Home Archives - Tax Heal

GST CASE LAWS 04.11.2026

Ashwani Kumar — Thu, 05 Nov 2026 12:14:05 +0000

GST CASE LAWS 04.11.2026

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Heading 3920 / Schedule II	SANGHVI PRODUCTS, In re	Manufacturing PTFE braided gland packing by braiding PTFE fibre yarn into cords is excluded from textile chapters by Note 1(g) of Section XI and is classifiable under subheading 3920 99 49, attracting 18% GST.	Click Here	Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 11	Luxor International (P.) Ltd., In re	Proposed supply of uncoated paper under Heading 4802 cannot be granted an advance end-use exemption based solely on purchaser declarations; exemption under Notification 10/2025-CT (Rate) applies only to paper factually used for specified notebooks.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 12	Bharat Packaging Industries v. Sunil N Ranote, Additional Commissioner Appeals	Where assessee registered in Chandigarh received rental income from property in Punjab, the supply was inter-State (IGST), but the place of supply being outside Chandigarh did not oust the territorial jurisdiction of CGST Chandigarh over the assessee.	Click Here	Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16	Bharat Packaging Industries v. Sunil N Ranote, Additional Commissioner Appeals	ITC denial based solely on GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch is unsustainable; eligibility depends on satisfying statutory conditions of Section 16 rather than mere reflection in GSTR-2A.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 16	J Santhanam Contractor v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)	Reversal of input tax credit solely on grounds of limitation under section 16(4) cannot be sustained where the claim falls within the period permitted under section 16(5).	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 29	Do Nam Enterprise v. Union of India	Where registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and portal restrictions barred filing, cancellation order was quashed and petitioners were allowed 30 days to file all pending returns with applicable tax, interest, and penalties.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 47	Bharat Packaging Industries v. Sunil N Ranote, Additional Commissioner Appeals	Late fee and interest for delayed filing of returns arise statutorily rather than from a tax demand or penalty, making a challenge invoking section 74 irrelevant and ineffective.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 73	Do Nam Enterprise v. Union of India	Upon restoration of registration following non-filing cancellation, the limitation period for issuing demand orders is computed from the date of the restoration order rather than portal cut-offs.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 74	GR Infra Projects Ltd. Ratlam v. State of Madhya Pradesh	SCN issued under section 74 without disclosing specific material proving fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression—and identical to a previously quashed notice—is invalid and unsustainable.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 74	Bharat Packaging Industries v. Sunil N Ranote, Additional Commissioner Appeals	Failure to declare rental income in GST returns constitutes suppression under Explanation 2 to Section 74, justifying the invocation of the extended period, demand, equal penalty, and interest.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 74	Bharat Packaging Industries v. Sunil N Ranote, Additional Commissioner Appeals	Where GST demands for freight under RCM and ITC mismatches were derived from statutory returns and audits without proof of fraud or suppression, invoking Section 74 and imposing penalties is unsustainable.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 04.11.2026

Ashwani Kumar — Thu, 05 Nov 2026 11:02:53 +0000

INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 04.11.2026

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 4	GE Vernova International LLC v. ACIT	Where assessee-company recognized revenue from invoices but subsequently reversed amounts through credit notes after commercial settlements, real income did not accrue to that extent and only real income can be taxed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 9	GE Vernova International LLC v. ACIT	Where assessee, a US-based company, rendered offshore support services and received reimbursement and fees without making technical knowledge or skills available to Indian recipients, such receipts were not FTS.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 9	GE Vernova International LLC v. ACIT	Where US-based company supplied goods from outside India under offshore sale arrangements and furnished evidence that no services were rendered, receipts could not be treated as fees for technical or included services.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 9	JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT	Where a US bank’s Indian branch rendered correspondent banking and investor services, excess of inter-office service charges over related expenditure was not includible in profits attributable to Indian PE.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 10(23C)	CIT v. Deccan Education Society	Where society running educational institutions was denied exemption for generating surplus, generating reasonable surplus did not disqualify exemption once statutory requirements under section 10(23C)(iiiab) were met.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 11	Kinkini v. ITO	Where assessee-trust filed audit report in Form 10BB belatedly but it was available on record before issuance of section 143(1)(a) intimation, denial of exemption solely on account of delayed filing was unjustified.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 14A	CSS Corp (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT	Where assessee had sufficient own funds, disallowance of interest expenditure under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was unwarranted, and only investments earning exempt income should be considered under Rule 8D(2)(iii).	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 14A	Lintas India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT	Where assessee made suo motu disallowance under section 14A, disallowance for expenditure relating to exempt income cannot exceed exempt income earned during the year.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 28(i)	JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT	Where securities were held as trading assets and consistently valued at lower of cost or market value per RBI guidelines, diminution in value was allowable as a deduction in computing banking business income.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 32	Navkar Share and Stock Brokers v. ACIT	Where company disclosed all material facts during original scrutiny, reopening assessment beyond four years for alleged escapement of income due to business loss set-off, unabsorbed depreciation, and delayed TDS was unjustified.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)	JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT	Where repo interest was separately recorded as expenditure on repurchase of securities and liability accrued in relevant year, deduction could not be denied by treating it as a notional loss on unmatured forex contracts.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)	Haryana Liquors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT	Where contractual expenditure was disallowed for alleged lack of service evidence despite ledgers, invoices, banking payments, and Form 16A, disallowance based on broad group-level allegations was not sustainable.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 40A(3)	Rekha Agarwal v. ITO	Where wholesale agricultural trader made cash payments exceeding limits through an intermediary to procure produce from farmers, payments did not qualify as payments to cultivators under Rule 6DD(e), making disallowance justified.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 40A(3)	Rekha Agarwal v. ITO	Where wholesale agricultural trader made cash purchases routed through an agent and invoked Rule 6DD(k), remand was required to verify genuineness and terms of agency and satisfaction of prescribed conditions.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 44C	JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT	Where an expatriate CEO exclusively managed Indian banking operations, salary paid directly by Head Office outside India was allowable under section 37(1) and could not be restricted under section 44C.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69	Kamuni Mallesh v. Dy. CIT	Where reassessment for property purchase made over multiple years was initiated without proper year-wise examination and approval under section 151 was granted mechanically, reassessment proceedings were unsustainable.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69A	DCIT v. Ivar Estates (P.) Ltd.	Where real estate assessees were searched and differences between ERP/booked rates and estimated median rates were treated as unaccounted receipts without specific buyer evidence, deletion of additions by CIT(A) was justified.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69C	Haryana Liquors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT	Where Assessing Officer inferred that assessee must have paid commission for bogus contractual expenditure and estimated addition at 6 per cent without specific evidence, addition was not sustainable under section 69C.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 92C	JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT	Where foreign bank’s Indian branch performed marketing and relationship functions, merchant banking, underwriting, and broking companies were functionally dissimilar and could not be retained as comparables on industry similarity alone.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 92C	JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT	Where US bank claimed deduction for Head Office expenditure allocated to Indian branch, determination of arm’s length price at nil was unsustainable and matter was remanded to verify actual incurrence and attribution.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 92C	JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT	Where US bank claimed hub expenditure supporting Indian banking operations, ALP at nil was unsustainable, and absence of debit notes/invoices did not disprove services, requiring verification and remand.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 92C	JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT	Where assessee benchmarked cheque-processing services under TNMM, a company engaged in specialized web-mapping services was functionally dissimilar and its exclusion as a comparable was justified.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 92C	JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT	Where corporate and Head Office expenses were allocated using a common employee-cost ratio, wholesale allocation without examining each item’s nexus with the segment was unsustainable.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 92C	JP Morgan Chase Bank v. ADIT	Where Rule 10B(4) gives primacy to contemporaneous financial data, earlier-year data may be considered only if it reveals facts capable of influencing transfer price determination; substantial margin variation alone does not justify multi-year averaging.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 92C	Lintas India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT	Where advertising company was subjected to TP adjustment for intra-group support services with ALP determined at nil despite evidence of service descriptions and client coordination, a general rejection was unjustified.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 92C	Lintas India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT	Where advertising company reported management service fees paid to overseas group entities, foreign location of AE did not justify rejecting it as tested party or setting ALP at nil without fresh benchmarking.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 92C	CSS Corp (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT	Transfer pricing adjustment is required to be confined strictly to international transactions with associated enterprises and not to margin at the entity level.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 92C	CSS Corp (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT	Where IT and ITES assessee provided segmental results showing different AE and non-AE risk profiles, TPO was not justified in rejecting IT segment segmentation merely due to lack of audit or timing of certification.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 92C	CSS Corp (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT	Where dispute related to upper turnover filter in selecting comparables for international transactions, an upper turnover filter of INR 200 crores was appropriate.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 143	Fusion Health Care (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT	Where notice under section 143(2) was issued by a Prescribed Income-tax Authority for a case centralized with the AO without petitioner challenging Board notification, notice could not be treated as without jurisdiction.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 149	Sureshbhai Ranchhodlal Thakkar v. ACIT	Where notice under section 148 for AY 2012-13 was issued after search in September 2021 beyond time limits under old sections 149(1)(b), 153A, and 153C, first proviso to section 149(1) applied, rendering notice time-barred.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 151	Kamuni Mallesh v. Dy. CIT	Where approval under section 151 was obtained prior to 01.04.2021, provisions of section 292BC applicable from 01.04.2021 cannot be invoked to validate such prior approval for notice purposes.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961

Bundled Lease of Digital Cinema Equipment Qualifies as Mixed Supply Taxable at Highest Rate Applicable to Projector

Ashwani Kumar — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 10:06:33 +0000

Bundled Lease of Digital Cinema Equipment Qualifies as Mixed Supply Taxable at Highest Rate Applicable to Projector

Issue

Whether the bundled leasing of digital cinema equipment (projector, server, UPS, and VSAT) for a single consolidated price constitutes a composite supply or a mixed supply under Section 8 of the CGST Act, 2017, and what is the applicable GST rate for the bundled supply.

Facts

Applicant’s Business: The applicant is a GST-registered cinema technology company operating in Telangana.
Leasing Arrangement: The applicant leased a bundle of digital cinema equipment—comprising a projector, server, UPS, and VSAT—to movie theatres for a single consolidated price under a single invoice.
Advance Ruling Application: An application under Section 97 was filed to determine the applicable GST rate under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) by examining whether the bundle qualified as a composite supply or a mixed supply.
Nature of Equipment: The four pieces of equipment fall under distinct HSN codes, possess independent functions, and are capable of being supplied separately.
Trade Practice Examination: The Authority evaluated CBIC guidance indicators and trade practices, concluding that similar businesses do not ordinarily bundle such equipment together in the ordinary course of trade.

Decision

Not a Composite Supply: The bundled equipment lacks natural bundling in the ordinary course of business and fails the test of composite supply. (Para 7.6)
Classification as Mixed Supply: Because the items are supplied together for a single consolidated price and do not form a composite supply, the arrangement constitutes a “mixed supply” under Section 8(b). (Para 7.8)
Applicable Tax Rate:
- Under Section 8(b), a mixed supply is taxable at the rate applicable to the item that attracts the highest tax rate in the bundle.
- The projector (Heading 8528) carries the highest rate among all bundled items.
- Therefore, the entire bundle is taxable at the projector’s rate: 28% up to 21.09.2025 and 18% thereafter. (Para 8) (In favour of assessee)

Key Takeaways

Single Price Bundling Triggers Mixed Supply: Supplying independent items under a single invoice for a consolidated price without natural bundling in the ordinary course of trade converts the transaction into a mixed supply under Section 8(b).
Highest Tax Rate Principle: A mixed supply is taxed in its entirety at the rate of the component attracting the highest GST rate within the bundle.
Impact of Rate Amendments: Rate adjustments on individual principal components (such as projectors reduced from 28% to 18%) directly determine the tax rate applicable to the entire mixed supply bundle for respective tax periods.

AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING , TELANGANA

UFO Moviez India Ltd., In re

VIVEKANANDA REDDY, Member (Central Tax)
and Smt. K. Geeta, Member (State Tax)

TS AAR Order No. 09 OF 2026
A.R.Com/01/2026

SEPTEMBER 18, 2026

[ORDER UNDER SECTION 98(4) OF THE CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 AND UNDER SECTION 98(4) OF THE TELANGANA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017.]

1. M/s. UFO Moviez India Limited, Hyderabad – 500 033, Telangana (GSTIN 36AABCV8900E1ZG) has filed an application in FORM GST ARA-01 under Section 97(1) of TGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST/TGST Rules.

2. At the outset, it is made clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the TGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to any dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provision under the TGST Act. Further, for the purposes of this Advance Ruling, the expression ‘GST Act’ would be a common reference to both CGST Act and TGST Act.

3. It is observed that the queries raised by the applicant fall within the ambit of Section 97 of the GST Act. The Applicant enclosed copies of challans as proof of payment of Rs. 5,000/- under SGST and Rs. 5,000/- under CGST towards the fee for Advance Ruling. The Applicant has declared that the questions raised in the application have neither been decided nor are pending before any authority under any provisions of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017. The application is, therefore, admitted after examining it and the records called for and after hearing the applicant as per section 98(2) of TGST Act, 2017.

4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

4.1 UFO Moviez India Ltd. “UFO”, Registered vide GST No. 36AABCV8900E1ZG. The company core business is Leasing of Digital Cinema Equipment “DCE”. The DCE consisting of Projector, Server, UPS and VSAT. The company is dealing with theaters across state of Telangana. UFO is also providing Services to Advertisers by exhibiting their advertisements in Cinema halls. UFO is also selling consumable spares to theaters.

4.2 As per Notification No.11/2017 the tax rate for Leasing transaction is to be derived as same rate of central tax as on supply of like goods involving transfer of title in goods. However, company is leasing out four different equipment’s (Projector, Server, UPS and VSAT).

4.3 M/s. UFO Moviez India Limited, Hyderabad is providing four major equipment’s with different HSN and charging Lease rental for entire set in single invoice. Company is following provisions prescribed under section 8 of CGST/SGST Act, 2017.

5. QUESTION RAISED:

1. The Rate of tax of Leasing Services of four different equipment’s (Projector, Server, UPS and VSAT).

6. PERSONAL HEARING:

The authorized representative Nilesh Lad, AVP Taxation, appeared before the AAR on 29.06.2026 and reiterated their averments in the application submitted.

7. DISCUSSION & FINDINGS:

7.1 M/s. UFO Moviez India Limited, Hyderabad core business is Leasing of Digital Cinema Equipment “DCE”. The DCE consisting of Projector, Server, UPS and VSAT. The company is dealing with theaters across state of Telangana. UFO is also providing Services to Advertisers by exhibiting their advertisements in Cinema halls. UFO is also selling consumable spares to theaters.

7.2 We find that the applicant is providing four different equipment’s (Projector, Server, UPS and VSAT). M/s. UFO Moviez India Limited, Hyderabad is providing four major equipment’s with different HSN and charging Lease rental for entire set in single invoice.

7.3 The applicant interprets that the services provided by the company is squarely covered under section 8 i.e. mixed supply and under such scenario HSN which has highest rate of tax will be applicable to such services.

The applicant’s interpretation of law is as under: –

(i)

The provisions relating to principal supply, composite Supply and mixed supply is as under: –

(a)

“principal supply” means the supply of goods or services which constitutes the predominant clement of a composite supply and to which any other supply forming part of that composite supply is ancillary;

(b)

“composite supply” means a supply made by a taxable person to a recipient consisting of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both, or any combination thereof, which are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business, one of which is a principal supply;

Illustration. – Where goods are packed and transported with insurance, the supply of goods, packing materials, transport and insurance is a composite supply and supply of goods is a principal supply;

(c)

“mixed supply” means two or more individual supplies of goods or services, or any combination thereof, made in conjunction with each other by a taxable person for a single price where such supply does not constitute a composite supply.

Illustration. – A supply of a package consisting of canned foods, sweets, chocolates, cakes, dry fruits, aerated drinks and fruit juices when supplied for a single price is a mixed supply. Each of these items can be supplied separately and is not dependent on any other. It shall not be a mixed supply if these items are supplied separately;

(i)

The tax liability on a composite supply or a mixed supply shall be determined in the following manner: –

(a)

a composite supply consisting of two or more taxable supplies, one of which is a principal supply, shall be treated as a supply of such principal supply; and

(b)

a mixed supply consisting of two or more taxable supplies, shall be treated as a supply of that particular supply which attracts the highest rate of tax.

7.4 As per the definition of composite supply under Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, a supply is said to be a composite. As per the definition of composite supply under Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, a supply is said to be a composite supply if two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or their combination thereof, are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business. Further, one of the services in a composite supply is a principal supply. As per Section 2(90) of the CGST Act, the supply of goods or services which constitutes the predominant clement or a composite supply is the principal supply, the other supplies of the composite supply being ancillary. Thus, if we assume that the supply proposed to be made by the applicant is a composite supply, then Projector, Cineblaster (Server), UPS & VSAT then would constitute the principal supply as it constitutes the predominant element of a composite supply. However, we find that apart from the above, there is another leg of the definition, which is important. In a composite supply, the two or more taxable goods or supplies should be naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of trade. An illustration has also been provided below the definition of composite supply to explain the meaning of naturally bundled. The example provided in the illustration is supply or goods along with transportation and insurance. When the goods are packed and transported with insurance, the supply of goods, packing materials, transport and insurance is a composite supply, the supply of goods being the principal supply. The rule, therefore, is, if various elements of a bundled service are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business, it shall be treated as provision of a single service which gives such bundle its essential character.

7.5 The CBIC in its Flyer No.4, dated 5-8-2019 has listed some indicators to ascertain whether the bundled services are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business, as under: –

•

The perception of the consumer or the service receiver. If large number of service receivers of such bundle of services reasonably expect such services to be provided as a package, then such a package could be treated as naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business.

•

Majority of service providers in a particular area of business provide similar bundle of services. For example, bundle of catering on board and transport by air is a bundle offered by a majority of airlines.

•

The nature of the various services in a bundle of services will also help in determining whether the services are bundled in the ordinary course of business. If the nature of services is such that one of the services is the main service and the other services combined with such service are in the nature of incidental or ancillary services which help in better enjoyment of a main service. For example, service of stay in a hotel is often combined with a service or Laundering of 3-4 items of clothing free of cost per day. Such service is an ancillary service to the provision of hotel accommodation and the resultant package would be treated as services naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business.

•

Other illustrative indicators, not determinative but indicative of bundling of services in ordinary course of business are –

•

There is a single price or the customer pays the same amount, no matter how much of the package they actually receive or use.

•

The elements are normally advertised as a package.

•

The different elements are not available separately.

•

The different elements are integral to one overall supply – if one or more is removed, the nature of the supply would be affected.

7.6 We find that none of the indicators mentioned above apply to the supply intended to be made by the applicant. Majority of businesses which are similar to the applicant’s do not provide such bundling as a matter of course. Therefore, we are of the view that the supply of “DCE” will not constitute a composite supply.

7.7 This brings us to the next question as to whether, such supply would fall under mixed supply. As per Section 2(74) of the CGST Act, 2017, a mixed supply means two or more individual supplies of goods or service or any combination thereof’, made in conjunction with each other for a single price where such supply does not constitute a composite supply. From the definition, we find that only those bundled supplies which do not constitute a composite supply, can fall under mixed supply. We have already discussed in the preceding paras as to why the supply in question is not a composite supply. We find that the illustration provided below the definition of mixed supply gives an example of a supply of a package consisting of canned foods, sweets, chocolates, cakes, dry fruits, aerated drinks and fruit juices, which when supplied for a single price as a mixed supply. The illustration further mentions that each of these items can be supplied separately and is not dependent on each other. Thus, for a bundled supply to be a mixed supply, the following elements are required: –

•

It should not be a composite supply (in other words they are not naturally bundled)

•

It should have a single price

•

Each of the items can be supplied separately and is not dependent on each other.

•

The items should not be supplied separately.

7.8 As mentioned the items provided by the applicant on lease basis are not naturally bundled and is therefore, not a composite supply. The leasing of “DCE” is provided with all the equipment for a single lease and are not supplied separately. Therefore, we hold that the supply of “DCE” will fall under the ambit of mixed supply.

7.9 As per Section 8(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, a mixed supply comprising two or more supplies shall be treated as a supply of that particular supply which attracts the highest rate of tax. Thus, when the “DCE” is supplied the highest rate of tax rates which each them are attract, will be the rate of tax at which mixed supply is to be made.

8. The applicant submitted that the DCE contains the following;

Type of Equipment’s	HSN Code
Projector	85286200
Cineblaster (Server)	85219090
UPS	85044090
VSAT	85299090

The Projector with HSN 8528 has the highest rate of tax among the above items. Therefore, the GST rate on Projector shall apply to the “DCE”.

In view of the foregoing, we rule as follows:

In view of the above discussions, the question raised by the applicant is answered below:

Question	Ruling
1. The GST Rate applied by the Company on its Leasing Services is correct as per the provisions of law.	The applicable rate of GST on the mixed supply of digital cinema equipment (DCE) containing of Projector, Server, UPS, VSAT is; (a) 28% (14% CGST + 14% SGST) upto 21.09.2025. (b) Thereafter 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST).

Historical Parity and Recruitment Overlap Alone Do Not Warrant Pay Parity Between Secretariat and Field Formations

Ashwani Kumar — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 05:32:08 +0000

Historical Parity and Recruitment Overlap Alone Do Not Warrant Pay Parity Between Secretariat and Field Formations

Issue

Whether historical pay parity, common Staff Selection Commission (SSC) recruitment, and asserted functional overlap between Secretariat and non-Secretariat/field formation employees furnish a sufficient legal basis to grant pay parity to Private Secretaries and Senior Private Secretaries in the Income Tax Department (under CBDT) with their counterparts in the Central Secretariat Stenographers’ Service (CSSS).

Facts

Petitioners’ Claim: Petitioners, representing Private Secretaries (PS) and Senior Private Secretaries (SPS) in the Income Tax Department (CBDT), sought pay parity with counterparts in the Central Secretariat Stenographers’ Service (CSSS) based on historical parity, common SSC recruitment, and comparable job duties.
Rejection by Ministry: Their representations seeking restoration of pay parity were rejected by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, on the ground that pay scales applicable to Secretariat/Headquarters establishments do not apply to field offices functioning outside the Secretariat.
Approach to CAT: Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioners filed an Original Application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Tribunal’s Findings:
- CAT noted that pay parity existed only up to the Third Central Pay Commission (3rd CPC).
- It observed that the distinction between Secretariat and non-Secretariat posts was maintained under the Sixth Central Pay Commission (6th CPC).
- It held that parity was absolute only up to the grade of Assistant, and beyond that, complete parity might neither be possible nor justified.
- It affirmed that pay fixation falls within the domain of expert bodies, upheld the Department of Expenditure’s order, and dismissed the OA.
High Court Ruling: The High Court upheld the CAT order, holding that historical parity, common recruitment, and functional overlap do not automatically justify pay parity for distinct cadres (Secretariat vs. non-Secretariat field formations), especially when such distinction was expressly considered by the 6th CPC and not created casually or maliciously.
Appeal to Supreme Court: The petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s judgment.

Decision

Dismissal of SLP: The Supreme Court found no ground or case for interference with the impugned order of the High Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP).
Liberty Granted: The petitioners were granted liberty to agitate their claim for pay parity before the 8th Central Pay Commission.

Key Takeaways

Domain of Expert Bodies: Pay scale determination and fixation lie within the executive domain and specialized expert bodies like Pay Commissions; courts and tribunals generally refrain from interfering unless there is patent arbitrariness.
Secretariat vs. Field Formations: Historical parity, common entrance examinations, or overlapping job duties alone do not constitute a legal right to claim equal pay across distinct administrative frameworks (Secretariat vs. non-Secretariat/field establishments).
Scope of Judicial Review: Where a functional classification or cadre distinction has been deliberately evaluated and maintained by a Pay Commission, judicial intervention is not warranted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Income-tax Gazetted Officers Association (ITGOA)

Union of India

Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar, JJ.

SLP (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 61069 OF 2026^†

OCTOBER 26, 2026

Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Mishra, Sanand Ramakrishnan, Thomas Martin K., Sunil Narayanan and Sanish Cr, Advs. for the Petitioner.

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner (s), we are not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed, however, petitioner (s) may agitate their case before the 8th Pay Commission, in accordance with the procedure prescribed and undertaken by the Pay Commission.

INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 31.10.2026

Ashwani Kumar — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 04:54:06 +0000

INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 31.10.2026

Here is the structured table containing the legal details extracted from the provided text:

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 12AB	Sahulat Microfinance Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax	Rejection of fresh registration/renewal under section 12AB was justified where a society engaged in microfinance received major cash donations without donor identities and failed to substantiate genuineness of charitable activities.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 32	Zee Akaash News (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT/DCIT, Central	Where depreciation on office furniture was disallowed because the supplier failed to respond under section 133(6) and investigation reports were not shared with the assessee for rebuttal, the matter must be remitted for de novo consideration.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 36(1)(iii)	Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shriram Chits Tamiladu (P.) Ltd.	Overdraft interest cannot be disallowed for diversion of interest-bearing funds to interest-free loans when the assessee possesses sufficient surplus funds.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 36(1)(va)	Rajesh Maru v. NFAC, New Delhi	Late deposits of employees’ PF/ESIC contributions made after the statutory due dates are liable to be disallowed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 36(1)(vii)	Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shriram Chits Tamiladu (P.) Ltd.	Pumping in own funds by a chit fund company to cover defaults and ensure the continuity of the chit cycle can be treated as a bad debt.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)	Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shriram Chits Tamiladu (P.) Ltd.	Royalty paid for non-exclusive, non-transferable use of a trademark/logo for a specified period to expand business qualifies as allowable revenue expenditure.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 40A(7)	Commissioner of Income-tax v. Flowserve Sanmar Ltd.	Specific provision of section 40A(7)(b) regarding provisions made to an approved gratuity fund prevails over section 43B, making the deduction allowable without disallowance.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 43CA	Ladam Homes (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT	The retrospective 10 percent tolerance band applies as curative when selling flats below stamp duty value; differences falling within this band require deletion of additions.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 45	Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shantaben K. Patel	Where an arbitration award recognized trademark ownership and a ₹50 crore receipt was consideration for transferring intangible assets, it was not taxable as royalty, annuity, or capital gains due to unascertainable cost of acquisition.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 68	Rajesh Maru v. NFAC, New Delhi	Amounts reflected in Form 26AS representing mediclaim reimbursements and credit notes meant for reversal do not constitute income and additions made on them must be deleted.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 68 (r.w.s 148)	Chetan Sabharwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax	Reassessment initiated under section 148 was valid where an Investigation Unit reported that shares sold for capital gains were overvalued relative to underlying assets, constituting tangible material.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69A	Nadupatty Venkatachalam Jayaraman v. Income-tax Officer	Notice issued under section 148 in April 2022 for AY 2015-16 based on unexplained cash deposits was barred by limitation under the first proviso to section 149 and was quashed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 80JJAA	Aegis Customer Support Services (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	Where a deduction under section 80JJAA was raised for the first time during assessment proceedings via a revised computation and manual Form 10DA, the matter requires factual verification by the AO.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 148A	Vinay Harishkumar Bhansali v. Income-tax Officer	An order under section 148A(d) and consequential notice based on new issues (margin money/interest disallowance) not covered in the original show-cause notice are quashed as beyond permissible scope.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 263	Arulmigu Dharmarajar Thirukovil v. ITO	CIT(E) is justified in invoking section 263 to correct an erroneous quantification of interest by an appellate order that failed to address the correct quantum.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 271	Ritu Agarwal v. ACIT, Range-4	Penalty proceedings initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars but issued via a notice alleging concealment of income are void ab initio and must be quashed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)	Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shantaben K. Patel	Where the underlying quantum addition of ₹50 crores was deleted on merits, penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is not leviable.	Click here	Income-tax Act, 1961