Today's Digest Summary
TaxCorp Daily Digest
Your Authoritative Source for Tax, Corporate & Regulatory Intelligence
Quick Summary
- 🔴 GST Compliance Alert: Telangana HC rules that depositing funds in the Electronic Cash Ledger does NOT discharge tax liability — interest under Section 50(1) runs until GSTR-3B is actually filed and ledger debited
- ⚖️ Reassessment Crackdown: Multiple High Courts and ITATs quash reassessment notices for procedural defects — Gujarat HC invalidates Section 148A notice for non-disclosure of underlying material; Patna HC sets aside reassessment for missing Section 143(2) notice
- 🏗️ FEMA 2026 Alert: New Export Declaration Form (EDF) mandate effective 1 October 2026 fundamentally alters compliance obligations for Indian service exporters — corporate entities and LLPs must act immediately
- 🏛️ NCLAT Precedent: Oppression petitions require specific, evidence-based findings — labelling transactions as "commercial decisions" without inquiry is insufficient adjudication
Category-wise Updates
🧾 Income Tax
1. Patna High Court: Non-issuance of Section 143(2) Notice Renders Income-Tax Reassessment Invalid
The Patna High Court in Vandana Kumari Vs PCIT held that service of notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory once a return is filed in reassessment proceedings. Absence of such notice rendered the entire reassessment, demand under Section 156, and the ex parte appellate order jurisdictionally void.
⚡ Key Action Item: Immediately verify that Section 143(2) notices have been properly served in all pending reassessment matters. Any reassessment finalized without this notice is susceptible to challenge.
The Delhi HC provided relief to Sojitz Asia Pte. Ltd. where duplicate tax was paid on ₹7.58 crore of interest income due to a deductor revising Form 26AS without notice. The CIT(IT)'s rejection was quashed, and the assessee was permitted to file a revised return for AY 2016-17 by 31 October 2026.
⚡ Key Action Item: Monitor Form 26AS regularly for revisions by deductors. Cases of genuine double taxation qualify as "hardship" under Section 119(2)(b) and courts will override procedural limitations.
The Madras HC quashed a rejection order denying Section 80P deduction to a primary agricultural co-operative society solely on grounds of delayed return filing for AY 2020-21. The Court invoked CBDT Circular No. 13/2023 governing condonation authority for AYs 2018-19 to 2022-23.
⚡ Key Action Item: Primary co-operative societies with delayed filings for AYs 2018-19 to 2022-23 should immediately apply for condonation under CBDT Circular No. 13/2023 to preserve Section 80P benefits.
ITAT Amritsar quashed a reassessment notice issued on 12 April 2023 for AY 2019-20, holding that reopening beyond the three-year window is impermissible when alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. The Finance Act 2021 monetary thresholds must be strictly observed.
⚡ Key Action Item: Challenge all reassessment notices beyond the three-year window where escaped income is below ₹50 lakh — the jurisdictional bar is absolute.
The ITAT held that CPC, while processing returns under Section 143(1), must follow binding jurisdictional High Court judgments and cannot ignore them by relying solely on the Tax Audit Report. Non-application of a binding precedent constitutes a "mistake apparent from record" rectifiable under Section 154.
⚡ Key Action Item: Assessees whose Section 143(1) intimations contradict binding jurisdictional High Court rulings should promptly file Section 154 rectification applications.
6. ITAT Ahmedabad Endorses Section 263 Revision Where Bogus Purchase Probe Was Left Unfinished
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld a Section 263 revision for AY 2021-22 where the AO finalized assessment despite red-flag information on Insight portal about fake invoices and a CGST complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar. Incomplete enquiry falls squarely within Explanation 2(a) to Section 263.
⚡ Key Action Item: Assessees under inquiry for bogus purchases should anticipate Section 263 revision proceedings even after assessment closure if the AO has not fully discharged his verification obligations.
