#Tax Law

ITAT Agra held that a government polytechnic could claim Section 10(23C)(iiiad) exemption for AY 2020-21 without filing a Section 139(4C) return, as the filing condition was introduced only by the Finance Act 2022 amendment. The ruling confirms pre-amendment non-filing was not a condition precedent, aiding institutions that missed prior deadlines.

ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment beyond three years under Section 148 mandates PCCIT or CCIT sanction under Section 151; PCIT approval is jurisdictionally invalid. The tribunal quashed a notice where only PCIT approval was obtained, reinforcing the strict hierarchy for time-barred proceedings and protecting taxpayers from procedurally flawed orders.

The Bombay HC quashed reassessment for AY 2020-21, ruling a Section 148A(1) notice invalid where mandatory information was furnished post-limitation. On merits, the Court held Section 56(2)(x) inapplicable to proportionate rights allotments with unchanged shareholding and no disproportionate benefit - a mere issue price vs. FMV differential is not taxable in such cases.

Advocates providing legal services are exempt from service tax under Notifications 25/2012-ST and 30/2012-ST, as held by the Gujarat High Court, which quashed tax demands under the Finance (Service Tax) Act, 1994. This removes service tax liability on advocates' professional fees across the state.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that the first proviso to Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income tax Act 1961 grants banks an option to claim additional provision for doubtful or loss assets, allowing cumulative deduction within statutory limits. This clarifies that the proviso is not an alternative to the main clause, benefitting banking assessees seeking higher tax deductions.

ITAT Pune held PCIT lacked jurisdiction to cancel registration under Sec 12AB(4) for Sec 13(1)(c) violations as the specified violation concept is prospective from 1 Apr 2022, shielding trusts from retrospective cancellation and clarifying limits.

The ITAT Mumbai held that conditioning registration under Sections 12AB/80G on a pending SLP is ultra vires. It directed the Commissioner to issue an unconditional order 1 April 2026 for Trust, stating tax exemptions cannot depend on Supreme Court appeals.

CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax paid under reverse charge after GST rollout is refundable under Section 142(3) CGST Act as existing law. It lets taxpayers claim refunds for such post-GST payments, clarifying the transitional provision’s scope.

Delhi HC quashed a ₹70 crore stamp duty demand on Freecharge Payment Technologies, ruling that Notification No.13 of 1937 exempts intra-group amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiaries from stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The decision benefits corporate groups undertaking internal restructurings by removing stamp duty on such schemes.

The ITAT Kolkata held that depreciation can be claimed on goodwill/brands acquired in a demerger under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, and that a disallowance under Section 14A requires the Assessing Officer to record dissatisfaction with the taxpayer's apportionment. The decision impacts companies undertaking demergers seeking to amortise intangible assets and clarifies the procedural requirement for Section 14A disallowances.

The ITAT Agra held that ex gratia payments received under BSNLs Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2019 qualify for full exemption under section 10 10B of the Income Tax Act even if the exemption is claimed for the first time in appeal. The ruling benefits BSNL employees who opted for VRS 2019 clarifying that the fresh claim doctrine allows retrospective exemption claims.

Delhi HC held Section 122(1A) CGST Act applies to any person retaining benefit from fraudulent ITC, including non-taxable persons, and operates prospectively from 1 Jan 2021. The ruling quashes personal penalties on directors, clarifying the provision's scope and shielding taxpayers from retrospective liability.

Tax proceedings can be initiated against a legal representative after a taxpayer's death under Section 93 CGST Act if conditions are met. The department must account for ₹15.4 lakh seized from the deceased's premises within three weeks.

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that reassessment under Section 147 IT Act requires fresh tangible material, not merely a change of opinion, upholding the Tribunal’s quash of the AY 2009-10 order. It guards taxpayers against arbitrary reopenings.

The ITAT Patna held that an assessment against a dissolved entity is a legal nullity and quashed the Section 154 penalty order. It clarifies that tax authorities cannot proceed against non-existent bodies, shielding successors and assessees from void demands.