Case Law Archives - Tax Heal

GST CASE LAW DIGEST 06.06.2026

CA Satbir Singh — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 06:17:40 +0000

GST CASE LAW DIGEST 06.06.2026

Relevant Act	Section / Rule	Case Law Title	Citation	Brief Summary
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 69 / Section 132	Directorate General of GST Intelligence vs. Girish Sachdeva	Click Here	The High Court upheld that requiring a 7-day prior notice before making an arrest for circular trading and bogus ITC satisfies natural justice, rejecting the department’s push for a blanket restraint on such notices.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 73 / Limitation	Santosh Supplies vs. Union of India	Click Here	Issuing a single, composite Show Cause Notice (SCN) and order for multiple financial years in non-fraud cases is invalid. SCNs must be issued year-wise to respect individual period limitations and allow clear, period-specific rebuttals.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 16 / Section 74	MNS Enterprises vs. Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise	Click Here	Denial of cross-examination in a fraudulent ITC adjudication does not automatically invalidate the order. Since the allegations of fake ITC can be countered using documentary evidence, the petitioner should approach the regular statutory appellate remedy.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Rule 10A / Natural Justice	Huma Power & Tower (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Assam	Click Here	An ex parte cancellation of GST registration executed before the 30-day window expired from the date of the SCN (which alleged a Rule 10A breach) was quashed for violating statutory procedure and natural justice rules.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Rule 22(4)	MD. Nekib Hussain vs. Union of India	Click Here	Following the Dhirghat Hardware precedent, registration cancelled due to a 6-month non-filing of returns was allowed to be restored on the condition that the petitioner files all pending returns and clears all dues (tax, interest, penalty, and late fees).
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 125 vs. Section 47	NKR Traders vs. State Tax Officer	Click Here	Levying a general penalty alongside a specific late fee for delayed returns is unsustainable. Liability is strictly restricted to the late fee alone, and bank attachments must be lifted once the late fee is deposited.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 54 vs. Section 73/74	AWL Agri Business vs. State of Odisha	Click Here	The Department cannot directly use demand provisions to nullify a previously sanctioned refund order. Following Board Instruction No. 03/2022-GST, the department must use the appellate review mechanism, justifying interim protection for the taxpayer.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 73 / Limitation	Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Additional Director	Click Here	Reaffirming established precedents, a consolidated SCN covering six separate financial years for tax/ITC demands (without fraud elements) is unsustainable and was quashed; the Revenue must issue individual notices for each year.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017	Section 107	Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh	Click Here	For calculating the appeal limitation period, the date of communication declared by the assessee must be presumed correct unless the Revenue provides clear evidence proving an earlier physical or digital service date.

INCOME TAX CASE LAW 04.06.2026

CA Satbir Singh — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 06:21:14 +0000

