Tax Weekly Round-Up: October 13 - October 19, 2025

SUPREME COURTITC Cannot Be Denied To Bona Fide Purchasers If Seller Defaults On Tax Payment : Supreme CourtCase Title: THE COMMISSIONER TRADE AND TAX DELHI vs M/S SHANTI KIRAN INDIA (P) LTDCase Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2042-2047/2015The Supreme Court recently held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods purchased from registered dealers cannot be denied to bona fide purchasers merely because the seller failed to deposit the Value Added Tax (VAT) with the government.A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that there was no infirmity in the order of Delhi High Court granting credit to the respondent, a bonafide purchaser.“We do not find a good reason to interfere with the order of the High Court directing for grant of ITC benefit after due verification.,” while dismissing a batch of appeals filed by the Delhi Trade and Tax Department.Non-Resident Company Need Not Have Permanent Office In India To Be Taxed On Income Accruing Here : Supreme CourtCase : Pride Foramer S.A. v Commissioner of Income TaxThe Supreme Court has clarified that under the Income Tax Act, a non-resident company can be taxed in India on income that accrues or arises from a business connection within the country, even if it does not maintain a permanent office or physical establishment here.A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in its judgment examined the scope of Sections 4, 5(2), and 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and held that the statute does not make it mandatory for a non-resident assessee to have a “permanent establishment” in India to be considered as carrying on business in the country. The Court explained that what determines tax liability is whether the income has accrued or arisen, directly or indirectly, through any business connection in India.HIGH COURTSBombay HCIncome Tax Act | Deputy Commissioner Cannot Act Beyond DRP Directions; Assessment After S.144C(13) Time Limit Invalid: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Archroma International (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCase Number: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.11226 OF 2025The Bombay High Court stated that the Deputy Commissioner cannot act beyond the dispute resolution panel (DRP) directions; assessment completed beyond Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the time limit is invalid.Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar stated that the Deputy Commissioner cannot act beyond the mandate of Section 144 (C) (13) and also contrary to the directions given by the DRP in sub-section (5) of Section 144 (C) of the Act. The reason being, Section 144(C)(13) mandates that the Deputy Commissioner ought to complete the assessment in conformity with the direction of the DRP, that too within the strict timelines. Further, Section 144 C (10) makes a clear provision that the directions of the DRP are binding on the Assessing Officer.Information Regarding GST Returns Of Company Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Adarsh Gautam Pimpare vs State of MaharashtraCase no.: Writ Petition 11135 of 2025The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (October 14) held that a company's Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns filing cannot be disclosed under the Right To Information (RTI) Act.Sitting at Aurangabad bench, single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar noted that section 158(1) of the GST Act prohibits disclosure of information of GST returns to third parties and that section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act too exempts certain information from being made public unless the information officer is satisfied that the said information must be disclosed as a public interest is involved.Calcutta HCProperty Tax Is First Charge On Property; Auction Purchaser Liable To Pay It Before Sale: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Cotton Casuals India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.Case Number: WPO 1235 OF 2024The Calcutta High Court has held that property tax is a first charge on property and the auction purchaser is liable to pay property tax prior to sale.The bench stated that where a statutory first charge is created on the property, such as in respect of property tax under Section 232 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the municipal authority is entitled to enforce such charge independently in accordance with the statutory mechanism provided therein. In such a situation, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the IBC and the KMC Act, and, therefore, the overriding effect of Section 238 of the IBC is not attracted.Chhattisgarh HCInput Tax Credit Not Admissible On Electricity Supplied To Township Maintained By Bharat Aluminium: Chhattisgarh High CourtCase Title: Bharat Aluminum Company Limited v. State of ChhattisgarhCase Number: WA No. 736 of 2025The Chhattisgarh High Court has stated that the ITC is not admissible on electricity supplied to a township maintained by Bharat Aluminium.The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal stated that...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: October 13 - October 19, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags