Tribunals and Commissions judgments

ITAT Kolkata rules that when an assessee fails to prove the existence of suppliers, delivery, or transactional genuineness, the entire purchase amount is taxable as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The ruling underscores the burden of proof on taxpayers to substantiate transactions, even with banking evidence, to avoid full disallowance.

CESTAT Chennai rules that importers can rectify inadvertent errors in self-assessed Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, enabling refund claims under Section 27. This decision clarifies that non-claim of exemption notifications at the time of assessment does not bar subsequent corrections, offering relief to businesses facing duty overpayment due to oversight.

CESTAT Chennai rules that service tax recipients who filed returns under Section 71A within the extended period cannot be subjected to Section 73 demands, even for retrospective periods. The tribunal also denied interest, reinforcing procedural compliance over substantive liability in tax disputes.

ITAT Kolkata rules that cash repayments of prior advances do not constitute 'deposits' under Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, setting aside penalties imposed under Section 271D. The Tribunal emphasized the violation of natural justice principles, remanding the case for a fresh hearing with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

CESTAT Chennai rules that foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds do not attract service tax under the reverse charge mechanism, as Indian exporters are not 'service recipients' of such charges. This decision clarifies the scope of taxable services for exporters and prevents double taxation on cross-border banking transactions.

NCLAT clarifies that a corporate guarantor's liability under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code arises solely upon invocation of the guarantee, not the principal borrower's default date. The ruling reinforces Section 10A's moratorium protection, shielding guarantors from insolvency proceedings until the creditor enforces the guarantee deed.

NGT Central Zone Bench mandates compliance with Wetland Rules 2017 by directing sewage diversion, encroachment removal, and solid waste cleanup at Gauri Sarovar in Bhind, MP. The order underscores statutory obligations of local authorities to prevent irreversible ecological damage and public health hazards from untreated sewage and illegal dumping.

The National Green Tribunal has constituted a joint committee to investigate illegal sand mining in the Yamuna riverbed, citing violations of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 and Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020. The Tribunal ordered environmental compensation assessment and strict compliance with statutory guidelines, setting a precedent for regulatory enforcement in riverbed mining cases.

NCLAT rules that a bankrupt's travel permission under insolvency proceedings cannot be granted based on a lapsed purchase order, clarifying that 'parallel run' clauses require concurrent validity of contractual obligations. This sets a precedent for interpreting travel restrictions tied to active business engagements during personal insolvency.

NCLAT clarifies that a joint venture partner can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 9 IBC if its supply obligations are governed by a separate agreement, independent of profit-sharing arrangements. This ruling expands the scope of operational creditors, impacting joint venture contracts and insolvency filings.

CESTAT Chennai quashed a service tax demand on training services, ruling that double taxation on the same transaction under a franchisee agreement violates legal principles. The tribunal held the show cause notice defective for failing to specify the statutory basis, setting a precedent for franchisee-based service providers against dual tax liabilities.

NGT Central Zone Bench holds that framing policies on invasive species like Prosopis juliflora falls within the executive domain, and courts cannot intervene unless arbitrariness or illegality is established. The ruling reinforces the separation of powers, limiting judicial overreach in policy formulation affecting environmental governance.

ITAT Bangalore condoned a 114-day delay in filing an appeal and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer, emphasizing that ex-parte additions under Section 144 without considering the assessee’s health constraints violate procedural fairness. The ruling underscores the assessee’s right to submit evidence and mandates fresh adjudication where unexplained income additions were made without proper opportunity.

ITAT Bangalore rules that a charitable trust’s exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied solely due to a lost trust deed. The tribunal permits reinstatement of registration through a sworn affidavit and condonation of delay, ensuring trusts are not penalized for procedural lapses beyond their control.

ITAT Mumbai rules that the acquisition date for capital gains computation under Section 2(42A) of the Income Tax Act is the date of final, binding allotment and registration, not the issuance of provisional letters. This precedent clarifies the holding period calculation, impacting property transactions and tax liability assessments for taxpayers.

ITAT Delhi rules that Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act applies only when consideration is received in the assessment year of share allotment. Funds received earlier via Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCD) conversion do not attract tax on share premium, even if valuation is based on prior balance sheets. The ruling clarifies the timing of receipt for tax applicability under this provision.

CESTAT Chandigarh rules that denying an assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements form the basis of a tax demand violates natural justice and Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The ruling reinforces procedural safeguards in quasi-judicial proceedings, impacting tax assessments and CENVAT credit disputes.

ITAT Delhi holds that failure to pay tax under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 within the stipulated time renders the declaration invalid, making the disclosed income taxable in the year of declaration rather than the original assessment year. This ruling underscores the strict compliance requirement for availing amnesty benefits under the scheme.

ITAT Mumbai rules that issuing two reassessment orders under Section 147 for the same transaction in a single assessment year is legally impermissible. The second order renders the first infructuous, setting a precedent against procedural duplication in tax reassessment proceedings.

ITAT Mumbai ruled that the absence of a CBDT notification under Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act does not preclude a de novo assessment of exemption claims. The Tribunal set aside the denial of exemption and directed fresh adjudication, keeping all grounds open, including the assessee's claim of being a 'State' instrumentality under Article 289. This ruling clarifies that procedural pendency cannot defeat substantive rights to exemption.

CESTAT Bangalore ruled that an aerosol generator forming part of an integrated analytical system must be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 90278090, not 9032. The tribunal rejected the Department's reclassification and held that extended limitation cannot be invoked without concrete proof, setting a precedent for tariff disputes involving integrated systems.

CAT Jammu bench invokes Supreme Court precedent to mandate pay scale regularisation for power employees under SRO 149 of 1973, directing the UT of J&K to consider their representation within six weeks. The ruling reinforces the legal obligation of administrative authorities to align employee pay scales with established judicial directives, impacting service law compliance for government employees.

ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, ruling that notices issued under the old Section 148 provisions after 31.03.2021 are time-barred. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reinforcing strict compliance with limitation periods in tax reassessment proceedings.

CESTAT quashes excise demand and penalties, ruling that extended limitation under Section 11A(4) cannot be invoked if the department was fully aware of the transactions. The judgment reaffirms that suppression of facts must be deliberate for extended limitation to apply, impacting tax assessments where transparency exists.