ITAT Mumbai held that compensation received for relinquishment of a pending civil suit claim is a capital receipt, outside the ambit of Section 56. A "right to sue" being non-transferable under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act yields a capital receipt upon surrender — not taxable income.
⚡ Key Action Item: Characterize receipts on the basis of the nature of the right surrendered, not the quantum received. Maintain supporting expenditure documentation to avoid Section 57 disallowances.
The Gujarat HC held that furnishing only Insight Portal screenshots while withholding dissemination reports vitiates the Section 148A notice. The statutory opportunity under Section 148A(1) is a substantive right — post-hoc cure by supplying documents during writ proceedings is impermissible.
⚡ Key Action Item: Upon receipt of Section 148A notices, demand complete disclosure of all underlying material. Incompletely supported notices are legally vulnerable from the outset.
9. ITAT Ahmedabad Denies Section 80GGC Deduction on Bogus Political Donations Despite Bank Routing
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld disallowance of a ₹6 lakh Section 80GGC deduction, applying the "human probabilities" test from CIT v. Durga Prasad More. The recipient political party was found to be a front for accommodation entries, notwithstanding banking compliance.
⚡ Key Action Item: Before claiming Section 80GGC, conduct due diligence on the recipient political party's genuineness — banking trails alone cannot save a fraudulent transaction.
The Patna HC firmly held that an employer who deducts but fails to deposit TDS is an "assessee in default" under Section 201, and the liability operates as a statutory charge on the employer's assets — the employee cannot be penalized for the employer's default.
⚡ Key Action Item: Salaried employees facing demands due to employer TDS defaults should cite this ruling and seek relief; verify Form 26AS regularly to detect non-deposit of deducted TDS early.
11. ITAT Raipur on Reassessment Beyond Four Years: Absence of Disclosure Failure Allegation Is Fatal
ITAT Raipur quashed a reassessment initiated beyond four years where a prior Section 143(3) assessment existed, as the recorded reasons did not allege failure to disclose material facts. Issues already examined in original scrutiny cannot be reopened without this express allegation.
⚡ Key Action Item: Assessees receiving reopening notices beyond four years should scrutinize the "reasons to believe" document for the mandatory allegation of non-disclosure — its absence is a jurisdictional knockout.
12. Comprehensive Taxation and Regulatory Compliance Guide for Chainlink (LINK) in India
Under the Income-tax Act, 2025, LINK transfers attract a rigid 30% tax with restricted deductions and 1% TDS under Section 393(1). Staking rewards face dual-taxation considerations; FEMA compliance is critical for cross-border flows; and corporate entities must maintain verifiable audit trails under Ind AS/AS.
⚡ Key Action Item: Crypto holders must individually compute 30% tax on each VDA transfer without cross-offsetting losses, and ensure 1% TDS is properly deducted and reported via Form No. 141 Schedule D.
13. Madras High Court on Section 80M, Bad Debts and Interest on Securities in Karur Vysya Bank Case
The Madras HC affirmed that Section 80M deductions must reference net dividend income forming part of gross total income, and that Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(1)(viia) deductions for banking entities are distinct and cumulative. Notional proportionate expenditure disallowance is unjustified where own funds cover exempt-income investments.
⚡ Key Action Item: Banking assessees should separately track and document own-fund deployment in income-generating investments to repel Rule 8D-style disallowances.
The Karnataka HC set aside a defective Section 271(1)(c) penalty order where the AO failed to apply CBDT Circular No. 25/2015. The circular mandates that Explanation 4 applies prospectively from 1 April 2016 — penalties for earlier periods must be adjudicated basis the pre-amendment position. Matter remanded with the assessee directed to appear on 12 October 2026.
⚡ Key Action Item: All pending Section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings relating to periods prior to 1 April 2016 should be reviewed for compliance with CBDT Circular No. 25/2015.
ITAT Chennai held that a fresh Section 14A disallowance of ₹35.37 lakh introduced for the first time via Section 154 rectification — when no such disallowance existed in the original scrutiny assessment — is beyond the permissible scope of rectification proceedings.
⚡ Key Action Item: Contest Section 154 orders that seek to introduce new disallowances (particularly Section 14A) rather than correcting patent arithmetical or legal errors in the original order.
ITAT Mumbai held that general insurers under Section 44 read with Rule 5 retain full entitlement to Section 30–43B deductions including depreciation under Section 32. On transfer pricing, incidental brand benefit to a foreign entity does not constitute an international transaction absent a specific agreement.
⚡ Key Action Item: General insurance companies should ensure depreciation and other statutory deductions are correctly claimed in tax computations; TP teams must re-examine whether actual AMP arrangements contain contractual brand-promotion obligations.
ITAT Mumbai held that cash sales recorded in regular books of accounts and offered to tax cannot be taxed again under Section 68/69A merely because the same cash was deposited into a bank account. Revenue cannot substitute the assessee's commercial rationale without formally rejecting books under Section 145(3).
⚡ Key Action Item: Assessees facing demonetisation-era additions should demonstrate regular book-keeping, daily stock records, and correlation of deposits with disclosed sales.
BSNL VRS-2019 compensation is eligible for Section 10(10B) exemption regardless of the employee's executive status. Leave encashment treatment at par with Central Government employees under Section 10(10AA)(i) hinges on factual verification of DoT-absorption and pension applicability under Rule 37A of CCS (Pension) Rules.
⚡ Key Action Item: Retired BSNL employees should verify their absorption status and pension rules applicable to them before claiming the more favorable Section 10(10AA)(i) exemption.
19. ITAT Rajkot Sends Back Section 50C Dispute After DVO Valuation Sharply Narrows Price Gap
With DVO's valuation of ₹3,08,15,700 against a declared sale price of ₹3,07,00,000 — a gap of just 0.38% — ITAT Rajkot restored the matter to the CIT(A) to examine the applicability of the 5% tolerance for AY 2015-16 rather than sustaining the Section 50C addition.
⚡ Key Action Item: In Section 50C matters where DVO valuation has been obtained and the gap with declared value is minimal, specifically argue the statutory tolerance threshold before appellate authorities.
The Delhi HC dismissed a writ petition in Anya Traders involving factual assessment additions, directing the assessee to the statutory appellate forum. The Court however waived the limitation period, providing a two-week window to file the statutory appeal.
⚡ Key Action Item: Assessees with factual tax disputes must prioritize CIT(A) appeals over writ petitions; note the two-week limitation window granted by courts in such dismissals.
21. ITAT Delhi Condones 783-Day Delay in Penalty Appeal of Non-Resident Assessee Under Section 271(1)(c)
Applying the Supreme Court's liberal principles in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the ITAT condoned a 783-day delay for a non-resident (USA-based) assessee. The matter is restored to CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi — with the assessee having 60 days from 5 October 2026 to file submissions.
⚡ Key Action Item: Non-resident assessees facing delay in filing appeals due to geographic and advisory constraints should file condonation applications supported by evidence of bona fide conduct.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a Supervisory PE under Article 5(4) of the India-Japan DTAA requires cumulative satisfaction of both the duration test (>6 months) and the functional test. Employee days across distinct projects cannot be aggregated. Offshore supplies where title and risk transfer outside India remain outside Indian tax jurisdiction.
⚡ Key Action Item: Multinationals with supervisory activities in India must conduct a project-by-project PE analysis and ensure offshore supply contracts clearly document title/risk transfer outside Indian territory.
LIC Bima Platinum (Plan 770), available from 7 September 2026, is a non-linked, non-participating life product. Assessees must apply high-premium threshold and aggregation rules applicable to non-ULIP policies issued post-1 April 2023, and cannot assume automatic Section 10(10D) exemption on survival receipts.
⚡ Key Action Item: Policyholders of Plan 770 issued on or after 1 April 2023 must verify whether premium thresholds under the new non-ULIP rules are breached, which would render survival receipts taxable.
24. Interest on Borrowed Capital: ITAT Ahmedabad Explains When Diversion of Funds Triggers Disallowance
Where interest-bearing borrowings are partly advanced to third parties, business necessity must be convincingly documented. ITAT Ahmedabad scaled down the interest disallowance from ₹2,86,654 to ₹1,14,662 on a proportionate basis, recognizing partial repayment and interest receipts during the year.
⚡ Key Action Item: Maintain clear documentation linking each borrowing to its business purpose; where advances are made, document commercial rationale and ensure proportionate computation in case of partial diversion.
ITAT Agra held that CIT(A) cannot simultaneously reject delay condonation and rule on merits — limitation is a threshold issue that must be resolved first. The 14-day delay was condoned and the matter restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on Section 69A additions and Section 80TTA denial.
⚡ Key Action Item: If the CIT(A) has rejected delay condonation and simultaneously commented on merits, challenge both aspects — the jurisdictional error in reaching merits after rejecting condonation is an independent ground for appeal.
🏷️ GST
1. Madras High Court: Non-Filing of GST DRC-03A is a Curable Procedural Lapse for Section 128A Waiver
The Madras HC held that failure to file Form GST DRC-03A, where tax was already paid via DRC-03, is a procedural defect — not a substantive default — for purposes of Section 128A waiver, subject to verification that funds were not utilized elsewhere. Matter remitted for fresh consideration with assessee given 30 days to file reply in Form SPL-04.
⚡ Key Action Item: Assessees who paid tax via DRC-03 but missed filing DRC-03A should immediately apply for rectification; the underlying payment protects the Section 128A waiver entitlement.
2. Madras High Court Upholds GST Cross-Empowerment: No Separate Notification Required Under Section 6
The Madras HC Division Bench overturned a single-judge order, holding that cross-empowerment of Central and State GST officers under Section 6 is inherent and does not require a separate enabling notification. Intelligence-based enforcement and summons by either authority are valid regardless of which authority "initiated" proceedings.
⚡ Key Action Item: Businesses cannot challenge summons or enforcement actions on the ground that the issuing authority (Central or State) lacks jurisdiction — both are co-empowered under Section 6.
The Karnataka HC set aside a service tax assessment dated 30 November 2021 that was based solely on CBDT income tax return data, without independent examination of applicable exclusions (especially goods value in works contracts). Matter restored for fresh adjudication with a 10% pre-deposit condition.
⚡ Key Action Item: Assessees facing service tax assessments derived purely from ITR data without independent inquiry should challenge the assessment on grounds of inadequate adjudication.
4. Karnataka HC Sets Aside GST Demand & Recovery Over Denial of Proper Opportunity
Karnataka HC annulled a GST adjudication order dated 9 February 2024, its summary, and recovery notice dated 20 May 2024, as the assessee's premises were under banker's lock and key, reasonably explaining non-response to notices. Relief is conditional — recovery of ₹25 lakh from the assessee's representative's personal account remains under scrutiny.
⚡ Key Action Item: Assessees facing GST demands during insolvency/distress proceedings should document operational constraints as grounds for setting aside ex parte orders.
5. Calcutta High Court Mandates Re-evaluation of GST Reimbursement for Post-Transition Works Contracts
The Calcutta HC clarified that Notification No. 5050-F(Y)'s Paragraph 3(iv) restricting contract value revisions applies only to pre-GST contracts. Post-GST executions governed by Paragraph 4 entitle contractors to GST reimbursement. The Principal Secretary, PWD is directed to re-evaluate claims for 2017-18 and 2018-19 within six weeks.
⚡ Key Action Item: Works contractors with post-July 2017 government contracts who have not received GST reimbursement should immediately file representations before PWD, citing this ruling — deadline for department order is six weeks from the court direction.
The Allahabad HC stayed a directive mandating a four-year audit of a housing society at ₹1.5 lakh + GST per year, directing the Deputy Registrar to justify the audit direction and fee quantum, and to file an affidavit disclosing the number and fee structure of similar directives issued over the past year.
⚡ Key Action Item: Housing societies and registered bodies facing disproportionate compulsory audit fee demands should challenge the same on reasonableness grounds — this ruling opens a clear judicial avenue.
CESTAT Delhi held that JMRC payments to the Vyapaar Mandal for Diwali lighting linked to Metro banner display constituted taxable consideration for advertising/publicity services — not compensation for losses. The sanction order's express quid pro quo established a clear service relationship under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994.
⚡ Key Action Item: Associations or trade bodies receiving government grants tied to promotional activities must evaluate service tax/GST liability — the "compensation for hardship" characterization will not survive if a quid pro quo is evident.
The Delhi HC upheld the DGAP's anti-profiteering methodology for real estate under Section 171 — savings computed on purchase value distributed per square foot. Critically, only ITC actually availed in statutory returns (not theoretically eligible credits) can be factored. The Rs. 2.31 crore anti-profiteering demand is enforceable.
⚡ Key Action Item: Real estate developers must ensure all eligible ITC is actually claimed in GST returns — failure to avail ITC that was eligible cannot be used to reduce anti-profiteering liability post-facto.
CESTAT Delhi held that where foreign bank charges are deducted from remittances to the Indian bank (not directly to the exporter), the legal relationship for service tax purposes exists between the foreign bank and Indian bank — not the exporter. Absence of privity, agreement, or direct invoice is fatal to the revenue's RCM demand.
⚡ Key Action Item: Exporters receiving service tax/GST demands under RCM for foreign bank charges should examine the contractual chain — if no direct invoice or agreement exists between them and the foreign bank, the demand is not sustainable.
GSTAT Chandigarh declined to admit an appeal where personal penalties under Section 122(3) totalled exactly ₹50,000, applying the Section 112(2) gatekeeping mechanism. A key distinction was drawn: amounts determined against a company vs. those determined against individual officers are computed separately for threshold purposes.
⚡ Key Action Item: Individuals facing GST penalties should assess whether the quantum against them personally crosses the ₹50,000 threshold under Section 112(2) before approaching GSTAT — below-threshold cases are inadmissible.
11. Revenue Appeals Termed Academic Where GST Registrations Already Restored and Acted Upon
GSTAT Hyderabad held that the First Appellate Authority is strictly bound by Section 107(4)'s outer limitation period — no power exists to condone delay beyond the statutory maximum, even under High Court writ directions. With registrations already restored and business resumed by the Department's own actions, 16 departmental appeals were held to be academic.
⚡ Key Action Item: Departments must file GST appeals strictly within the Section 107(4) outer limit — subsequent writ-based directions cannot cure time-barred appeals; assessees whose registrations are restored should monitor for academic appeals.
The Telangana HC upheld an interest demand of ₹4,82,295 for a 273-day GSTR-3B filing delay, ruling that depositing funds in the Electronic Cash Ledger does NOT discharge tax. Section 50(1) interest is mandatory from the return due date until the actual filing date — portal glitches are not accepted as a defence.
⚡ Key Action Item: FILE GSTR-3B ON TIME — ALWAYS. Maintaining a pre-funded Electronic Cash Ledger provides no protection against Section 50(1) interest if the return itself is filed late.
13. Karnataka High Court Quashes Fresh GST Proceedings When Restored Adjudication Remains Pending
The Karnataka HC quashed a fresh show cause notice dated 15 April 2026 and adjudication order dated 20 June 2026 under Section 73, where the revenue authority initiated fresh proceedings while earlier court-restored proceedings remained incomplete. The retrospective Finance Act 2025 amendment to Section 17(5)(d) was not treated as a valid bypass of restoration directions.
⚡ Key Action Item: Where courts have restored proceedings, revenue authorities must discharge the restoration obligation before initiating any fresh proceedings — assessees should flag violations of restoration orders immediately.
The Karnataka HC declined to interfere at the pre-adjudication stage and granted the assessee time until 23 October 2026 to file a detailed reply to the DRC-01 Show Cause Notice. Procedural lapses at the audit stage are to be remedied through the adjudication process, not through writ petitions.
⚡ Key Action Item: Assessees whose pre-audit objections were not considered in the audit report must file a comprehensive response during adjudication proceedings by 23 October 2026 (for the Sanvi Creations matter) — writ intervention at this stage is premature.
🏢 Company Law
NCLAT Delhi set aside the NCLT's dismissal of a minority shareholder oppression petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The NCLT had merely labelled impugned transactions (IP transfers, asset transfers through overseas subsidiaries, discounted promoter debt conversion to equity) as "commercial decisions" without any evidence-based findings.
⚡ Key Action Item: Minority shareholders facing restructuring transactions that dilute their rights should document all financial flows, valuation methodologies, and board resolutions — NCLAT has reaffirmed that tribunals must deliver specific, evidence-based findings on each contested issue.
2. Tata Power and Ocean Sun Join Forces to Pioneer Membrane-Based Floating Solar Technology in India
Tata Power and Norway's Ocean Sun have formalised a partnership (at the India-EFTA Prosperity Summit) to pilot hydro-elastic membrane-based floating solar technology at Mulshi reservoir, Maharashtra (~300 kWp). India's floating solar potential exceeds 102 GWp per NISE estimates.
⚡ Key Action Item: Clean energy developers and tax advisors should monitor this pilot — successful outcomes could unlock significant investment opportunities with associated tax incentives for renewable energy projects under the Income-tax Act, 2025.
⚖️ Customs
The Madras HC held that demanding a bank guarantee for provisional release is unjustified when final duty liability is still being adjudicated. Revenue's interest is sufficiently protected by payment of duty on declared value plus a personal bond for the disputed differential. The court also mandated processing of the detention certificate under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, preventing unjust demurrage burden.
⚡ Key Action Item: Importers facing bank guarantee demands for provisional release of goods under adjudication should cite this ruling — payment on declared value plus personal bond is the legally prescribed and proportionate safeguard.
🌐 FEMA
Effective 1 October 2026, the FEMA (Export and Import of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2026 activate Regulation 3(2), requiring covered non-software service exporters to file an EDF for each international invoice. Individual professionals and freelancers are exempted (per 7 October 2026 RBI clarification), but corporate entities, LLPs, and formalized firms are fully liable.
⚡ Key Action Item: Corporate service exporters must immediately implement invoice-level EDF filing systems; review Regulation 5's realization timelines; MSMEs should lobby for a small-value exemption threshold in anticipated regulatory clarifications.
2. USD-INR Currency Futures in India: FEMA Legality, LRS, Tax & Accounting Explained
Residents may trade USD-INR currency futures only through authorised persons or recognised exchanges — using LRS to fund margin on overseas forex/CFD platforms is prohibited. Exchange-traded currency derivatives qualify as non-speculative business transactions under the Income-tax Act, 2025; Schedule FA disclosure is not triggered by trading on Indian exchanges alone.
⚡ Key Action Item: Investors trading currency futures must verify their platform's authorised status; overseas forex trading via LRS is non-compliant and exposes the assessee to FEMA penalties.
🏛️ Insolvency (IBC)
NCLT Ahmedabad admitted Union Bank of India's Section 7 petition, treating revival letters (2019, 2022, 2025), audited financials, and NeSL Record of Default as adequate proof of debt and default. The COVID-19 exclusion period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) and revival letters addressed to the lead bank preserved limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
⚡ Key Action Item: Financial creditors must obtain and file authenticated NeSL Records of Default with Section 7 petitions and document all revival letters — these are now validated as critical limitation-preservation tools.
2. NCLAT Delhi Rules Consent Arbitral Awards Do Not Extinguish Personal Guarantor Liabilities Under IBC
NCLAT Delhi held that consent arbitral awards that merely reschedule debt do not extinguish continuing personal guarantees unless explicitly stated. In consortium lending, assignment by certain banks does not affect non-assigning banks' enforcement rights — guarantor liability remains co-extensive and enforceable.
