Daily Tax Law Briefing – GST & Income Tax | 10 August 2026
Goods & Services Tax (GST) (2 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| DG ANTI PROFITEERING, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING, DGAP Versus ANUHAR HOMES PVT. LTD. & ORS.
NAPA/65/PB/2025
GST Appellate Tribunal
|
Proceedings arose from a complaint by a homebuyer alleging that Anuhar Homes Pvt. Ltd., developer of the residential project “Morning Raaga”, charged 12% GST but did not pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit through commensurate price reduction. Following investigation and subsequent re-investigation, DGAP determined that additional post-GST ITC benefit had accrued to the developer and quantified the alleged profiteering at Rs. 95,13,829, inclusive of GST. | The Tribunal held that Section 171(1) mandates passing additional ITC benefit to recipients through commensurate price reduction. The Respondent failed to rebut DGAP’s computation establishing profiteering of Rs. 95,13,829. Notification No. 19/2024-Central Tax merely bars fresh requests from 01.04.2025 and does not terminate pending proceedings; pendency of a challenge before the Supreme Court, without any stay, also does not prevent adjudication. The Respondent was directed to return Rs. 95,13,829 with 18% interest to eligible homebuyers within three months; no penalty was imposed since the contravention did not extend beyond 01.01.2020. Matter Disposed Of. |
| Mahapuja Ltd Through Its Director Keyur Jaswant Shah v. The Office of The Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise Mumbai Central Through Additional Commissioner
Writ Petition (L) No. 15871 of 2026
Bombay High Court
|
The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 17 March 2026 issued in Form GST DRC-07 under Rules 100(1), 100(2), 100(3) and 142(5) of the CGST Rules. Following search and seizure proceedings under Section 67, a show cause notice dated 26 June 2025 proposed disallowance of input tax credit under Section 16 and levy of tax and other dues, including penalty, aggregating approximately Rs. 6.50 crores. The petitioner alleged that seized and relied-upon documents were not furnished, resulting in denial of natural justice. | The Court held that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act and no exceptional circumstances justified exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. The order recorded that the show cause notice and relied-upon documents had been emailed to the petitioner on 28 June 2025 and again on 4 February 2026. The petitioner failed to identify any specific document allegedly withheld or demonstrate resulting prejudice. Mere invocation of natural justice cannot routinely bypass an efficacious statutory appellate remedy. Liberty was granted to file an appeal within four weeks from uploading of the judgment, subject to statutory requirements including pre-deposit. Writ Petition Disposed Of. |
Income Tax (3 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| MR. RAJESH R HEMRAJANI Vs. ITO INT. TAX WARD 2(2)(1)
ITA 1284/MUM/2025
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
|
The assessee, a UK resident and non-resident Indian employed with L&T Infotech Ltd., UK Branch, exercised 1,540 ESOPs at Re.1 per share and subsequently sold the shares for Rs.25,99,863. He adopted their fair market value on the exercise date as cost under Section 49(2AA), resulting in short-term capital loss of Rs.1,00,650. The Assessing Officer restricted cost to the exercise price and the DRP upheld this approach, leading to the assessee’s appeal. | The Tribunal held that Section 49(2AA) statutorily substitutes the fair market value taken into account under Section 17(2)(vi), read with Rule 3(8)(ii), as the cost of acquisition of ESOP shares. The provision does not require that the perquisite must actually have been taxed in India; its applicability cannot depend upon the jurisdiction in which the perquisite was taxed. Restricting cost to the Re.1 exercise price was contrary to Section 49(2AA). The AO was directed to recompute capital gains adopting fair market value as cost. Ground A was allowed; the jurisdictional ground was left academic. Appeal Allowed. |
| Siddhant Rastogi Versus Union Of India Thru. Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue And 2 Others
WRIT TAX No. – 949 of 2026
Allahabad High Court
|
The petitioner, a professional seafarer claiming non-resident status for Assessment Year 2024-25, challenged the assessment order dated 21.05.2026 under Sections 144C(3) read with 143(3) and consequential demand notice under Section 156. He claimed earlier notices were not received due to an incorrect e-mail address. After receiving the draft assessment order proposing income of Rs.79,63,350, he filed objections before the Assessing Officer but admittedly did not file them before the Dispute Resolution Panel. | The Court held that Section 144C(2)(b) mandatorily requires objections to a draft assessment order to be filed before both the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer, the word “and” requiring compliance with both. Since no objections were filed before the Panel, Section 144C(3) permitted completion of assessment on the basis of the draft order. No procedural infirmity was prima facie established, and an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 246A was available. Without examining the merits, the Court left all grounds open before the appellate authority. Petition Dismissed. |
| The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1) v. Viney Corporation Limited
ITA No. 16/Del/2022
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi
|
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing auto components, declared income of Rs.25,10,98,150 and was assessed under Section 143(3). For specified domestic transactions of Rs.41,52,40,079, the AO, without making a reference to the TPO, applied the preceding year’s 3.6% adjustment and added Rs.1,49,48,643. The CIT(A) quashed the assessment for failure to refer the matter to the TPO and issue a draft assessment order. The Revenue appealed before the Tribunal. | The Tribunal held that the AO ought to have referred determination of ALP to the TPO under Section 92CA(1) instead of determining it himself. However, following PCIT v. S.G. Asia Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd., such failure constituted a curable procedural irregularity rather than an illegality warranting quashing of the assessment. It therefore set aside both the CIT(A)’s order and the assessment order and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment, including appropriate reference to the TPO. Other additions were also restored for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity to the assessee. Revenue’s Appeal Partly Allowed for Statistical Purposes; Matter Remanded. |
