Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import) & ORS.
The Delhi High Court is set to hear a plea by Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) over denial of an estimated refund of over Rs. 900 crores of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Customs duty on re-imported aircraft parts that were repaired abroad. The Customs Writ Petition filed on December 11, 2025 was mentioned before a Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain.
Gauhati HC
Case Title: M/s McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 5725 of 2022
The Gauhati High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a bona fide purchaser merely because the supplier failed to upload invoice details in Form GSTR-1, and has read down Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act and AGST Act to protect genuine taxpayers.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury disposed of a writ petition filed by the assessee, M/s McLeod Russel India Limited, holding that while the provision itself is not unconstitutional, ITC cannot be denied without giving the purchaser an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transaction through invoices and supporting documents.
Gujarat HC
Case Name: Infodesk India Private Limited
The Gujarat High Court has held that rendering software consultancy services including editorial and content creation activities as well as customer support services to Infodesk Inc., Parent Company in the United States is 'export of service' and not 'intermediary service'.
In a judgment dated November 27, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed the refund rejection order as in passing the same lower authorities erred in holding that Petitioner was providing 'Intermediary Service'. The Gujarat High Court clarified that Content integration by adding insight (smart data which is run through AI techniques and human curation) that helps resolve challenges in business did not constitute as an 'Intermediary Service'.
Case title: M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v/s THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ANR.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8843 of 2025
After almost 20 year litigation, the Gujarat High Court permitted a public sector energy enterprise to claim branch transfer exemption of over Rs 6 crore under the Central Sales Tax Act, which was denied earlier on non-production of the original Form-F.
Form F is a document used for branch transfer of goods in the course of inter-state trade, which permits claiming of exemption from Central Sales Tax (CST) on such transactions.
Case title: RAJGREEN INFRALINK LLP v/s THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 SURAT
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19799 of 2023
The Gujarat High Court quashed an order of the tax authorities rejecting a partnership firm's application seeking condonation of 13 day delay in filing income tax return on account of Covid pandemic, observing that authority "did not apply its mind" to the reasons given by the firm.
The petitioner partnership firm engaged in real estate development business had challenged a 27.10.2023 rejecting its application for condonation of delay in filing income tax return for Assessment Year 2021-22 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Karnataka HC
GST | Non-Mentioning Vehicle Number In Part-B Of E-Way Bill Is Curable Defect: Karnataka High Court
Case Name: BVM TRANS Solutions Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 5465 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court in a matter concerning non-uploading of Part-B of E-way Bill, has set aside the revisional order and restored the order of Appellate Authority which allowed release of seized vehicle and imposed a General Penalty of Rs. 25000.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed to refund the entire amount imposed on the Petitioner as penalty excluding Rs. 25000 as also instructed to return the bank guarantee. The Karnataka High Court emphasized on how omission of vehicle number in Part-B of E-way Bill a 'curable effect' and procedural lapses as such would not invalidate the E-way Bill especially when the other documents viz., Invoice etc., tally at the time of interception, inspection and detention.
Kerala HC
Case Title: M/s T P Trading Company v. The Transport Commissioner (Kerala State)
Case Number: WA NO. 1403 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court upheld the motor vehicle tax demand on a car registered in Puducherry after finding no evidence that it was actually used there.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon noted that the NIL returns do not reflect any business being carried out by the assessee from Puducherry. The bench opined that the onus shifts to the assessee to show that the vehicle was not being used in Kerala to attract tax.
Case Title: James Varghese v. Pala Municipality
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 44912 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that under Section 509(11) of the Municipality Act, only the tax component shown in the demand notice is required to be paid for filing an appeal. The bench clarified that the Municipality cannot insist on payment of penal interest or any other additional charges for entertaining the appeal.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. opined that the obligation of the assessee while submitting an appeal is only to make the payment of the tax component in the demand and nothing more. As far as the penal interest and other charges are concerned, the same can be enforced by invoking the appropriate proceedings, subject to the orders to be passed by the Tribunal.
Orissa HC
Case Detail: M/s. ESL Steel Limited v. Union of India & others
Case no.: W.P.(C) No.34653 of 2025
The Orissa High Court on Thursday, in a plea by ESL Steel concerning the levy of GST on assignment of right to use natural resources as well as statutory charged paid on stamp duty, registration fees, payments for Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF), etc, has granted interim stay against GST demand of INR 512 Crores (plus interest and penalty).
The Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman were hearing the writ petition filed by ESL Steel whereby Advocates Bharat Raichandanit along with Advocates Sudipta Bhattacharjee, Onkar Sharma, Rishabh Prasad and Shrestha Khatri (from Khaitan & Co.) assailed the legality of the notice since the same was a consolidated one, bunching multiple financial years into single demand notice. They urged the Bench to consider that the notice had consolidated multiple financial years and was self‑contradictory. Thus, referring to its own decision in Vedanta Limited on bunching of notices, the Orissa High Court prima facie found grounds to grant an interim stay.
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title: Atlanta Tele Cables vs The Deputy Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax
Case Number: Writ Petition (M/B) No.991 of 2025
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand order passed against an assessee after the department ignored his request for adjournment on the ground that he was abroad at the relevant time.
The petitioner had approached the Court challenging an order issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, contending that the adjudicating authority proceeded in absence of petitioner despite being duly informed that he was outside India and unable to participate in the hearing or produce records.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: M/s Chauhan Enterprises v. Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70427 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that services, such as meter reading, billing, and connection/disconnection of electricity, are ancillary services of transmission and distribution of electricity and service tax is not payable for these services.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) examined whether the services such as meter reading, collection of revenue, connection and disconnection of electricity supply would be covered under the scope of transmission and distribution of electricity as specified under Section 66D of the Negative List of Services of Finance Act, 1994.
Service Tax Cannot Be Levied On Rent-A-Cab Services Provided To SEZ Units: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. PRR Travels v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42331 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the service tax cannot be levied on rent-a-cab services provided to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units as per the overriding effect under Section 51 of the SEZ Act (The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005).
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the SEZ Act is a self-contained Act which provides exemptions on taxes, duties, cess, drawbacks and concessions on imports and exports of goods and on supply of services to the Developers and Units within a SEZ for carrying on authorised operations. Therefore, in terms of sections 51 and 26 of the SEZ Act, no notification is required to be issued under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, in this regard.
Case Title: M/s. Deccan Construction Company v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40931 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the construction of school and college buildings during 2008-2012 is not taxable as commercial or industrial construction service.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the construction of buildings for educational institutions, such as schools and colleges, during 2008–2012, is taxable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and whether educational institutions charging fees can be considered “commercial” for purposes of Section 65(25b).
Case Title: Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 85519 of 2016
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that sales tax deferred under a State incentive scheme and subsequently discharged by payment of its Net Present Value (NPV) cannot be treated as “sales tax not paid” so as to be added back to the transaction value for levy of central excise duty.
A Division Bench comprising C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Grindwell Norton Ltd. and set aside the demand of central excise duty along with interest and penalty confirmed under Sections 11A, 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Case Title: M/s Minerva Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85797 of 2022
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that reassessment of Bills of Entry cannot be sought at a belated stage after clearance of goods merely to claim refund on the basis of a favourable Supreme Court judgment delivered in another assessee's case.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Minerva Enterprises and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, which had refused reassessment of 56 Bills of Entry cleared in 2015, stating that Both the provisions would go to indicate that after clearance of goods neither reassessment nor amendment of the Bills of Entry could be done in the normal circumstances, unless the exceptions noted above, which is admittedly found absent in the Appellant's case, apart from the fact that the sole purpose for reassessment was to enable the Appellant to get refund as a consequence of judgment passed in another case i.e. in SRF Limited, cited supra. Such a refund is hit by the principle laid down in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India.
Case Detail: Hasti Petro Chemical & Shipping Limited
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that GST at 5% was applicable for transportation of empty containers by rail, but without Input Tax Credit (ITC) and same would be covered by general entry (i) at Serial No. 09 viz. Transport of goods by rail (other than services specified at item no. (iv)).
The Gujarat AAR comprising Mr. Vishal Malani (Member- Central Tax) and Ms. Sushma Vora (Member- State Tax) examined the two competing entries (i) and (iv) at Serial No. 9 of Rate Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) noted that there is not specific entry for transportation service of empty containers. Thus, the Gujarat AAR held that since there is no specific entry for transportation of empty containers then it would be covered by the general entry (i) at Serial No. 09 of Rate Notification.
Case Title: M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 42213 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mere paper trail or endorsed bills of entry without actual movement of goods is not enough to claim CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that mere creation of paperwork or paper trail to indicate movement of goods, or mere endorsement of Bills of Entry, is not sufficient to establish eligibility for credit. The essential conditions required for availing credit have therefore not been fulfilled.
Service Tax Not Payable On Royalty Received For Group Companies' Use Of Copyrighted Logo: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40635 and 40636 of 2017
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not payable on royalty received for group companies' use of the copyrighted 'TTK' Logo founded by T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. (assessee).
