Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 30 – July 06, 2025
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Case Title: Bajaj Auto Restricted v. Dy. Commissioner of Earnings Tax
Case Quantity: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.505 OF 2003
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom has acknowledged that gross sales tax incentive beneath a authorities scheme for industrial promotion is a capital receipt, not taxable.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne had been addressing the difficulty of whether or not an incentive acquired in gross sales tax legal responsibility beneath a Scheme formulated by the State Authorities could be on the capital account, exempt from taxation, or on the income account, chargeable for taxation.
Delhi HC
Payments Made To AWS For Cloud Computing Services Not Taxable: Delhi High Court
Case Title:THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES
Case no.: ITA 150/2025
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held that funds made to Amazon Internet Providers (AWS) for cloud computing providers don’t qualify as “royalty.”
The bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia, upheld the Earnings Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT) determination which held that such funds will not be taxable as royalties or charges for technical providers (FTS). The Courtroom referred to earlier judgments to emphasise the distinction between transferring mental property rights and easily giving entry to standardized digital providers. It dismissed the enchantment, highlighting the important thing distinction between entry to digital assets and possession or management over them.
Case title: Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi v. Shyam Spectra Personal Restricted
Case no.: SERTA 5/2025
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has reiterated that an enchantment from CESTAT beneath the Central Excise Act 1944 involving the difficulty of taxability will lie earlier than the Supreme Courtroom beneath Part 35L. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta dominated that such an enchantment, even on a restricted level of limitation, won’t lie earlier than the Excessive Courtroom beneath Part 35G.
It noticed, “Even when the query of limitation has been raised, the Courtroom has to enter the deserves of the matter after a call on the query of limitation is made. The maintainability of the enchantment must be examined on the mentioned benchmark…The plain conclusion could be that if this Courtroom holds that the SCN was throughout the limitation, the difficulty of taxability must be gone into.”
Case title: M/S Impartial Information Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11601/2024
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom on Wednesday put aside the reassessment motion initiated towards journalist Rajat Sharma’s firm, M/S Impartial Information Service Pvt. Ltd., which owns and runs the India TV channel, over alleged international remittances.
The discover was issued following a survey performed by the Earnings Tax Division on the J&Okay Financial institution again in 2019, revealing that the corporate had made international remittances amounting to ₹6,50,84,454/- throughout AY 2017-18, which didn’t tally with the quantities mirrored in its financial institution assertion.
Case title: M/S Shreehari Ananta Abroad Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Customs Icd Patparganj
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8788/2025
Coming to the rescue of an importer, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom has put aside the safety of ₹10 crore (approx) demanded by the Customs Division for provisional launch of its perishable items.
Calling the situation ‘onerous’, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered provisional launch of Petitioner’s imported Roasted Areca Nuts on furnishing bond of Rs.4.10 crore together with a Financial institution Assure of Rs. 50 lakh.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Earnings Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 192/2025
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has dismissed an enchantment most popular by the Earnings Tax Division towards Thomson Press (India) over the sale of a property in Noida again in 2013, allegedly at a worth a lot decrease than the prevailing circle price.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia famous that the registered settlement to promote and fee of stamp responsibility with respect to the property transaction had been already accomplished by the date when the circle price of the world in query was enhanced.
Gujarat HC
Case Title: Commissioner of Earnings Tax (Worldwide Taxation and switch Pricing v. M/s Adani Wilmar Ltd.
Case Quantity: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 514 of 2024
The Gujarat Excessive Courtroom acknowledged that DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Settlement) prevails over Part 206AA of Earnings Tax Act for TDS on funds to non-residents with out PAN.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi was addressing the appeals pertains to alleged brief deduction of TDS and elevating demand by invoking provisions of part 206AA of the Earnings Tax Act, 1961.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: B S Gupta AND The Commissioner & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 46688 OF 2017
The Karnataka Excessive Courtroom has put aside an commercial tax demand discover issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to an academic establishment for displaying non-commercial signage and boards by itself property.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus whereas permitting the petition filed by BS Gupta, Secretary of Gupta Training Belief, who had challenged the legality/validity of the order issued by BBMP, beneath Part 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Company Act, 1976.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO. 19789 OF 2025
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has acknowledged that items confiscated beneath Part 130 GST Act might be launched throughout pendency of enchantment if not but auctioned.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the case the place the grievance of the assessee/petitioner is towards confiscation order handed by the Enforcement Officer/2nd respondent, beneath Part 130 of the GST Act.
Case Title: Geetha Okay.Okay v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO.9318 OF 2025
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom acknowledged that evaluation proceedings towards deceased individual invalid with out discover to authorized heirs beneath Part 93 CGST Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. addressed the difficulty the place the spouse of the deceased, challenged the GST DRC-07 abstract order issued within the identify of her deceased husband.
Case Title: Asgar Ali v. Union of India
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO. 27856 OF 2022
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom acknowledged that absence of an specific reference to the conveyance within the confiscation order doesn’t exclude it from confiscation.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. acknowledged that merely due to the explanation that, whereas ordering the confiscation within the order, the conveyance was not particularly included, it can’t be assumed that, the conveyance of the assessee was exonerated from the confiscation proceedings.
Case Title: Ison George v. State of Kerala
Case Quantity: WA NO. 753 OF 2020
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom acknowledged that luxurious tax beneath Part 5A Of Kerala Constructing Tax Act is constitutionally legitimate submit a hundred and first Modification to the Structure however a requirement that extends to greater than three years previous to the date of the demand discover can’t be legally sustained.
Justices A.Okay. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “Entry 49 of Listing II of the seventh Schedule to the Structure offers with ‘taxes on lands and buildings’ and as long as the cost beneath Part 5A of the Kerala Constructing Tax Act might be traced to the ability of the State Legislature beneath Article 246 r/w Entry 49 of the Listing II of seventh Schedule to the Structure, the argument towards legislative competitiveness should essentially fail.”
Case Title: M/s Cappithan Businesses v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Quantity: CUS. APPEAL.NO.1 OF 2024
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom acknowledged that no proper to reinstatement of customs dealer license after breach of belief with customs division.
Justices A.Okay. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj acknowledged that “…..the connection between the Customs Division and the Customs Dealer appointed when it comes to the Laws is actually considered one of belief. As soon as that belief is damaged, and the Customs Dealer ceases to encourage the boldness of the Customs Division in relation to his functioning, he loses the best to hunt a reinstatement of his license beneath the Laws.”
Case Title: M/s Premier Marine Meals v. Union of India
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO.46801 OF 2024
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom acknowledged that customs can’t depend on Sec. 122A to disclaim private listening to obligatory beneath Part 28(8) of the Customs Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. after analysing Part 28(8) of the Customs Act noticed that it’s evident that, so far as private listening to is anxious, it’s made obligatory as per the availability. Since this can be a particular provision offers with the difficulty readily available, the reliance positioned by the division upon Part 122A, which is a basic provision, can’t be made relevant to the case.
Case Title: Manu Valiyaveettil Madhu v. Further Commissioner of Customs
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO. 42612 OF 2024
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom acknowledged that service of discover on the grownup member of noticee is legitimate beneath Part 153 Of Customs Act, 1962 which outlines the modes of service for notices, orders, summons, and different communications beneath the Act and its guidelines.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. acknowledged that “the contentions that the assessee was denied a correct alternative to contest the matter can’t be accepted. The discover was served upon the assessee by the aged member of the household is admitted and later, a chance to look by digital mode was availed by the assessee. By using the mentioned alternative, the assessee appeared earlier than the adjudicating officer involved and supplied his rationalization with out elevating any competition with regard to the non-receipt of present trigger discover or denial of alternative to submit an evidence to the present trigger discover.”
Case Title: Mr. Thomas Joseph v. Union of India
Case Quantity: WA NO. 430 OF 2025
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has allowed the settlement utility beneath Part 245A of the Earnings Tax Act filed past cutoff date, whereas citing Supreme Courtroom’s COVID limitation order.
Justices A.Okay. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj referred to the order of Supreme Courtroom in MA. Nos.665 of 2021 [In Re Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation] and acknowledged that the assessee had filed the appliance for settlement on 17.03.2022, which is effectively throughout the time granted by the Supreme Courtroom being attentive to the Covid pandemic state of affairs.
Case Title: Salim Aboobacker v. The Earnings Tax Officer
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO. 12164 OF 2023
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom held that proceedings beneath Part 148A of Earnings Tax Act not sustainable if escaped earnings is under Rs. 50 lakhs and see issued after 3-years.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. acknowledged that “when the order of the assessing authority is discovered to be with out jurisdiction and hit by the interval of limitation, it isn’t essential to relegate the get together involved to endure the rigor of the statutory proceedings”.
Case Title: Sherly Thomas Nalpathamkalam v. State of Kerala
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2023
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom acknowledged that occupancy certificates not last for plinth space dedication beneath Part 6 of the Kerala Constructing Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the difficulty the place problem raised by the assessee was towards the evaluation of constructing tax and luxurious tax, by primarily putting reliance upon Occupancy Certificates.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title: M/s Hindustan Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P.
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION No. 12770 of 2021
The Madhya Pradesh Excessive Courtroom acknowledged that taxpayers with pending appeals are eligible for 50% aid beneath the 2020 Samadhan Scheme (The Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Puranee Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Adhyadesh, 2020).
Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi noticed that the assessee’s case is pending earlier than the appellate authority, and the division wrongly thought of the case of the assessee beneath Class 1 of Part 4(1) of the Ordinance, which offers with the quantity associated to the statutory certificates/declaration.
Madras Excessive Courtroom
Case Title: M/s. Adyar Gate Lodge Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Quantity: C.M.A. Nos.71 & 131 of 2025
The Madras Excessive Courtroom acknowledged that customs division sure by DGFT’s classification of capital items beneath EPCG scheme (export promotion capital items scheme).