⚡ Key Action Item: Personal guarantors should review guarantee deeds carefully — standard "continuing and irrevocable" clauses survive debt rescheduling and assignment; do not assume consent awards provide a complete shield.
Key Deadlines & Action Items
| Deadline | Matter | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| 23 October 2026 | GST DRC-01 Reply — Sanvi Creations Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Karnataka HC) | File detailed reply to DRC-01 Show Cause Notice |
| 31 October 2026 | Revised return filing — Sojitz Asia Pte. Ltd. (Delhi HC) | File revised return for AY 2016-17 to claim double-taxation relief |
| 12 October 2026 | Penalty hearing — Global Tech Park Private Limited Vs DCIT (Karnataka HC) | Assessee to appear before AO for fresh Section 271(1)(c) consideration |
| Within 30 days of HC order | GST DRC-03A / SPL-04 reply — Sri Annamar Agencies (Madras HC) | File reply in Form SPL-04 to SCN in Form SPL-03 |
| Within 6 weeks of HC order | Works contract GST reimbursement — Manash Ghosh Vs State of WB (Calcutta HC) | PWD Principal Secretary to re-evaluate 2017-18 and 2018-19 claims |
| 60 days from 5 October 2026 | Penalty appeal — Ajay Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) | Non-resident assessee to present case before CIT(A), NFAC |
| 1 October 2026 (already effective) | EDF filing under FEMA 2026 Regulations | Corporate service exporters must commence invoice-level EDF filing immediately |
| Two weeks from court order | Statutory appeal — Anya Traders Vs Assessment Unit (Delhi HC) | File appeal before CIT(A) within the two-week window granted by the HC |
| Within 3 months of HC order | Fresh order on Section 128A — Sri Annamar Agencies (Madras HC) | State Tax Officer to pass order on merits after hearing |
Professional Takeaways
💡 1. Procedural Compliance in Reassessment is Non-Negotiable — and Courts Are Enforcing It Rigorously
This edition brings a remarkable convergence of rulings — from the Patna HC (Section 143(2) notice), Gujarat HC (Section 148A material disclosure), ITAT Amritsar (monetary threshold), and ITAT Raipur (non-disclosure allegation) — all invalidating reassessments on procedural and jurisdictional grounds. The message for tax professionals is unambiguous: the post-Finance Act 2021 reassessment framework has strict procedural conditionalities that courts are enforcing without exception. Build your reopening challenges around these grounds before reaching the merits.
💡 2. The "Substance Over Form" Doctrine is Cutting Both Ways in Tax Litigation
Two rulings illustrate the sword-and-shield nature of substance-over-form analysis this week. In ITAT Ahmedabad (Section 80GGC / bogus donations), the Revenue successfully looked through a compliant banking trail to deny a fraudulent deduction. Conversely, in ITAT Mumbai (demonetisation cash deposits), the Revenue's attempt to substitute the assessee's commercially documented sales with statistical presumptions was rejected. Tax professionals must advise clients that documentary compliance provides protection only when the underlying transaction has genuine commercial substance — and equally, that genuine transactions are robustly protected even when procedurally imperfect.
💡 3. The FEMA 2026 Service Export Regime Demands Immediate Operational Response from Corporate Advisors
The activation of the EDF mandate from 1 October 2026 represents a structural shift — corporate service exporters now operate in an invoice-level monitoring regime analogous to goods exporters. With no small-value exemption threshold currently available and stringent Regulation 5 realization timelines, the administrative burden on MSMEs is substantial. Chartered Accountants and compliance professionals advising corporate service exporters should immediately audit their clients' invoicing infrastructure, establish EDF filing workflows with their bankers, and engage with industry associations to advocate for threshold exemptions in anticipated regulatory clarifications.
📌 Disclaimer: This digest is prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Readers are advised to consult qualified professionals before acting on any information contained herein.
© TaxCorp India | thetaxcorp.in | All content is original TaxCorp research and analysis.