Tax Weekly Round-Up: February 17 - February 23, 2025

SUPREME COURTCharitable Trust's Registration For Income Tax Exemption To Be Decided Based On Proposed Activities & Not Actual Activities : Supreme CourtCase Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS VERSUS M/S INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CARE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTECase no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 19528/2018The Supreme Court reiterated that when a charitable trust registers under Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) for income tax exemptions (under Sections 10 and 11), the tax authorities should check if the charity's proposed activities match its charitable goals, as stated in the Ananda Social case. The Court, however, clarified that mere registration under Section 12-AA would not entitle a charitable trust to claim exemption under Sections 10 and 11 respectively of the Act, 1961, and the authorities can decline the grant of exemption if the materials produced by the trust does not seem convincing for grant of exemption.Benefit Of Input Tax Credit Can't Be Reduced Without Statutory Sanction : Supreme CourtCase Title – State of Punjab & Ors. v. Trishala Alloys Pvt. Ltd.Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 2212 of 2024The Supreme Court recently held that Rule 21(8) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which was notified on January 25, 2014, could not be applied to transactions before April 1, 2014, as the enabling amendment to Section 13 of the parent statute, the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, was effective from that date. This means businesses that bought goods at a higher tax rate before this date are not subject to the limitation imposed by Rule 21(8) when claiming ITC, even if the tax rate was later lowered.HIGH COURTSAndhra Pradesh HCDelay Of Two Days In Issuing GST Notice Can't Be Condoned: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: M/s The Cotton Corporation of India v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC)Case Number: W.P.No.1463 of 2025The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that delay of two days in issuing the GST notice cannot be condoned.The Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N. observed that “the time permit set out under 73(2) of the Act is mandatory and any violation of that time period cannot be condoned, and would render the show cause notice otiose.”Bombay HCITAT Cannot Overstep Its Authority By Deciding On Merits When It Had Already Concluded Appeal Was Not Maintainable: Bombay High CourtCase Title: The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCase Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1041 OF 2012The Bombay High Court stated that ITAT cannot overstep its authority by deciding on merits when it has already concluded an appeal was not maintainable. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “Once the ITAT concluded that the Appeal before it against the impugned communication/order was not “maintainable”, there was no question of the ITAT evaluating the impugned communication/order on its merits or making any observations or recording any findings regarding its validity or otherwise. Therefore, such observations and findings are without jurisdiction and should not have been made.”Delhi HCCustoms Department Must Intimate Party About Disposal Of Confiscated Property Both Via Email And On Mobile: Delhi High CourtCase title: Gor Sharian v. The Commissioner Of CustomsCase no.: W.P.(C) 1807/2025The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department must ensure that the intimation of disposal of detained or confiscated property is given to the concerned party both via email as also the mobile number.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma reasoned this will ensure that a party who succeeded in Court or Tribunal against the detention of the property is not deprived of their properties.Quashing Of Show Cause Notice On One Issue Doesn't Mean Other Demands Are Not Liable To Be Adjudicated: Delhi High CourtCase title: Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Commissionerate, Gst Delhi West v. M/S AlkarmaCase no.: SERTA 3/2025The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if a show cause notice is quashed by a higher authority on one issue, it doesn't mean that other issues raised in the SCN are not liable to be adjudicated. The observation was made by the bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma in a case where the SCN was quashed by another division bench of the High Court so far as the issue relating to duty on free supply of materials was concerned. However, the CESTAT proceeded to discharge the entire SCN.Income Tax Act | 'Fee For Technical Services' Means Transfer Of 'Specialised'/ 'Distinctive' Knowledge Or Skill By Service Provider: Delhi HCThe Delhi High Court has held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) as contained under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned with the transfer of 'distinctive', 'specialized' knowledge, skill, expertise and know-how by a service provider. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: February 17 - February 23, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags