Tax
Non-Filing Of ITR By Creditor Not Proof For Lack Of Creditworthiness: Patna High Court Deletes Income Tax Additions
The Patna High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in restoring an addition of ₹1.91 crore under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act after reversing a reasoned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), where the assessee had produced documentary evidence and the Assessing Officer's remand report did not disclose any adverse material. A...
Levy Of Service Tax On 'Access To Amusement Facilities' Unconstitutional: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that the levy of service tax on 'access to amusement facilities' is unconstitutional, as the entire activity squarely falls within the State's taxing power under Entry 62 of List II (entertainments and amusements) of the Constitution of India.Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act also seek to...
Customs Act | Penalty Cannot Be Sustained Solely On S. 108 Statements Without Compliance Of S. 138B: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that statements recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act cannot form the basis for imposing penalties unless the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 138B are complied with.Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that Section 138B is essentially in the form of a procedural safeguard regarding the admission of statements under Section 108...
Service Tax | Pairing & Testing Smart-Cards For Set-Top-Boxes Qualifies As Job Work: Bombay High Court Allows Credit
The Bombay High Court has upheld the Mumbai Tribunal's decision allowing Dish TV to retain CENVAT Credit on imported smart cards, which were used for testing and pairing with Set Top Boxes. A Division Bench comprising, Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar dismissed the appeal filed by the Service Tax Department against order by the Mumbai, Customs, Excise and...
LiveLawBiz: Business Law Daily Round-Up: December 20, 2025
TaxCan GST Be Levied On Medicines Supplied During In-Patient Treatment? Delhi High Court To ExamineIncome Tax Act | S.153C Trigger Starts On Handing-Over Date, Not Search Date: Delhi High Court ITC Cannot Be Denied To Purchasing Dealer Solely Due To Retrospective Cancellation Of Supplier's GST Registration: Calcutta High Court GST Not Leviable On Interest/Penalty Charged By Chit Fund...
Central Excise | Packaged Drinking Water Cannot Be Assessed On MRP Basis U/S 4A: CESTAT Chennai
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that packaged drinking water is not liable to be assessed on MRP basis under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act unless it is specifically covered by a statutory notification. Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, provides a special procedure for the valuation of excisable goods based on...
CENVAT Credit Rules | Only Common Input Service To Be Considered For Calculating Credit For Reversal Under Rule 6(3A): CESTAT Chennai
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that while computing the amount of CENVAT credit to be reversed under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, only credit pertaining to common input services is required to be considered. Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, provides the specific procedure and formula for determining...
Excise | Captive Exemption Cannot Be Denied When Final Products Are Partly Cleared On Duty Payment & Partly Under Exemption: CESTAT
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the captive exemption under Notification 67/95-CE remains available even if the final product is partly cleared on duty payment and partly under exemption. Central Excise Notification No. 67/95-CE provides an exemption from excise duty for specified inputs and capital goods that...
Non-Compete Fee Can Be Deducted As Revenue Expenditure Under Section 37(1) Income Tax Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that payment of non-compete fee does not result in acquisition of a capital asset or alteration of the profit-making structure of the business, and is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.“Thus non-compete fee only seeks to protect or enhance the profitability of the business, thereby facilitating the carrying on of...
Delhi High Court Flags Customs' Practice Of Mentioning Communicating Officer's Name In Order Instead Of Deciding Officer
The Delhi High Court has disapproved of the Customs Department mentioning the name of such officer in the order who communicated it to the party, instead of the officer who actually passed the order.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“Orders which are passed have to be signed by the Officials who pass the said orders. The communication of the same can be...
Services Performed Outside India Not Taxable Under RCM; No Import Of Services: CESTAT Chennai
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that services performed outside India are not liable to service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), even if payments are made by an Indian entity or involve group companies. The bench further opined that reimbursements to foreign subsidiaries do not constitute “import of services” in...
Multiple-Noticee GST Cases Must Be Adjudicated By Single Commissionerate Based On Highest Demand: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in cases involving multiple noticees, adjudication has to be done by a single commissionerate, depending upon the highest monetary demand.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“This Court is of the opinion that in cases involving multiple noticees, the adjudication cannot be done by different commissionerates and...