The Division Bench consists of Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar noticed that “there isn’t a justification within the Division having made the assessee litigate the difficulty needlessly regardless of the CBEC having categorically confirmed as early as in 2002 that the Customs Division should align with the stand of the DGFT and DG (Tourism) in issues of imports by inns. The licence the place the imports have been categorized as ‘capital items’ has not been revoked or withdrawn and it’s no person’s case that the licence has been obtained on a wrongful or fraudulent foundation.”
Orissa HC
Reconstituted GSTAT Selection Committee Has Power To Restart Process Afresh: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Pranaya Kishore Harichandan v. Union of India
Case Quantity: W.P.(C) No.15220 of 2025
The Orissa Excessive Courtroom held that the reconstituted GSTAT (Central Items and Providers Tax Appellate Tribunal) choice committee has the authority to restart the whole appointment course of.
“…….Mere providing the candidature in a public employment doesn’t create indefeasible or inchoate proper into the appointment. Even an individual, whose identify is included within the choose record, can’t declare a vested proper on appointment. It’s throughout the prerogative of the Committee or the Appointing Authorities to nominate an individual to a submit topic to the achievement of the varied standards envisaged within the statutory provisions” opined the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman.
TRIBUNALS
Case title: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50727 OF 2021
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has held that lithium-ion batteries used for the manufacture of cell phones as much as March 31, 2020 would entice 12% GST.
A Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) added that if lithium-ion batteries weren’t used within the manufacture of cell phones, they might entice 28% GST as much as July 26, 2018 and 18% GST thereafter till March 31, 2020.
HIV Test Kits Qualify As Life-Saving Diagnostic Kits; Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Cepheid India Personal Restricted v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Quantity: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52186 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has acknowledged that HIV-VL take a look at kits qualify as life-saving diagnostic kits and is eligible for customs responsibility exemption.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has noticed that the HIV-VL take a look at kits are “life-saving diagnostic kits” used for detection and prognosis of HIV-virus in a human physique.
Case Title: M/s Goldstar Glasswares Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Quantity: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52752 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has acknowledged that bonafide declaration of worth of products cannot be handled as suppression merely for being incorrect.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has noticed that the declaration of the worth of products was a bonafide declaration and merely as a result of it’s finally discovered to be incorrect won’t imply that the valuation was with a nasty motive not declared appropriately. Penalty beneath sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act couldn’t, due to this fact, have been imposed upon the assessee.
Case Title: Shri Rahul Agarwal v. Commissioner CGST, Customs & Central Excise, Jabalpur
Case Quantity: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50395 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has acknowledged that building sub-contractor can’t escape service tax legal responsibility when essential contractor is taxable.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has acknowledged that the development of residential complexes was not exempt from service tax responsibility. Therefore, the sub-contractors had been liable to discharge their service tax legal responsibility on such providers supplied by them to the principle contractor.
Notional Cost Of Maruti’s Free Designs Supplied To Vendors Not Dutiable Under Central Excise: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Bosch Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, New Delhi
Case Quantity: Excise Enchantment No. of 50587 of 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has acknowledged that notional price of Maruti’s free designs provided to distributors not dutiable beneath Central Excise.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the difficulty whether or not the notional price of drawings and designs provided freed from price by Maruti to the seller ought to be included within the assessable worth of elements or elements manufactured by vendor and cleared to Maruti for the aim of fee of central excise responsibility.
CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely On Income Tax Data In Form 26AS
Case Title: M/s Shree Ganesh Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Items & Service Tax & Central Excise, Indore
Case Quantity: Service Tax Enchantment No. 50211 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has acknowledged that the service tax demand can’t be primarily based solely on Earnings Tax Knowledge in Kind 26AS with out establishing receipt of consideration.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) acknowledged that “Income can’t increase the demand on the premise of distinction within the figures mirrored within the ST-3 returns and people mirrored in Kind 26AS with out analyzing the explanations for mentioned distinction and with out establishing that the whole quantity acquired by the appellant as mirrored within the Kind 26AS is the consideration for providers supplied and with out analyzing whether or not the distinction was due to any exemption or abatement”.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Restricted v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Quantity: Excise Enchantment No. 55256 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has acknowledged that curiosity on delayed refund is statutorily mandated after 3 months beneath Part 11BB Of Central Excise Act.
Part 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates that if an obligation refund just isn’t processed inside three months from the receipt of an utility, the applicant is entitled to curiosity on the delayed quantity. It empowers Central Authorities to repair price between 5-30% by notification. Notification 67/2003 validly issued fixing 6% price.
Case Title: M/s. Mondelez India Meals Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Quantity: Excise Enchantment No. 50720 of 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has acknowledged that ‘perk’ merchandise are ‘wafer biscuits’, not sweets and are entitled to the good thing about the exemption notification.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) had been addressing the difficulty of whether or not Perk, ULTA Perk, Perk Poppers and Wafer Uncoated Reject manufactured by the assessee are classifiable beneath Excise Tariff Merchandise 1905 32 11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or beneath ETI 1905 32 90.