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) examined whether the demand of service for the 'TTK' logo of the assessee used by its group companies under Intellectual Property Rights service is tenable.
Zinc EDTA Is Fertiliser, Not A Chemical; Lower Customs Duty Applicable: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Coromandel International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40440 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Zinc EDTA is classifiable as a fertiliser under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 3105 9090, and not a chemical salt under CTI 29224990 as stated by the revenue.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) noted that Zinc EDTA contains Nitrogen, which is an essential fertilising element.
Case Title: NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research v. Commissioner of Central Excise, GST, Rohtak
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 60680 of 2017
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh has held that revenue-sharing arrangements between a hospital and diagnostic service providers (DSPs) do not amount to provision of “Business Support Service” (BSS) under the Finance Act, 1994, and are therefore not liable to service tax.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research, setting aside the service tax demand confirmed against the hospital for the period 2008–09 to 2013–14 . The Bench stated that mere providing of a building along with some basic amenities like electricity, water, sewage etc. cannot be qualified as 'support service' for running a business. These facilities are provided to enable the diagnostic service providers to render services as an integral part of healthcare services.
Case Title: Hareshkumar Mafatlal Shah v. ACIT, Mumbai
Case No.: ITA No. 5439/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai has held that long-term capital gains (LTCG) arising from the sale of listed shares cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on the basis of general allegations of penny-stock manipulation, when the assessee has supported the transactions with complete documentary evidence.
A Division Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the additions of ₹2.41 crore made towards alleged bogus LTCG and ₹9.66 lakh towards estimated commission under Sections 68(Unexplained Credit Cash) and 69C(Unexplained Expenditure) of the Act.
Case Title: M/s. Aravindh Eye Hospital v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42460 of 2014
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that staff reimbursement, training, and hospital management in a joint venture are not taxable under the service tax.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that the receipts characterised as “royalty”/“management fee” are integrally connected with the provision of healthcare services and do not constitute a separate taxable Management or Business Consultancy Service. The payments are in substance revenue sharing for collaborative clinical management, and there is no element of service among the joint venture partners.
Case Title: M/s. Narru Guru Shantha Siva Kamal v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 76453 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the foreign markings available on the gold biscuits are not sufficient to establish the smuggled nature of the gold.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that the gold recovered from the assessee was neither established to be of foreign origin nor established to be smuggled in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the gold recovered from the assessee is not liable for confiscation.
Case Title: Silk Air (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Cochin
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 20886 of 2017
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has held that no Service Tax liability can be applied under the reverse charge mechanism on an Indian branch where the software maintenance services were contracted, received and consumed entirely outside India. The Tribunal further held that payments made towards hotel expenses of guests cannot be treated as taxable “Sponsorship Services”.
A Division Bench comprising P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Silk Air (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the Service Tax demand along with penalties confirmed under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Detail: DGAP vs. Dange Enterprise
Case No.: NAPA/16/PB/2025
The Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Anti Profiteering Division at Delhi has held that Franchisee of Subway Systems profiteered in respect of restaurant services by increasing base price of the products to offset loss of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
In an order dated December 02, 2025 the Single Bench of Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra (President) has accepted the second report submitted by the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) in respect of profiteering allegation to the tune of Rs. 4,57,683 against Respondent, a franchisee of M/s Subway Systems India.
Case Detail: Godfrey Phillips India Limited vs. Commissioner Central Tax
The Delhi Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demand on the activity of investing in Mutual Funds as such activities undertaken by Godfrey Phillips India Limited (Appellant) would be different from 'trading in securities' and cannot be considered as an exempted service in terms of section 66D(e) of the Finance Act.
In an order dated December 05, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Shri. P..V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that activity of subscription and redemption of units of Mutual Funds cannot be said to be an activity of sale and purchase of the securities and therefore, not an activity relating to trading and securities.
Case Title: Shri Srimanta Rakshit v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75674 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that separate proceedings under the Customs Act are not permissible once CBLR (Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018) proceedings are initiated.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that once separate proceedings have been initiated against the assessee under CBLR, 2018, for violation of the provisions of the said Regulations, no separate penalty is warranted on the assessee under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, as no offence under the Customs Act, 1962, has been established against the assessee.
Case Title: M/s Eagle International v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75332 of 2023
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Customs cannot directly rely on NIDB (National Import Database) data to enhance import value.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) noted that the adjudicating authority straightaway has re-determined the value on the basis of NIDB data retrieved, indicating the Bill of Entry and the description of the goods, which is legally not maintainable.
PVC Raincoats Classified As Plastic Articles And Not Textile Apparel, Attract 18% GST: Gujarat AAR
Advance Ruling No.: GUJ/GAAR/R/2025/51
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that PVC raincoats are to be treated as plastic articles and not textile apparel, and therefore attract 18% GST.
The ruling came on an application filed by a Gujarat-based manufacturer of PVC and plastic raincoats. The applicant had sought clarity on whether PVC raincoats should be taxed at 5% as apparel or at 18% as articles of plastic.
Case Title: M/s Silver Line Global Freight Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 51371 of 2025
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has set aside the revocation of a Customs Broker licence, holding that mis-declaration of goods by the exporter, by itself, does not establish violation of obligations under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.
A Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Member – Technical) allowed the appeal filed by the assesse, M/s Silver Line Global Freight Pvt. Ltd. and quashed the order of the Commissioner of Customs revoking the broker's licence, forfeiting the security deposit and imposing penalty.
Refund Cannot Be Denied When CA Certificate & Ledger Confirms Excess Excise Duty: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title: M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. The Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 77195 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the assessee is entitled to a refund of excess excise duty since both the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the ledger clearly established that the duty was paid in excess and was never passed on to any third party.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the assessee has filed a Chartered Accountant's Certificate, which certifies that excise duty has not been passed on to any third party and was also shown as receivable from the Government of India.
Case Title: M/s. ITC Limited v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 77011 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that railway receipts and STTG (Service Tax Certificate for Transportation of Goods) Certificates are valid documents for taking CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit even prior to 27.08.2014.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that the STTG Certificates issued by the Railways have been prescribed as a document for availing credit with effect from 27.08.2014. However, railway receipts, which contain all details as prescribed under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, continue to be a relevant document for the availment of credit prior to and after 27.08.2014 also.
Case Title: M/s. Jennex Granite Industries v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 41068 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, the term 'prohibition' includes both complete and partial restrictions under the Foreign Trade Policy. Hence, restricted goods imported without fulfilling mandatory conditions are treated as prohibited, which attracts confiscation and a penalty.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member) noted that once the goods are restricted, either subject to any conditions or otherwise, they become prohibited goods if the condition is not complied with.
Import Of Technical Designs Not 'Design Service'; No Extended Limitation Or Penalty: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-III
Appeal Nos.: ST/87589/2013 & ST/87590/2013
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has delivered a significant ruling holding that import of technical know-how, engineering drawings and designs transferred permanently for manufacturing in India cannot be taxed as “Design Services” under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) set aside the entire Service Tax demand of ₹21.79 crore, along with interest and penalties, confirming that the transaction was an outright purchase of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and not a taxable service.
Case Title: M/s. Terai Overseas Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 76508 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that knitted ready-made garments, such as Gents' shirts, Ladies' dresses, and coats, are classifiable under CTH 6102; hence, the exporters are entitled to a 10% drawback rate subject to a maximum of Rs. 45/- per piece.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) stated that from the descriptions of the goods as contained in the concerned shipping bills, it can be observed that the said goods, mostly including 'Gents shirts', 'Ladies dress', 'Ladies long coat', 'Ladies blouse', etc., are in the nature of knitted readymade garments, which squarely fall under the CTH 6102 as mentioned in the Public Notice No. 5/1995, which deals with 'ready-made garments'. Under the said entry pertaining to CTH 6102, the drawback rate would be 10% of FOB value subject to a maximum of Rs. 45/- per piece.
Case Title: Paramount Dyes and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 85305 of 2017
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that commission received in India for facilitating sales of goods for foreign suppliers amounts to “export of service” and cannot be taxed under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
A Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the Service Tax demand, interest, and penalties relating to the period 2004–2009.
Case Title: SMV Beverages Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 86054 of 2015
In a significant relief to SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd., the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that incentives received from Pepsi Foods for advertising and promotional activities cannot be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The Tribunal followed a Larger Bench ruling which categorically held that section 65(19) of the Finance Act does not cover promotion of brand name or trademark of a client.
A Bench comprising Mr. S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and Mr. M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member), while allowing the appeal, of the assessee stated that the appellant was promoting the trademark/brand name of Pepsi Foods, but section 65(19) of the Finance Act does not cover promotion of brand name or trademark of a client. It cannot, therefore, be urged that BAS was provided by the appellant to Pepsi Foods.