INCOME TAX CASE LAW 04.06.2026

INCOME TAX CASE LAW 04.06.2026

Relevant Act	Section(s)	Case Law Title	Citation	Brief Summary
Income Tax Act, 1961	Sec. 80P, 80AC, 139	T943 Vickrapandiyam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax	Click Here	Rejection of condonation of delay applications solely for non-furnishing of particulars is unsustainable. Delay must be condoned to let assessments/appeals proceed regarding Sec. 80P deductions.
Income Tax Act, 1961	Sec. 37(1) (Business Expenditure)	Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Annai Builders Real Estate (P.) Ltd.	Click Here	Compensation paid by a real estate business for a cancelled land sale agreement is fully allowable as a business expenditure in the year incurred; it cannot be treated as part of project cost or work-in-progress.
Income Tax Act, 1961	Sec. 69	Income-tax Officer vs. Paresh Mulayamchand Panday	Click Here	Deletion of unexplained investment addition is warranted when payments for tenancy rights and additional area are clearly backed by bank statements, PPF records, and fund-flow statements.
Income Tax Act, 1961	Sec. 147, 148 / TOLA	Income-tax Officer vs. Maddila Ramakrishna	Click Here	Reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16 was rightly quashed as time-barred. TOLA extensions apply only if the limitation period falls between 20-03-2020 and 31-03-2021.
Income Tax Act, 1961	Sec. 5 (Scope of Total Income / Transfer Pricing)	Aston Shoes (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Central	Click Here	Commission earned by an overseas entity for procurement facilitation cannot be taxed in India as inflated purchases or undisclosed income without concrete evidence of fund diversion or repatriation to Indian assessees.
Income Tax Act, 1961	Sec. 80P(2)(a)(iii), 154 (Rectification)	National Agricultural Coop. Mkt. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax	Click Here	The Tribunal was legally justified in rectifying its prior order via a miscellaneous application to give effect to a subsequent retrospective amendment to Sec. 80P.
Income Tax Act, 1961	Sec. 37(1) (Business Expenditure)	Raunaq International Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax IN	Click Here	Disallowance of a corporate taxpayer’s car and telephone expenses for “personal use” is unsustainable without explicit proof that the expenses were unrelated to business, especially to maintain consistency with prior years.
Income Tax Act, 1961	Sec. 147, 148, 282	Anuradha Doshi vs. Income-tax Officer	Click Here	Serving a reassessment notice to an NRI at the address listed in their PAN or passport constitutes valid service. The Assessing Officer is not required to serve notices via the taxpayer’s bank.
Income Tax Act, 1961	Sec. 4 / 5 (Tax Revenue)	Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Pancard Clubs Ltd.	Click Here	Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s SLP, affirming that advance receipts from the sale of hotel room nights cannot be taxed as revenue income in the year of receipt.
Income Tax Act, 1961	Sec. 143, 144C, 153	Versuni India Home Solutions Ltd. vs. DCIT	Click Here	Mere signing of an assessment order within the limitation period does not equal “completion”. If the final order is delivered after the prescribed period, the assessment is time-barred.

INCOME TAX CASE LAW 03.06.2026

CA Satbir Singh — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 05:01:06 +0000

INCOME TAX CASE LAW 03.06.2026

INCOME TAX CASE LAW

Relevant Act	Section	Case Law Title	Citation	Brief Summary
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 2(24)	PREMAL P. PANDYA v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	Click Here	A whistleblower reward received from the US SEC after systematically collecting evidence of FCPA violations and active assistance with expectation of reward is taxable as income from other sources, not as a windfall gain or capital receipt.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 2(29A)	Maniti Jayesh Shah v. Income-tax Officer	Click Here	The period of holding for an immovable property is to be reckoned from the date of the allotment letter (which confers enforceable rights and substantial payment), not the registration date, making the gain a long-term capital gain.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 10B	Union of India v. N.P. Arora	Click Here	Disciplinary proceedings against an Assessing Officer are unjustified when an exemption under section 10B was allowed in a bona fide exercise of quasi-judicial functions following existing Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 56	Maniti Jayesh Shah v. Income-tax Officer	Click Here	Where office premises are purchased via allotment and part payment is made through banking channels, the stamp duty valuation as on the allotment date must be adopted under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B).
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 68	Soger Malleshappa Manjunath v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) NFAC	Click Here	Deposited Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during demonetization cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits if substantiated by cash books, VAT returns, and registers, as SBNs remained valid tender for bank deposits.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 68	Vikramkumar Kishanlal Mehta v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax	Click Here	Entire sale consideration cannot be added under section 68 when sales to an alleged accommodation entry provider are fully recorded in books, disclosed in GST returns, and routing happened through banking channels.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 68	Income-tax Officer v. Ashok Amritlal Nayak	Click Here	Receipts from sales alleged to be accommodation entries cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit if they are part of book turnover, profits have been offered to tax, and the books of accounts have not been rejected.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 251	Maniti Jayesh Shah v. Income-tax Officer	Click Here	If the CIT(A) adjudicates an issue on merits using additional evidence (allotment letter/bank statements), it is deemed admitted, and a formal refusal to admit the same under Rule 46A is legally unsustainable.
Income-tax Act, 1961	Section 271(1)(c)	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Akc Retailers (P.) Ltd.	Click Here	Failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the exact charge (whether concealment of income OR furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the penalty show-cause notice vitiates the proceedings and invalidates the penalty.

INCOME TAX CASE LAW 01.06.2026

CA Satbir Singh — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 05:25:05 +0000

INCOME TAX CASE LAW 01.06.2026

Income Tax Case Law Summary

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 10(23C)(iiiab)	Hidayatullah National Law University v. ACIT	Exemption denied as Government grants received during the year were only 47.85% (less than the 50% threshold mandated under Rule 2BBB), failing the requirement of being “wholly or substantially financed by Government.”	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 14A	Parle Biscuits (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT	Where an assessee had already disallowed direct expenses under Section 37 and offered a reasonable disallowance under Section 14A based on precedent, adding them again under Section 14A constitutes an impermissible double disallowance.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 37(1)	CIT v. National Agricultural Co-Op. Marketing Federation of India Ltd.	1. Interest provision deduction for an arbitral award is not allowable once the Supreme Court sets aside the basic award. 2. Expenses for gifts, boarding, and lodging for a General Body Meeting are allowable as business expenditure, which must be construed broadly.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 68	ITO v. Aashna Developers (P.) Ltd.	Matter remanded for fresh adjudication because the AO failed to independently verify the repayment of an unsecured loan through banking channels and payment of interest after TDS, despite the assessee furnishing all primary documents.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69A	Montage Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT	Cash addition deleted where cash found during a search matched contemporaneous bank entries. Since undisclosed profit was already estimated on turnover, telescoping was rightly allowed.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69A	Pradeep Tyagi HUF v. ITO	A cash deposit addition of Rs. 1 crore is unsustainable and liable to be deleted if the Assessing Officer fails to specify the exact charging section for making the addition.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 69C	Montage Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT	Separate addition for alleged RTGS commission cannot be sustained when higher authorities have already treated the underlying RTGS amounts as recorded sales made through traders.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 143	Parle Biscuits (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT	If a tax audit report quantifies a disallowance that the assessee fails to add back in the ITR, the CPC has the prima facie jurisdiction to propose an adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)(iv).	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 145	Montage Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT	Upon rejection of books post-search, the Gross Profit (GP) rate should be based on an industrial average of relevant comparable companies (4.315% applied here) rather than non-comparable direct importers.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 149	Sunil Bhalla v. DCIT	The time period between the issuance of a Section 148A(b) notice and a deferred/deemed reply date must be excluded when calculating the limitation period for issuing a reassessment notice.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 194LA	Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Ltd. v. Shakuntalabai	Land acquisition compensation disbursed via a court-referred mediation agreement (under Section 89 CPC / Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC) must be released without deducting TDS.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 201	State Bank of India Currency Administration Cell v. ITO	A bank cannot be treated as an “assessee in default” for not deducting TDS on the foreign leg of LTC/LFC journeys when it acted under binding, clear interim directions from the High Court during that period.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 254	Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. ITO (TDS)	Recall applications under Rule 24 rejected where the assessee sought to recall ex-parte orders after 14 years without providing an explanation for non-appearance, satisfying the presumption of due service.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 254	PCIT v. Vishwanath Singhal	Revenue’s appeal regarding an organized tax evasion scheme using brokers falls under the exception clause ‘h’ of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, meaning it must be adjudicated on its merits by the ITAT despite low tax effects.	Click Here	Income-tax Act, 1961

