Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 01 - September 07, 2025

SUPREME COURTCustoms Act | Electronic Evidence Admissible Without S.138C(4) Certificate If Assessee's S.108 Statement Admits Contents : Supreme CourtCause Title: ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL ADJUDICATION, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS SURESH KUMAR AND CO. IMPEX PVT. LTD. & ORS.The Supreme Court recently held that electronic evidence seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (“DRI”) can be admissible even without a certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, if the assessees has acknowledged these the documents in the devices in their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.The Court clarified that where obtaining such a certificate is impossible, and the Record of Proceedings has been duly acknowledged by the assessee, the evidence collected cannot be treated as inadmissible merely for want of the formal certificate. If there is due compliance otherwise, the electronic evidence can be admitted.HIGH COURTSBombay HCAO Can Determine Annual Value Of Property Higher Than Municipal Rateable Value U/S 22 Income Tax Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Tivoli Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and anotherCase Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004The Bombay High Court stated that the assessing officer (AO) can determine the annual value of the property higher than the municipal rateable value under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act.The issue before Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was whether it is permissible for the Assessing Officer to determine annual value of the property for the purposes of taxation under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1960 higher than the rateable value determined under the Municipal laws.Chhattisgarh HCCash Deposits During Demonetisation Not 'Unexplained Money' If Traceable To Previous Year's Balance: Chhattisgarh High CourtCase Title: Nanakchand Agrawal v. The Income-tax OfficerCase Number: TAXC No. 8 of 2024The Chhattisgarh High Court held that cash deposits during demonetisation are not unexplained money if traceable to previous year's balance.Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari stated that the factum of liquidation/refund of short-term loans and advances and its consequential accumulation as cash-in-hand as on 31-3-2016 could have been examined in the assessment year 2016-17 only particularly when the Assessing Officer has not discharged the burden cast upon him to implicate the assessee into the sweep of Section 69A.Delhi HCGovt Is Promoting Start-Up Culture, Customs Should Be Sensitive In Proceedings Against Them: Delhi High CourtCase title: Mitraj Business Private Limited Through Its Director Mr Manoj Kankane v. Union Of India Represented By The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors.Case no.: W.P.(C) 12907/2025The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to consider whether some “preferential treatment” ought to be given to Start-ups and MSMEs in terms of timelines, warehousing and provisional release in cases of misdeclaration of goods, especially in case of low value consignments.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that considering the prevailing policy in India to encourage start-ups and MSMEs, the Customs Department also needs to be sensitized to ensure that such parties are given some consideration, especially, when the goods are not prohibited goods.Passenger's Non-Appearance For Appraising Seized Goods Doesn't Stop Limitation For Issuing SCN: Delhi High Court Tells CustomsCase title: Gurpreet Singh Sonik v. Commissioner Of CustomsCase no.: W.P.(C) 13229/2025The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs Department cannot exceed the limitation period prescribed for issuance of show cause notice after detention of goods, merely on the ground that the person from whom goods were seized did not appear for appraisement.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “non-appearance for appraisement does not stop the limitation for the issuance of the SCN in terms of Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962.”TDS Default | Higher Compounding Fees On Second Plea Not Applicable If First Application Was Rejected: Delhi High CourtCase title: Sangeet Seth v. Chief Commissioner of Income TaxCase no.: W.P.(C) 16569/2023The Delhi High Court has held that the higher rate of 5% interest to be paid when an assessee moves second plea for compounding the offence of failure to pay Tax Deductible at Source (TDS), is not applicable if their first plea was simply rejected.A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “5% is only chargeable when the earlier offence has been compounded. This means that the compounding order should have been passed, and also the conditions stipulated in the said order should have been complied with (like payments), for the respondents to claim 5% charges on the second application, which necessarily has to be for a second...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 01 - September 07, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags