SUPREME COURTCharitable Trust's Registration For Income Tax Exemption To Be Decided Based On Proposed Activities & Not Actual Activities : Supreme CourtCase Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS VERSUS M/S INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CARE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTECase no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 19528/2018The Supreme Court reiterated that when a charitable...
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS VERSUS M/S INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CARE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 19528/2018
The Supreme Court reiterated that when a charitable trust registers under Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) for income tax exemptions (under Sections 10 and 11), the tax authorities should check if the charity's proposed activities match its charitable goals, as stated in the Ananda Social case.
The Court, however, clarified that mere registration under Section 12-AA would not entitle a charitable trust to claim exemption under Sections 10 and 11 respectively of the Act, 1961, and the authorities can decline the grant of exemption if the materials produced by the trust does not seem convincing for grant of exemption.
Benefit Of Input Tax Credit Can't Be Reduced Without Statutory Sanction : Supreme Court
Case Title – State of Punjab & Ors. v. Trishala Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 2212 of 2024
The Supreme Court recently held that Rule 21(8) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which was notified on January 25, 2014, could not be applied to transactions before April 1, 2014, as the enabling amendment to Section 13 of the parent statute, the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, was effective from that date.
This means businesses that bought goods at a higher tax rate before this date are not subject to the limitation imposed by Rule 21(8) when claiming ITC, even if the tax rate was later lowered.
HIGH COURTS
Andhra Pradesh HC
Delay Of Two Days In Issuing GST Notice Can't Be Condoned: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s The Cotton Corporation of India v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC)
Case Number: W.P.No.1463 of 2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that delay of two days in issuing the GST notice cannot be condoned.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N. observed that “the time permit set out under 73(2) of the Act is mandatory and any violation of that time period cannot be condoned, and would render the show cause notice otiose.”
Bombay HC
Case Title: The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1041 OF 2012
The Bombay High Court stated that ITAT cannot overstep its authority by deciding on merits when it has already concluded an appeal was not maintainable.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “Once the ITAT concluded that the Appeal before it against the impugned communication/order was not “maintainable”, there was no question of the ITAT evaluating the impugned communication/order on its merits or making any observations or recording any findings regarding its validity or otherwise. Therefore, such observations and findings are without jurisdiction and should not have been made.”
Delhi HC
Case title: Gor Sharian v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1807/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department must ensure that the intimation of disposal of detained or confiscated property is given to the concerned party both via email as also the mobile number.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma reasoned this will ensure that a party who succeeded in Court or Tribunal against the detention of the property is not deprived of their properties.
Case title: Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Commissionerate, Gst Delhi West v. M/S Alkarma
Case no.: SERTA 3/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if a show cause notice is quashed by a higher authority on one issue, it doesn't mean that other issues raised in the SCN are not liable to be adjudicated.
The observation was made by the bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma in a case where the SCN was quashed by another division bench of the High Court so far as the issue relating to duty on free supply of materials was concerned. However, the CESTAT proceeded to discharge the entire SCN.
The Delhi High Court has held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) as contained under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned with the transfer of 'distinctive', 'specialized' knowledge, skill, expertise and know-how by a service provider.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus observed that assistance provided by the assessee-respondent with respect to rules and regulations for clearance of customs frontiers is not 'specialised knowledge' to make the service 'FTS'.
Case title: Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1662/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that after the closure of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer becomes 'functus officio' and to re-confer jurisdiction upon the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings, relevant incriminating material ought to be put to the assessee.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation while dealing with a writ petition filed by Vivo Mobiles, assailing the reassessment proceedings initiated against it under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case title: Tilak Raj Singh v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 772/2018
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in terms of the Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 an employee cannot change travel destination midway through the journey and if due to some unavoidable circumstance it has been changed, the same has to be a destination which is en route.
In the case at hand, LTC was originally sought for travel to Trivandrum, which was subsequently changed to Goa, via Mumbai. However, the petitioner decided midway to change his destination to certain hill stations in Uttarakhand.
Kerala HC
Case Title: The Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WA NO. 2300 OF 2015
The Kerala High Court has stated that cess levied on cinema tickets under Section 3C Of Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act is constitutionally Valid.
“Cess can also mean a tax levied for a special purpose or as an increment to the existing tax and, in given circumstances, a fee. In the case at hand, entertainment tax is already levied under the Act of 1961 and the Cess under Section 3C is an additional levy. Thus, the contention of the Assessee that under Entry 62 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, only tax can be levied, and Cess cannot be levied is without merit” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu.
Case Title: Centre C Edtech Private Limited v. The Intelligence Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 1934 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that illegal cash seizure by GST Department and handing over to Income Tax Department is illegal under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jyasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. held that “Cash amount seized from the premises of the assessee cannot be retained either by the GST Department of the State or the Income Tax Department prior to a finalisation of respective proceedings initiated by them.”
Case Title: Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) v. M/s Lakshmi Mobile Accessories
Case Number: W.A.NO.258 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that consolidated show cause notice involving multiple assessment years can be issued when common period of adjudication exists.
“Issuing a consolidated show cause notice covering various financial/assessment years would cause prejudice to an assessee who would not get the full period envisaged for adjudication under the Statute, if that period is circumscribed by the limitation period prescribed in relation to an earlier financial/assessment year” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) v. Minimol Sabu
Case Number: WA NO. 238 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that Article 226 cannot be invoked against a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act at preliminary stage.
“Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to be used to break the resistance of the Revenue in this fashion. In exercise of such jurisdiction, the High Court is required to refrain from issuing directions to the authorities under the taxation statute to decide issues in stages or on a preliminary basis,” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Telangana HC
Case title: M/s Diwakar Road Lines vs. The Union Of India and Others
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO: 19920/2020
A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Diwakar Road Lines challenging the rejection of an application to compound all previous service tax by way of a one-time settlement.
The bench held that even though the statute does not prescribe for the rejection of any application, the committee may reject an application when the documents relied upon are ingenuine.
TRIBUNALS
Two Or More Bills Of Entry Or Shipping Bills Cannot Be Taken Together And Assessed: CESTAT
Case Title: M/S Disha Realcon Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner of Customs Adjudication
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 54710 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that two or more bills of entry or shipping bills cannot be taken together and assessed.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “Two or more Bills of Entry or Shipping Bills cannot be taken together and assessed. The only exception made in the law are the Project Imports under Project Import Regulations, 1986.”
Transaction Value Is Not The Only Basis For Assessment Of Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Mittal Appliances Limited V. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51888 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the transaction value is not the only basis for assessment of the duty.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “transaction value is not the only basis for assessment of the duty. The Valuation Rules and Section 14 of the Act provide for rejection of transaction value. When rejecting the transaction value, the customs officer does not modify the transaction value but only rejects it as the assessable value for determination of the duty.”