GST CASE LAWS 29.5.2026

CA Satbir Singh — Sat, 30 May 2026 06:21:58 +0000

GST CASE LAWS 29.5.2026

Relevant Act	Section	Case Law Title	Citation	Brief Summary
Integrated GST Act, 2017	Section 2	Fateh Education Consulting (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner	Click Here	Marketing and recruitment support services provided directly to foreign universities (without authority to bind them or collect student fees) are not “intermediary” services. IGST refund on export of services is allowable with statutory interest.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 9	M S Ajab Singh and Co. v. Commissioner of CGST	Click Here	Writ petition entertained to determine whether the Delhi Jal Board qualifies as a “local authority” for a 12% GST rate on works contract services; SCN proceedings stayed pending adjudication.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 16	Carefil Technology v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise	Click Here	Retrospective legislative amendments to Section 16 cure ITC demands that were based solely on the grounds of belated availment under the limitation clause since the inception of the GST regime. Remanded for merits review.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 29	Hem Chandra Sharma v. State of Assam	Click Here	Cancellation of registration based on a vague SCN that failed to specify the default period or provide clear reasons is illegal and violates statutory requirements, even if the assessee failed to reply.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 29	Mahendra Gurung v. Union of India	Click Here	Registration cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months can be restored by the proper officer under Rule 22(4) upon the petitioner’s commitment to file pending returns and pay all dues, interest, and late fees.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 54	Zoetis Pharmaceutical Research (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra	Click Here	Non-speaking orders rejecting ITC refunds on zero-rated R&D services, where a corrigendum arbitrarily altered the rejection basis to treat the petitioner as an “agent,” were quashed and sent back for readjudication.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 65	Ess Ess Enterprises and Electronics FF v. Union of India	Click Here	Post-audit adjudication and recovery initiated by a State Tax Officer (STO) are valid under the statutory audit mandate once unpaid tax or wrongful credit is detected and the registered person is put on notice.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 73	Ess Ess Enterprises and Electronics FF v. Union of India	Click Here	An ex parte demand order is valid if the assessee was given sufficient opportunity (30 days plus a 13-day extension) but failed to attend the scheduled hearing, file a reply, or seek an adjournment.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 73	Zoetis Pharmaceutical Research (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra	Click Here	SCNs issued for recovering alleged erroneous ITC refunds without considering the assessee’s request for time and proposed submissions violate the principles of natural justice; matter remanded.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 73	Janardan Panda v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax & GST	Click Here	Passing an order on pre-mining royalty charges by presuming no reply was filed, and failing to provide a personal hearing despite an explicit request and subsequent rectification application, violates natural justice. Orders quashed.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 74	Bharat Kumar Agarwal v. Joint Commissioner (AE)	Click Here	Where a composite DRC-07 was issued jointly against a company and its unregistered Managing Director, the revenue must issue separate revised DRC-07 forms via temporary registration to enable independent statutory appeals.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 74	Commissioner of Central Tax v. Chimney Hills Education Society	Click Here	A consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years is legally valid, as demand provisions allow notice for “any period” and do not mandate fiscal-year-wise separation, causing no prejudice to the assessee.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 74	Commissioner of Central Tax v. Chimney Hills Education Society	Click Here	In a multi-year consolidated SCN, periods must be tested independently for limitation. The extended period for “fraud” requires specific evidence, whereas non-fraud periods fall under the shorter limitation window.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 83	Stunning Dentistry v. Union of India	Click Here	Provisional bank account attachment conditionally lifted during an ongoing investigation upon the petitioner depositing a Rs. 1.5 crore fixed deposit with the Registrar General to safeguard revenue interests.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 107	Ess Ess Enterprises and Electronics FF v. Union of India	Click Here	A writ petition challenging an SCN or demand order is not maintainable if no exceptional grounds (like a patent lack of jurisdiction or violation of fundamental rights) are shown; statutory appeal is the proper remedy.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 113	DG Anti Profiteering v. LIC HFL Care Homes Ltd.	Click Here	Rectification application allowed to amend a final order that omitted GST on the per sq. ft. anti-profiteering benefit for flat owners, clarifying computation to include 12% (totaling Rs. 86.12 per sq. ft.).
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 140	Zakir Steel v. Joint Commissioner (insitu)	Click Here	Denial of transitioned ITC on closing stock (via TRAN-01) without cross-verifying subsequent GST returns or GSTR-2A is unsustainable. Physical stock availability on the appointed day must be factually compared.
Central GST Act, 2017	Section 160	Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner	Click Here	Assessment orders lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN) carry a sufficient jurisdictional irregularity to invalidate the assessment. Orders set aside subject to an appropriate deposit.