Tax Weekly Round-Up: November 03 - November 09, 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."HIGH COURTSJammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HCPayment Of Tax Cannot Legalise Unlicensed Activity, GST Registration Doesn't Confer Right To Conduct Business: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: Kaher Singh & Others v. Union Territory of J&K & OthersThe High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that obtaining registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, does not amount to authorisation to conduct a trade or business, nor can payment of tax legitimise an otherwise unlicensed commercial activity.The High Court clarified that taxation statutes and regulatory licensing statutes operate in distinct spheres, and compliance with one cannot override mandatory licensing requirements under another.Kerala HCIncome Tax Act | Revisional Power U/S 263 Cannot Be Invoked When AO Allows Deduction U/S 32AC After Proper Inquiry: Kerala High CourtCase Title: M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Income TaxCase Number: ITA NO. 63 OF 2024The Kerala High Court stated that revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked when Assessing Officer (AO) allowed deduction under Section 32AC after proper inquiry.Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that merely for the reason that AO extended the deduction claimed after carrying out investigations, the exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act is not required. At worst, the revisional authority can correct the error, if any, committed by the AO, by holding that the extension of the benefit of deduction was erroneous, with reference to the purchase of the assets during the previous years.Kerala High Court Quashes Income Tax Appellate Order Against AMMA, Directs Fresh ConsiderationCase Title: M/S Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) v Commissioner of Income TaxCase No: WP(C) 39703/ 2025The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), against the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), holding that the appellate authority failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under the Income Tax Act.Justice Ziyad Rahman A A, observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by rejecting AMMA's appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance, without addressing the merits of the case as mandated under Section 250(6) of the ...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: November 03 - November 09, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags