Daily Tax Law Briefing – GST & Income Tax | 03 September 2026
Goods & Services Tax (GST) (4 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations v. CGST Delhi East, Commissioner, ITO & Ors.
APL/10/DEL/2026
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi
|
The appellant, an educational body conducting ICSE/ISC examinations and granting school affiliations, challenged the appellate order sustaining GST on certain affiliation, annual registration and related charges. Proceedings originated from an inspection under Section 67(1) and SCN dated 18.01.2024 proposing demands under Sections 73 and 74 for July 2017 to November 2023. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly granted relief but sustained tax on specified receipts, leading to the present appeal. | The Tribunal held that affiliation/form processing charges from 18.06.2021 to November 2023 and annual registration/late registration charges from September 2018 to November 2023 were taxable, while allowing cum-tax benefit. Invocation of Section 74 for July 2017–August 2018 was set aside, as were consequential demand and penalty for that period. Penalty under Section 122(2)(a) was confined to sustained tax demands; ₹25,000 penalty under Section 125 and applicable Section 50 interest were upheld. Liability was directed to be recomputed accordingly. Order under Appeal Modified. |
| M/s N. R. Builders Versus Commissioner of commercial taxes, Karnataka Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Karnataka
APL/2/BUR/2026
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru
|
M/s N. R. Builders challenged the appellate order dated 07.11.2024 affirming a demand arising from mismatch between ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and reflected in GSTR-2A for FY 2018-19. The Proper Officer had confirmed excess ITC of ₹2,33,502, interest of ₹2,03,730 and penalty of ₹23,350 under Section 73. The appellant contended that the disputed credit pertained to FY 2017-18 but was availed in FY 2018-19 within the permissible period and that no personal hearing was granted. | The Tribunal held that ITC could not be disallowed merely on a year-wise GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch without invoice-wise verification of the appellant’s claim concerning FY 2017-18 credit. It further held that Section 75(4) mandates personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, and its denial vitiated the Order-in-Original. However, absence of ASMT-10 did not invalidate proceedings initiated independently under Section 73. Both orders were set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication, invoice-wise verification and personal hearing, with a reasoned order to be passed within twelve weeks. Matter Remanded. |
| M/S VLEADIT & ANR. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI WEST & ORS.; M/S. RAHUL AND SONS HUF & ANR. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI WEST & ORS.
W.P.(C) 12148/2026; W.P.(C) 5761/2026
Delhi High Court
|
The petitioners challenged the common Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2025, rectified on 25.06.2026, passed against 629 firms and individuals following investigation into alleged fake invoices without actual supply of goods and consequent ineligible ITC. Their names appeared at Serial Nos. 616 and 618 respectively. They contended that no role was attributed to them in the SCN dated 30.06.2025, their detailed replies were not considered, and they were allegedly involved only in a single transaction with M/s. Sahuwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. | The Court held that questions whether the petitioners’ replies to the SCN were duly considered and what precise role was attributable to them involved detailed and disputed questions of fact appropriately examinable by the Appellate Authority. The decision in M/s. ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. was distinguished since it concerned an individual assessee rather than a common adjudication involving over 600 entities. In view of the efficacious statutory appellate remedy, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioners to appeal. Writ Petitions Disposed Of. |
| M/s. Mehadia & Sons C & F Division, through its Partner Mr. Sharda R. Mehadia vs. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur-II, Nagpur and ors.
Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2026
Bombay High Court
|
The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 24.04.2025 issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act for FYs 2021-22 to 2023-24, alleging suppression of taxable value and consequent short payment of CGST. The principal challenge was that a single notice could not validly consolidate multiple financial years/tax periods. The respondents defended such consolidation by relying upon Delhi High Court decisions permitting consolidated notices in appropriate cases. | The Court followed its Division Bench decisions in Milroc Good Earth Developers and Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd., holding that the CGST statutory scheme contemplates separate tax periods and year-specific limitation, leaving no scope for consolidating different financial years/tax periods in one notice under Section 73. Dismissal in limine of the SLP against the contrary Delhi High Court view did not result in merger. The SCN dated 24.04.2025 was quashed, with liberty to issue fresh notice strictly under Section 73, subject to law. Petition Partly Allowed; Show Cause Notice Set Aside. |
Income Tax (5 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| DCIT CC-8(3), Mumbai Vs. Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Ltd.
ITA No.2503/Mum/2026
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
|
Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)’s order dated 30.12.2025 deleting three additions arising from assessment under Section 143(3): ₹43,32,82,200 under Section 56(2)(x) concerning buy-back of the assessee’s own shares at ₹40 per share against FMV of ₹595.49; ₹43,34,444 disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii) concerning interest-free advances; and ₹12,60,17,125 representing loans and advances written off and claimed as bad debts under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2). | The Tribunal held that buy-back of a company’s own shares culminating in mandatory extinguishment does not constitute receipt of “property” under Section 56(2)(x), and upheld deletion of ₹43.32 crore. The Section 36(1)(iii) disallowance was unsustainable because the assessee possessed sufficient own funds and no nexus with borrowed funds was established. The bad-debt deduction was also upheld since the loans arose from a regular and organised lending business, were actually written off, and satisfied Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2)(i). All Revenue grounds were dismissed. Revenue’s Appeal Dismissed. |
| DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru Vs. Pronomz Ventures LLP
ITA 1702/BANG/2025
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore
|
The assessee, an LLP engaged in financial consultancy, advisory and investment activities, claimed finance cost of ₹104,622,906. The Assessing Officer found that borrowed funds were used for investments and interest-free advances and disallowed the interest under Section 36(1)(iii), passing the assessment under Section 143(3) on 30 March 2022. The CIT(A)-15, Bangalore deleted the disallowance, against which the Assessing Officer appealed before the Tribunal. | The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in strategic investments for acquiring or maintaining controlling interests and that the borrowed capital was used for its business purposes. Under Section 36(1)(iii), “for the purposes of business” is wider than merely earning profits, and commercial expediency governs deductibility. Further, where sufficient interest-free funds are available, investments may be presumed to have been made therefrom. The disallowance of ₹104,622,906 was therefore unsustainable and the CIT(A)’s order was upheld. All grounds were dismissed. Assessing Officer’s Appeal Dismissed. |
| R M Bhuther And Co. Vs. DCIT (CEN) 5(1), Mumbai
ITA No.2235/Mum/2026 & 2236/Mum/2026
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
|
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in builders and developers business, filed two appeals arising from separate reassessments for A.Y. 2016-17. The first involved addition of ₹14.38 crore under Section 68 for unsecured loans from thirteen entities. The second involved 30% ad hoc disallowance of business expenditure of ₹32,06,980, interest disallowance of ₹9,39,288 relating to two such loans, tax treatment of gain on sale of Shop No.8 and consequential set-off of current-year business loss. | The Tribunal held that confirmations, tax particulars, audited financial statements, ledgers and banking records sufficiently discharged the assessee’s initial burden under Section 68, while Revenue produced no transaction-specific material rebutting them; hence ₹14.38 crore was deleted. Consequently, interest of ₹9,39,288 was deleted. The 30% ad hoc expenditure disallowance was also deleted for want of any identified defect or rational basis. Gain on Shop No.8 was held taxable as capital gains, with eligible current-year business loss to be set off under Section 71(2). ITA No.2235/Mum/2026 Allowed; ITA No.2236/Mum/2026 Partly Allowed. |
| Shri Mukul Rohatgi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-61(1), New Delhi
ITA No.3714/Del/2026
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi
|
The assessee challenged the PCIT’s revisional order dated 27.03.2026 under Section 263 concerning assessment framed under Sections 143(3) read with 144B. The PCIT proposed revision principally regarding annual letting value of various immovable properties. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had examined the properties and their professional use and that the Section 263 proceedings were also without jurisdiction because the notice was issued by an officer who had already been promoted and formally posted as CCIT. | The Tribunal held that the Section 263 notice issued in the capacity of PCIT after the concerned officer had become and joined as CCIT, without an order under Section 120(2) authorising exercise of PCIT functions, was without jurisdiction. On merits also, the Assessing Officer had made adequate enquiries and adopted a plausible view regarding ALV; properties genuinely used for professional purposes attracted no ALV under Section 22, while gifted properties were no longer owned by the assessee. The PCIT identified no material error or requisite further enquiry. The revisional order was quashed. Appeal Allowed. |
| The JCIT, Special Range, Panaji, Goa Vs. Chowgule & Company Private Limited
ITA Nos. 23, 43, 24, 25, 26, 27 & 44/PAN/2020; C.O. Nos. 1 to 5/PAN/2020 and C.O. No. 1/PAN/2021; ITA No. 36/PAN/2020
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji
|
Revenue’s appeals for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2014-15 and 2016-17 arose from separate CIT(A), Panaji-1 orders concerning assessments under Section 143(3). The assessee also filed a cross-appeal and cross-objections. The disputes covered depreciation, Section 14A disallowance, demurrage, business advances, infrastructure contribution, education/training and temple expenditure, stamp duty on mining-lease renewal, dumping conversion charges, goodwill depreciation, interest and foreign travel expenses. The matters were heard on merits following remand by the Bombay High Court at Goa. | The Tribunal adjudicated the issues separately, substantially affirming the CIT(A), including allowance of depreciation on Todou plant, demurrage expenses, business advances written off, GIDC contribution, training expenditure, compensatory afforestation, consultancy charges, obsolete stock, dry-docking expenses, stamp duty on renewal of mining lease, dumping conversion charges and goodwill depreciation. It sustained 15% disallowance of temple-related expenditure and 10% of foreign travel expenses, and allowed the assessee’s claim concerning ₹1.43 crore alleged unaccounted transaction and 50% depreciation on commercial vehicles. Revenue appeals for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014-15 and 2016-17 were partly allowed; A.Y. 2009-10 appeal dismissed; assessee’s ITA No.36/PAN/2020 allowed; specified cross-objections were partly allowed/dismissed. |