Case Title: Shri Surendra Kumar Jain v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.70033 of 2024
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that goods cannot be confiscated merely on the basis of a local market survey or opinion in the absence of proof of smuggling. The Tribunal observed that the burden to prove that the goods are smuggled lies on the department.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) stated that the Department has not discharged its burden. Since betel nuts are also produced in India. In the absence of any evidence that confiscated goods were illegally smuggled into India, the same cannot be confiscated merely based on local market survey/opinion.
Case Title: M/s Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Meerut-I
Case Number: Excise Appeal No.70294 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that storing finished goods outside the factory premises due to space constraints is connected with the assessee's business operation. Therefore, CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit on 'warehousing services' is admissible as an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and cannot be denied.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) stated that how a business has to be run cannot be dictated by the officers of the Department, and it should be left to the prerogative and wisdom of the business enterprises to address their business exigencies in the best possible manner, and the options available to them.
Case Title: J Uthaman v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40567 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act cannot be imposed unless the department proves mens rea and a clear act of abetment with cogent evidence.
The Tribunal clarified that Section 114 has a penal character of being a penalty in personam, placing the burden squarely on the Customs Department to establish the guilt.
ITAT Mumbai Deletes Additions Based On HSBC Geneva 'Base Note' Against Anil Ambani
Case Title: DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai Vs. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani
Case No.: ITA No. 6228/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6229/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6230/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6231/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6232/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6233/Mum/2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against businessman Anil Dhirajlal Ambani, holding that additions made on the basis of alleged undisclosed foreign bank accounts with HSBC Bank, Geneva were unsustainable in law.
A Bench comprising Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had deleted both substantive and protective additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2001–02 to 2006–07.
Case Detail: Jparks India Private Limited
The Mumbai, Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) has clarified that there's no concept of third-party invoicing or third-country invoicing or third-country trade under the Rules for Determination of Country-Of-Origin under the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) for imports of electronic or non-electronic toy-parts from China when Swiss supplier invoices Jparks India.
In a ruling dated December 11, 2025 Shri. Prabhat K. Rameshwaram rejected Applicant's reliance placed on Circular no. 53/2020 dated December 08, 2020 to impress that third party invoicing is generally allowed. The CAAR clarified that the aforesaid Circular endorsed acceptance of a third party invoicing 'exclusively' for the Duty-Free Tariff Preference Scheme for Least Developed Countries, only in case of wholly obtained goods.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Centre, in response to a question posed in the Lok Sabha, relating to black money routed through cryptocurrency, has informed that the Enforcement Directorate has attached, seized, and frozen proceeds of crime worth Rs. 4189.89 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA), 2002.
On Monday, December 08, 2025, in relation to Regulations governing cryptocurrency in the country, the Centre outlined statistics of tax evasion cases linked to cryptocurrency and Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) detected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on multiple occasions. As VDAs fall under the PMLA making Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) as Reporting Entities, the Centre enforced mandatory suspicious transaction reports to FIU-IND.
The Centre has acknowledged a sharp rise in GST evasion and Input Tax Credit (ITC) frauds, where bogus or dummy entities were found to be used as fronts for fake invoicing.
In a tabulated scale of Fake Invoicing Cases, the Centre has put forth number of cases registered and corresponding detection amount by Central tax formations during 2022-23, 2023-24 with the Financial Years 2024-25 and 2025-25 (upto October 2025) witnessing 15283 and 24109 cases. The statistics indicate that ₹7.5 crore ITC frauds were carried out in the pharmaceutical sector through inactive firms.
The Centre has clarified on Onion export ban and imposition of Minimum Export Price (MEP), were 'temporary' and 'necessary' to protect consumers, especially low-income households, during years when adverse weather conditions and lower arrivals led to sharp spikes in retail prices.
On fair-farmer remuneration, the Centre explained that it balanced consumer price stability and farmer remuneration by monitoring availability, arrivals, buffer stock position and price trends of Onions across the country. The Centre emphasized that all Onion export restrictions were withdrawn immediately once domestic availability stabilised. It was also noted that market prices of agricultural commodities depend on multiple factors, including arrivals, storage practices, traders' behaviour, quality variations and global price cycles.
A sharp escalation in the value of income tax disputes pending before High Courts has emerged from fresh data placed before Parliament, with the total disputed amount nearly doubling between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. The figures were disclosed in a reply tabled in the Rajya Sabha by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance Pankaj Chaudhary, capturing year-wise pendency and amounts locked at each appellate stage.
The numbers paint a split-screen picture of India's tax dispute system. At the level of the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)/JCIT(A)), the volume of appeals has risen only marginally over five years, from 4.48 lakh in 2020-21 to 5.39 lakh in 2024-25.