Tax Monthly Digest: November 2025

SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Seeking Rs 93 Lakh Duty On Lulu Malls' Imported TrampolinesCase Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS V LULU INTERNATIONAL SHOPPLING MALLS PVT. LTDCase Number: Diary No. 47976/2025The Supreme Court recently (October 31) dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging the classification and valuation of imported amusement equipment, including trampolines, by Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd.A bench of Justices Pankaj Mittal and Prasanna B Varale held that there was no error in the classification of the trampolines and other equipment under the category of gymnastics equipment.Income Tax Act | Supreme Court To Examine If S.12AA Registration Alone Entitles Trusts To 80G Benefits To DonorsCause Title: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL VERSUS SADHUMARGI SHANTKRANTI JAINThe Supreme Court is set to examine whether the registration of a trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which recognizes it as a charitable institution for income tax exemption purposes, is sufficient to entitle its donors to claim tax deduction benefits under Section 80G of the Act.A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has issued notice on a petition filed by the Income Tax Department challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's ruling that once a charitable organization is registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it cannot be denied approval under Section 80G(5) for providing tax deduction benefits to its donors, merely on the ground that it also undertakes religious activities.Supreme Court Dismisses Rs 244 Crore Service Tax Plea Against Bharti Airtel Over Employee SchemeCase Title: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram, Haryana vs Bharti Airtel Ltd.Case Number: Diary No. 49079/2025The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a nearly Rs 244 crore service tax appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurugram, against telecom giant Bharti Airtel Ltd. The dispute concerned the company's Airtel Employees Services Scheme (AESS), which offered free or discounted telecom services to its employees.The appeal challenged a January 27, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, which had set aside the entire tax demand. A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan upheld the tribunal's order, observing "We find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."Supreme Court Issues Notice On Patanjali Foods' Rs 2.97 Crore Excise Duty Refund AppealCase Title: Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service TaxCase Number: Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 57088/2025The Supreme Court has recently issued notice in an appeal filed by Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) seeking a refund of Rs 2.97 crore charged by the tax department in connection with an excise duty dispute.A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar issued notice on both the main appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay.Transfer Of Title In Immovable Property Doesn't Attract Service Tax : Supreme CourtCase : Commissioner of Service Tax v M/s Elegant DevelopersThe Supreme Court has clarified that an activity which merely involves the transfer of title in immovable property by way of sale cannot be treated as a “service” under the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, such transactions lie outside the ambit of service tax.A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict while dismissing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi against M/s Elegant Developers, a partnership firm based in Allahabad. The Revenue had challenged a 2019 decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which had set aside a tax demand of over Rs 10 crore against the firm.Externally Procured Parts Supplied To Customer For Assembly, But Not Used By Manufacturer, Aren't Liable To Excise Duty : Supreme CourtCause Title: LIPI BOILERS LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABADThe Supreme Court on Monday (November 10) dismissed the Revenue Department's excise duty demand against a company that had manufactured and erected a large boiler at a customer's site, holding that the full contract value could not be subjected to central excise duty. The Court clarified that parts bought out externally and supplied to the customer for assembly, but not actually used by the manufacturer, would not attract excise duty.“we arrive at the finding that the final product that emerges as a result of performing the obligations under the contract, does not constitute excisable goods under the Act, 1944. Consequently, the base value of the boiler on...

Tax Monthly Digest: November 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags