Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 18 - August 24, 2025

SUPREME COURTIs Merchant Navy Officer's Salary Credited In Indian Bank Account Exempt From Income Tax? Supreme Court To DecideCause Title: VANDANA & ORS. VERSUS KESHAV & ORS.The Supreme Court on Monday (Aug. 18) agreed to decide whether the income credited in an Indian bank account while working with a Foreign Entity would be exempted from the payment of Income Tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961..The issue arose before the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale while hearing the appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”) decision to deduct 30% towards tax liability while computing the compensation claim of the Appellant's deceased husband, who was employed with British Marine PLC, London as Merchant Navy Officer earning 3,200 USD monthly income.HIGH COURTSBombay HCBank Guarantee Which Expired Almost Ten Years Before CIRP Was Initiated, Cannot Be Enforced: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of India & Anr.Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.620 OF 2021The Bombay High Court stated that expired bank guarantee can't be enforced post CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process).Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that, “The argument that a personal guarantee survives the CIRP does not apply in the case because the guarantee had expired even before the CIRP. During the validity period of the guarantee, admittedly, no claim was lodged by the department. This petition was instituted almost 10 years after the guarantee expired, and that too by instituting a writ petition, probably realising that a suit would be barred by limitation.”Income Tax | Sale Proceeds Of Vintage Cars Taxable Unless Assessee Proves That Car Was Used As Personal Asset: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Narendra I. Bhuva v. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCase Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.681 OF 2003The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of vintage car taxable unless the assessee proves that the car was used as a personal asset.Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that the capability of a car for personal use would not ipso facto lead to automatic presumption that every car would be personal effects for being excluded from capital assets of the Assessee.[GST] Reverse Charge Mechanism Notifications Denying ITC To Service Providers Are Constitutionally Valid: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s. Eagle Security & Personnel Services v. Union of IndiaCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1687 OF 2024The Bombay High Court held that RCM notifications denying ITC credit to service providers are constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.The bench opined that in case of RCM, the person receiving the services, i.e. the recipient pays the tax and can claim credit of the same. The provider of service is exempt from paying tax. Merely because persons covered by RCM cannot claim credit of ITC cannot be seen in a microscopic way to hold the notification and the provision as ultra vires.Delhi HCMere Delay In Uploading Demand Order On GST Portal Doesn't Make Action Time Barred If Service Via Email Is Proved: Delhi High CourtCase title: Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner CGST Delhi NorthCase no.: W.P.(C) 12199/2025The Delhi High Court recently observed that usually there is a gap between the passing of a demand order by the GST Department and uploading of Form DRC-07 (summary of order) on the official portal.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain however refused to infer such a gap as rendering the demand order time-barred, in view of the fact that the demand was served upon the assessee in question via email.Kerala HCNo Violation Of Article 14 In Denying Property Tax Exemption To Unaided Schools: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Rev. Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil v. State of KeralaCase Number: WP(C) NO. 24012 OF 2023The Kerala High Court stated that there is no violation of Article 14 in denying property tax exemption to unaided schools.Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the fact that the Government owned, managed and aided schools are established by the Government at their funds in order to provide education to all classes of persons by collecting nil or meagre fees, is a crucial factor which distinguishes such establishments from an unaided school, where fees is collected from the students for rendering the services.Madras HC[GST] 'Ill-Advice From Unqualified Consultants Leading To Clients' Inability To Appear Before Authorities': Madras High CourtCase Title: Chandrasekaran Proprietor Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant CommissionerCase Number: W.P.No.30638 of 2025The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a circular urging assessees to engage only qualified consultants for GST compliance.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that, "This Court comes across similar instances in several cases, extending ill advice to the clients by the consultants,...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 18 - August 24, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags