TaxCorp Total Solution

ITAT : Ahmedabad ITAT Limits Addition Under Section 69A to 8% Profit Element on Undisclosed Bank Credits Where Withdrawals Substantiate Business Activity

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38297 (ITAT)

ITAT : Mumbai ITAT Confirms Immediate Deductibility of NCD Discount as Revenue Expenditure, Rejects Revenue’s Amortisation Demand

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38298 (ITAT)

ITAT : ITAT Mumbai Quashes Bogus Purchase Addition Due to Lack of Concrete Evidence Against Assessee

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38299 (HC)

HC : Gujarat High Court Holds Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-16 under Section 148 Time-Barred: Distinct Interpretation of ‘Ten-Year Block’ Period Affirmed

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38336 (ITAT)

ITAT : ITAT Bangalore Rules Filing of Revised Return After Timely Original Filing Does Not Bar Carry Forward of Losses: Relief Granted for Set-off of Rs 2.99 Lakhs

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38337 (ITAT)

ITAT : Delhi ITAT Affirms HUF Status for Bengali Assessee; Rejects Revenue’s Dayabhaga Argument and Deletes Addition of Rs. 27.40 Lakh

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38338 (ITAT)

ITAT : Delhi ITAT Strikes Down Tax on Capital Reduction, Distinguishes Capital Reduction from Buy-Back for Section 115QA Purposes

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38339 (ITAT)

ITAT : Chennai ITAT Rules TDR/DRC Transfers Not Taxable as Capital Gains for AY 2016-17 Due to Absence of Statutory Cost Mechanism

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38340 (ITAT)

ITAT : ITAT Mumbai Quashes Penalty Under Section 270A: Repeated Error in Revised Return Not Sufficient to Establish Misreporting Where Full Disclosure Made

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38341 (ITAT)

ITAT : Bangalore ITAT Directs AO to Apply Reverse Indexation for Determining Cost of Acquisition in Absence of Historical Records; Restoration Ordered for Fresh Verification

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38342 (ITAT)

ITAT : Ahmedabad ITAT Directs Proportionate Addition Based on Actual Contribution; Rejects Equal Split Among Co-owners Absent Revenue Evidence

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38343 (ITAT)

ITAT : ITAT Chennai Confirms Retrospective Application of Proviso to Section 50C; Stamp Duty Value to Be Determined on Date of Unregistered Agreement to Sell Where Consideration Received via Banking C…

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38344 (ITAT)

ITAT : Bangalore ITAT Prolongs Stay on Xiaomi’s ₹10,833.22 Cr Tax Demand Citing Departmental Delays and Pending DIN Issue

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38345 (ITAT)

ITAT : Bangalore ITAT Rules Multiple Residential Houses Eligible for Section 54 Exemption if Capital Gains Arise from Multiple Transfers

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38346 (ITAT)

ITAT : Delhi ITAT Rules Derivative Losses as Business Losses, Not Speculative, under Explanation to Section 73(4); Major Disallowance Deleted, Only Share Trading Losses Treated as Speculative

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38347 (ITAT)

ITAT : Chennai ITAT Rules Discount on Assignment of Rent Receivables Not 'Interest'; No TDS Liability on Discounted Consideration under Section 194A

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38348 (ITAT)

ITAT : ITAT Ahmedabad Affirms Exclusion of Debenture Redemption Reserve from Book Profits under Section 115JB Despite Non-Claim in ITR; Upholds Substantive Legality Over Procedural Lapse

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38349 (HC)

PBPTAT - SAFEMA Tribunal Upholds Attachment of Assessees’ Bank Accounts Under Benami Law, Citing Fictitious Transactions with Non-Existent Supplier

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38309 (ITAT)

ITAT : Stamp Duty on Lease Registration for Non-Ownership Rights is Revenue Expenditure, Not Capital Asset

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38310 (ITAT)

ITAT : Excess Cash and Stock Found During Survey in Jewellery Business Taxable as Business Income, Not as Unexplained Investment: Bangalore ITAT Clarifies Scope of Sections 69 and 69A

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38311 (ITAT)

ITAT : Chennai ITAT Quashes TDS Demands on Interest Paid to State-Established Universities: Recognizes Universities as Statutory Corporations under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f)

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38312 (ITAT)

ITAT : Delhi ITAT Upholds Project Completion Method for Real Estate Developer, Blocks Double Taxation on Revenue Recognition Switch by AO

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38313 (ITAT)

ITAT : Kolkata ITAT Invalidates Reassessment Proceedings for Non-Disclosure of Search Materials to Assessee under Section 148A(b)

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38314 (ITAT)

ITAT : Ahmedabad ITAT Denies Section 80GGC Deduction for Political Party Donation; Labels Transaction as Accommodation Entry Despite Banking Channels

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38315 (ITAT)

ITAT : Mumbai ITAT Fixes Fair Market Value of Land as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 350 per Sq. Mtr., Resolves DVO Valuation Discrepancies; Capital Gains Taxable in Year of Registration

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38316 (ITAT)

ITAT : ITAT Mumbai Rules Maintenance Dredging of Existing Jetty as Revenue Expenditure, Rejects Capital Asset Creation Argument

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38317 (ITAT)

ITAT : Mumbai ITAT Emphasizes Statutory Capital Gains Computation, Sets Aside Assessment Order Where FMV and MIDC Premium Were Ignored in Sale of Pre-2001 Industrial Units

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38318 (ITAT)

ITAT : Bangalore ITAT Upholds Deductibility of ESOP Discounts Under Section 37(1); Rejects Revenue’s Notional/Capital Receipt Arguments in Nobroker Technologies Solutions Case

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38319 (ITAT)

ITAT : Mumbai ITAT Declares Tax Additions Redundant Following Corporate Debtor's Sale as Going Concern Under IBC & NCLT Orders

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(LJ) 38320 (ITAT)

ITAT : Mumbai ITAT Upholds Partial Disallowance of Advertisement Expenses, Allows Section 80G Deduction on Substantiated Donations Despite Absence of Original Receipts

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12080 (Customs)

SC : Supreme Court Upholds CESTAT’s Classification of ‘Platinum Sponge’ as ‘Unwrought Platinum’, Declares Revenue’s Appeal Time-Barred

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12121 (Customs)

HC : Kerala High Court Asserts Cableship’s ‘Foreign Going Vessel’ Status Despite Extended Port Stay: Exemption for Spares and Consumables Upheld Under Section 87

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12124 (Excise)

HC : Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Rejection of Sabka Vishwas Amnesty for Hotelier, Orders Acceptance of Delayed Payment Citing COVID-19 Hardship

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12125 (VAT)

HC : Telangana High Court Rules in Favour of Contractor: Refund of Excess Tax Paid Cannot Be Denied for Technical Lapse in Filing Requirements

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12129 (Excise)

CESTAT : Refund of Excise Duty on Discounts via Credit Notes Denied to Manufacturer: CESTAT Allahabad Affirms Bar of Unjust Enrichment

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12130 (Excise)

CESTAT : CESTAT Delhi Grants Cash Refund of CENVAT Credit on CVD and SAD Paid Post-GST Implementation: Refund Allowed Under Section 142(3) of CGST Act

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12132 (Excise)

CESTAT : CESTAT Chandigarh Holds Proportionate CENVAT Credit Reversal Sufficient for Non-Aerated Drinks; Quashes Rs. 1.79 Crore Demand on Pepsico-India

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12251 (VAT)

HC : Kerala High Court Affirms VAT Exemption for Khadi Board-Recognized Earthen Roofing Tiles as ‘Pottery’ under Entry 55 of KVAT Act

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12312 (Excise)

HC : Mere Processing Without Flavours Does Not Convert Tobacco Into "Chewing Tobacco"—Order of Re-Classification as "Unmanufactured Tobacco" Upheld

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12343 (VAT)

HC : Karnataka High Court Rules No VAT on Landowner’s Share in Joint Development Agreements: Value of Land Excluded from Taxable Turnover under KVAT Act

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12476 (GST)

HC : Delhi High Court Upholds Seven-Day Prior Notice Requirement Before Coercive Action in GST Circular Trading Probe: DGGI/CGST Petitions Rejected

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12567 (GST)

HC : Karnataka High Court Upholds DGGI Criminal Proceedings Against Scrap Dealer for Alleged Rs. 21.11 Crore Fake ITC Availment; Validates Transfer of Investigation from State to Central GST Authoriti…

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12568 (GST)

HC : Madras High Court Orders Reconsideration of ITC Denial Due to GSTR-2A Mismatch and Subsequent Registration of Business Premises for AY 2017-18

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12569 (GST)

HC : Madras High Court Invalidates Assessment Order Denying ITC Solely on Supplier’s Later Non-Existence; Mandates Fresh Consideration of Assessee’s Evidence

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12570 (GST)

SC : Anticipatory Bail Denied to Accountant in Mega Fake ITC Scam: Mumbai Sessions Court Finds Prima Facie Active Involvement Beyond Routine Duties

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12571 (GST)

HC : Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Initiated Posthumously, Permits Fresh Proceedings Against Legal Heirs

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12479 (GST)

HC : Bombay High Court Reinstates Right to Manual Appeal Filing Under GST Where Electronic Upload of DRC-07 Not Possible

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12480 (GST)

HC : Orissa High Court Sets Aside GST Order for Ignoring Assessee's Reply and Denying Personal Hearing in Mining Royalty Case

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12481 (GST)

HC : Polypropylene Leno Bags Deemed 'Plastic Bags' Under HSN 3923: Calcutta HC Upholds 18% GST Rate, Rejects Textile Classification

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12489 (GST)

ITAT : Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Unsigned GST Assessment Orders: Absence of Assessing Officer’s Signature Ruled as Jurisdictional Defect, Orders Fresh Adjudication

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12490 (GST)

SC : Supreme Court Upholds High Court Ruling: No Negative Blocking of GST Credit Ledger Without Available Balance; Recovery Measures Must Follow Statute

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12491 (GST)

HC : Madras High Court Validates GST Demand Using Extended Limitation Under Section 74 Due to Discrepancy in Seigniorage Fee and Outward Supply Value

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12492 (GST)

HC : Madras High Court Invalidates GST Notifications Expanding Tax on Unregistered Pulse Brands Beyond Council Recommendations

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12493 (GST)

HC : Punjab & Haryana HC Holds Negative Blocking of ITC Beyond Ledger Balance Unlawful Under Rule 86A; Restricts Revenue to Available Credit Only

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12494 (GST)

HC : Calcutta High Court Permits Assessee’s Response to Section 74 SCN on ITC Reversal For Exempt Supply, Notes Revenue’s Inconsistent Stand Despite Prior Adjudication

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12495 (GST)

HC : Delhi High Court Mandates Reimbursement of GST on Frozen Meat Supplied to Army—Exemption Denied by Binding Advance Rulings

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12496 (GST)

HC : Calcutta High Court Declines Writ on GST Adjudication Beyond Show Cause; Directs Assessee to GSTAT Appeal with Extended Timelines and Reduced Pre-deposit

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12497 (GST)

HC : Calcutta High Court Rules 200% GST Penalty Disproportionate for Minor E-Way Bill Expiry Lapse; Orders Token Fine and Refund

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12519 (GST)

AAR : Corporate Food Delivery by Facilitators to Attract 18% GST as Composite Supply, Not Restaurant Service

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 12520 (GST)

AAR : Gujarat AAR Permits ITC on Concrete Tower Construction for VCV Lines: Plant and Machinery Exception Upheld for Polycab India Ltd.

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (FEMA-INTL) 19951 (HC-SAFEMA)

Tribunal Upholds Civil Penalties for Directors and Company in FEMA Breach Over Delayed FDI Reporting and Allotment; Rejects Retrospective Relief Under Recent RBI Circular - The Tribunal confirmed that the company had breached mandatory reporting and allotment requirements under FEMA by failing to timely report FDI remittances, delaying share allotment, and omitting to file FC-GPR forms. Individual directors, being in charge of the company’s affairs, were also held liable. Arguments based on the later RBI circular and the lack of mens rea did not succeed in absolving liability, but did result in a reduction of the penalty amounts on grounds of proportionality. The appeals were thus partly allowed, limited to quantum of penalty.

14-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (FEMA-INTL) 19950 (HC-SAFEMA)

Directors Liable for FEMA Breach on Delayed Import Payments: Appellate Tribunal Affirms Penalty, Reduces Quantum - The Appellate Tribunal sustained the findings of FEMA contravention by the company for failing to settle import dues within the prescribed timeframe, classifying the delayed payments as external commercial borrowing requiring regulatory compliance. Directors were held vicariously liable under Section 42 of FEMA, as they were responsible for the company’s conduct during the relevant period. The Tribunal rejected arguments based on procedural delay and post-facto RBI permission, but exercised discretion to reduce the penalties imposed. Assessees must ensure timely settlement of import dues to avoid recharacterisation as unauthorised borrowings and consequent regulatory action.

14-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (FEMA-INTL) 19949 (HC-KARNATKATA)

Karnataka High Court Bars Parallel FEMA Proceedings Amidst Operative Status Quo Order on Identical Cause of Action - In summary, the Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that fresh proceedings under Section 37A of FEMA, which were based on the same cause of action as an earlier writ petition (in which a status quo order was operating), could not be permitted to continue. The impugned show cause notice and complaint were quashed, with liberty to the authorities to initiate or revive the proceedings subject to the outcome of the earlier writ petition. This decision reaffirms the importance of judicial discipline and the avoidance of conflicting decisions arising from parallel proceedings.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (INTL) 19948 (HC-BOMBAY)

Income tax - Sections 92 - Bombay High Court Clarifies Taxability of Refunded Royalty and PE Status in GIA Case: Only Retained Royalty Taxable, No PE for GIA US - The Bombay High Court’s decision confirms that only the royalty amount actually retained by a non-resident under an APA, after bona fide refund to the Indian payer, can be taxed under Article 12 of the India-US DTAA. The Court also reaffirmed that APA-governed ALP adjustments protect against double taxation, and that secondary adjustment provisions do not affect the taxability of income in the hands of the foreign associated enterprise. Finally, where facts establish that the Indian entity is fully independent and does not act as an agent, fixed place, or service PE, no PE can be attributed to the foreign AE in India.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (INTL) 19947 (HC-MADRAS)

Income tax – Sections 164, 165 - Madras High Court Bars Equalisation Levy on Reimbursements to Foreign Subsidiaries in Absence of Statutory Mandate; Declines to Pierce Corporate Veil Without Evidence of Abuse - The Madras High Court conclusively held that the equalisation levy cannot be imposed on reimbursements made by an Indian entity to its foreign subsidiary for digital advertising expenses paid by the subsidiary to a non-resident service provider, unless the statute expressly brings such reimbursements within its purview or compelling evidence of abuse of the corporate form exists. Tax authorities must adhere strictly to statutory language, and cannot invoke substance over form or general anti-avoidance principles without clear evidence of sham or fraud.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (INTL) 19946 (HC-MADRAS)

Income Tax - Sections 44BB - Madras High Court Disallows Consolidated Reimbursement Deductions to Non-Resident Parent Without Break-Up Details Under Production Sharing Contract; Section 44BB Not Applicable to Substantiated Cost-to-Cost Payments - The Madras High Court decisively held that, unless an assessee provides adequate particulars and documentary evidence substantiating that payments to a non-resident parent under a PSC are genuinely on a cost-to-cost basis, such payments cannot escape the obligation of tax deduction at source under Section 195. Consolidated claims for “reimbursement of expenses” without break-up or without seeking a Section 195(2) determination are not sustainable and will be subject to Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) consequences. Thus, assessees must ensure full substantiation and compliance with procedural requirements to avoid being treated as an assessee-in-default.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (INTL) 19945 (ITAT-DELHI)

Income Tax - Sections 9(1)(vii), 144C - ITAT Delhi Deletes FTS Taxation on Manpower Support Receipts for Flipkart: No 'Make Available' of Technical Knowledge by US Company - The ITAT Delhi has reaffirmed that, for payments received by a foreign entity for manpower support services, unless there is a transfer or imparting of technical knowledge, skill, or know-how enabling the Indian recipient to use such knowledge independently in the future, the receipts cannot be classified as Fees for Technical Services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act or Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA. This decision reinforces the principle that the “make available” test is a substantive requirement under the DTAA, and mere rendering of services is insufficient for FTS taxation.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (TP) 19944 (ITAT-DELHI)

Income Tax - Sections 92CA, 92F, 143(3), 144C - ITAT Delhi Remands ALP Adjustment Back to TPO Due to Assessee’s Failure to Furnish Information Under Rule 10D - The Tribunal’s decision underscores the statutory duty imposed on assessees under Rule 10D to maintain and produce complete documentation in support of their transfer pricing positions. Where an assessee defaults in this obligation, the revenue authorities are empowered to proceed with ex parte determinations and make adjustments as warranted. The Tribunal’s remand offers the assessee an opportunity to cure the procedural defect, but also makes clear that non-compliance with statutory notices will not be tolerated. Taxpayers engaged in international transactions must be vigilant in maintaining and furnishing all required documentation in a timely manner to avoid adverse consequences.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (FEMA-INTL) 19943 (HC-BOMBAY)

Bombay High Court Orders Restoration of Tribunal Appeals Dismissed for Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance Due to Petitioner’s Critical Medical Condition - The Bombay High Court’s order provides a clear, actionable direction: where appeals have been dismissed solely for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19, and the appellant can demonstrate exceptional circumstances such as advanced age and serious medical condition, supported by uncontroverted evidence, the dismissal may be set aside. Restoration of the appeal is subject to compliance with the pre-deposit within the time granted, and the merits of the case remain open for adjudication by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is urged to accord priority to such restored cases.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (FEMA-INTL) 19942 (HC-SAFEMA)

Director’s Liability Under FEMA Section 42 Requires Concrete Evidence of Responsibility: Penalty Quashed Where Director’s Role Was Technical, Not Business Conduct - The Tribunal decisively held that mere holding of the office of Director, without evidence that the individual was in charge of or responsible for the company’s business related to the contravention, cannot attract liability under Section 42 of FEMA. The penalty against the appellant was set aside as the record did not establish the requisite responsibility for export business. For directors, it is imperative that liability for company contraventions is not presumed solely on designation; rather, a clear nexus with the conduct of business must be established by the adjudicating authority.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (TP) 19941 (HC-DELHI)

Income Tax - Section 260A - Delhi High Court Lays Down Dual Filter for Transfer Pricing Comparables: Functional Similarity and Turnover Mismatch Both Critical - The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the process of selecting comparables for transfer pricing analysis under the Income Tax Act must involve a thorough and independent evaluation of both functional similarity and economic scale (including turnover). Mere failure of an objection on export turnover does not automatically qualify a company as a comparable if it is functionally dissimilar or if there is a gross mismatch in turnover that materially affects comparability. Where the line of business of a proposed comparable—such as e-publishing—is not recognized under relevant statutory notifications for ITeS, or where the scale of operations is drastically different, such inclusion must be reconsidered and, if necessary, remanded for fresh examination.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (INTL) 19940 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

Income Tax - Sections 14A, 37, 80G - ITAT Bangalore Permits Section 80G Deduction for Eligible CSR Donations and Quashes Section 14A Disallowance When No Exempt Income Earned - The Tribunal has allowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80G for eligible donations made as part of CSR expenditure, provided such donations do not fall within the specific exclusions set out in section 80G. Additionally, the Tribunal has reiterated that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is impermissible where no exempt income has been earned during the previous year, and the subsequent amendment to section 14A is applicable prospectively and not to earlier assessment years.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (INTL) 19939 (ITAT-PUNE)

Income Tax - Sections 10AA, 144C, 271(1)(c) - ITAT Pune Quashes Rs. 4.45 Crore Penalty on Automation Firm: No Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) Where Additions Arise from Timing and APA Adjustments, Mens Rea Absent - The ITAT Pune’s decision underscores that penalties under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained merely on the basis of additions or disallowances arising from assessment, especially when such differences result from timing, bona fide accounting practices, or APA-related adjustments. The absence of mens rea and full disclosure of primary facts by the assessee are decisive in quashing penalty proceedings. Tax authorities must establish willful concealment or inaccurate particulars before invoking penalty provisions.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (INTL) 19938 (ITAT-DELHI)

Income Tax - Sections 144C, 153 - ITAT Delhi Quashes Final Assessment Orders Passed Beyond Limitation; Holds Sections 144C and 153 Must Be Read Together - The Tribunal concluded that final assessment orders passed beyond the combined limitation period prescribed under sections 144C(13) and 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. The decision reinforces the principle that statutory timelines for completing assessments, especially in DRP cases, must be strictly followed, and that sections 144C and 153 are to be read together in determining the limitation period.

09-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (INTL) 19937 (ITAT-DELHI)

Income Tax - Sections 144C, 153 - ITAT Delhi Quashes Assessment Order for Breach of Limitation: Sections 144C & 153 Must be Read Together Despite Pending Supreme Court Review - Based on the prevailing judicial interpretation, the Tribunal held that the computation of limitation for passing the final assessment order must mandatorily consider both Sections 144C(13) and 153 in conjunction. Since the assessment order for AY 2012-13 was passed beyond the permissible period, it was held to be barred by limitation and thus, without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order was quashed, the assessee’s appeal was allowed, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed, and other grounds became academic.

09-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (INTL) 19936 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

Income Tax - Section 9(1)(vi) - ITAT Chennai Rules Web Hosting Service Receipts Not Royalty or Fees for Technical Services: No Right to Use Equipment by Indian Entity - This decision clearly establishes that payments for standard web hosting services made to a foreign service provider without granting any possessory rights or operational control over the hosting infrastructure cannot be taxed as royalty or FTS in India under the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal’s decision is based on a harmonious reading of the Income Tax Act and the beneficial provisions of the DTAA, reinforced by recent Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Taxpayers providing or availing standard web hosting services across borders should ensure that their contracts do not confer any right of use, possession, or control over the foreign infrastructure to avoid tax exposure under Indian law.

09-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (INTL) 19935 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

Income Tax - Sections 90, 90A - ITAT Mumbai Sends Back Foreign Tax Credit Claim for De Novo Verification as Complete US Tax Records Now Produced - The ITAT has ruled that when the taxpayer is now in possession of complete documentary evidence for the claim of foreign tax credit, the matter should be remanded to the AO for a comprehensive re-examination. The AO must re-adjudicate the issue de novo, verifying the actual income and taxes paid in the US for the relevant Indian financial year as demonstrated by the US tax returns for both calendar years in question, and grant the FTC accordingly under Section 90/90A read with Rule 128.

09-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (TP) 19934 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

Income Tax - Sections 144C - ITAT Mumbai Rules in Favour of Assessee: Proper Use of External Market Quotations Valid Under CUP Method for Transfer Pricing Benchmarking - Based on the Tribunal’s ruling, it is actionable for assessees to support their transfer pricing positions under the CUP method with credible, authentic, and reliable market quotations or published price data, provided these are not specifically discredited by the Revenue. The decision underscores the importance of Rule 10D and the need for the TPO and DRP to provide substantiated reasons for rejecting external data, rather than relying exclusively on industry association data without considering other reliable evidence.

09-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (TP) 19933 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

Income Tax - Sections 92C, 144C, 153 - ITAT Mumbai Excludes MPS Ltd. as Comparable Due to Functional Dissimilarity and Lack of Segmental Data in Transfer Pricing Dispute - The ITAT Mumbai conclusively held that a company engaged in diversified activities with significant R&D functions, multiple acquisitions, and lacking segmental financial data, such as MPS Ltd., cannot be considered functionally comparable to a limited-risk captive service provider performing only routine content development services. The Tribunal’s decision underscores the need for strict adherence to functional similarity and the availability of segmental financials in the selection of comparables under TNMM. The appeal was allowed, and the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted.

07-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp (INTL) 19932 (HC-DELHI)

Delhi High Court Holds Reimbursements for Seconded Employees Taxable as FTS/FIS under India-USA DTAA—“Make Available” Test Satisfied Despite Absence of Markup - The Delhi High Court’s decision makes it clear that in secondment arrangements where employees retain a continuing relationship with the foreign parent entity, and where the purpose of their deployment is to impart technical knowledge, skills, or know-how to the Indian entity, the reimbursement of their costs by the Indian entity is taxable as FTS/FIS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The Court underscores that mere labeling of payments as “reimbursement” or absence of a profit element does not alter the essential nature of the services rendered. Importantly, the “make available” test is considered satisfied where the recipient entity is enabled to independently apply the knowledge or skills imparted by the secondees.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31036 (SC)

Supreme Court Upholds SEBI Penalties on Mutual Fund AMC and Trustee for Unauthorised Extension of ZCNCD Maturity and Regulatory Breaches in Essel Group Investments - The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces that AMCs and trustees must ensure strict compliance with SEBI’s Mutual Fund Regulations and cannot justify breaches by pointing to industry practice or other market participant violations. Unauthorized extensions of instrument maturity and failure to invoke pledged securities, coupled with inadequate disclosures, will attract regulatory penalties. All mutual fund entities must scrupulously adhere to the explicit procedures for roll-overs, segregated portfolios, and unitholder communications as mandated by SEBI regulations and circulars.

29-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31035 (KARNATKATA)

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stamp Duty Demand on Amalgamation for Fresh Valuation-Based Adjudication - In summary, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned demand for stamp duty and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The authorities were directed to afford the petitioner a personal hearing and to objectively consider all valuation evidence relevant to the date of the amalgamation order, ensuring compliance with the strict requirements of fiscal law.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31034 (MADRAS)

Madras High Court Quashes Cheating Charges in Bank Loan Default: Finds No Dishonest Intention at Inception and Bars Prosecution after Resolution Plan - In the present case, the Madras High Court quashed the criminal proceedings for conspiracy and cheating relating to the bank credit facilities, holding that the essential ingredient of dishonest intention at inception was not established. The Court further found that after the loan account had been fully resolved under the corporate insolvency process and a no-dues certificate issued, the bank could not pursue criminal action on the same facts. Entities facing similar prosecution, after full settlement and closure of liability under IBC, can rely on this precedent to seek quashing of criminal proceedings, provided there is no evidence of fraud at inception.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31033 (NCLT)

NCLAT Upholds Sanctions Against Auditor and Firm for Misreporting Interest on NPA Borrowings: Systemic Audit Failures Lead to Debarment and Penalties - The NCLAT confirmed that both the engagement partner and the audit firm were guilty of professional misconduct for failing to recognise interest on NPA borrowings as required under Ind AS 109 and for not complying with multiple auditing standards. The engagement partner’s lack of professional scepticism, failure to obtain sufficient audit evidence, and improper reliance on management representations led to an unsustainable unmodified audit opinion. The audit firm’s systemic quality control failures, especially in listed company audits, resulted in independent and primary liability. The disciplinary sanctions, including monetary penalties and three-year debarment, were upheld as proportionate. Both appeals were dismissed, and the findings and sanctions were sustained.

08-04-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31032 (BOMBAY)

Bombay High Court Upholds Injunction Against ‘ESIRAFT’; Finds Deceptive Similarity with Registered ‘RACIRAFT’ Mark for Medicinal Products - The High Court’s decision underscores that, for medicinal products, even a potential for confusion—particularly at the phonetic level—amounts to deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court reaffirmed the Cadila test’s applicability, emphasizing public health and safety concerns. The actionable takeaway is that trademark proprietors in the pharmaceutical sector must be vigilant in monitoring not only visual, but also phonetic similarities, to prevent potential confusion among consumers.

03-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31031 (NCLT)

Patent Disputes and Breach of Business Agreement Cannot Be Litigated as Oppression and Mismanagement Under Companies Act - The Hyderabad Bench of the NCLT held that disputes arising predominantly from alleged breaches of business agreements, especially those concerning the assignment and transfer of intellectual property, cannot be dressed up as claims of oppression and mismanagement under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, finding it to be an attempt to enforce private contractual rights inappropriately through the mechanism designed for redressing company law grievances. The Tribunal further held that claims for patent revocation were time-barred, as the petitioner was deemed to have knowledge of the patent filings once they were published.

23-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31030 (KARNATKATA)

Karnataka High Court Rejects Ex-Director’s Plea for Transfer of Mature Winding-Up to NCLT: Discretion of Court and Delay Key Factors - The Karnataka High Court held that the transfer of mature winding-up proceedings to the NCLT under the fifth proviso to Section 434(1)(c) is not automatic, but rather a matter of judicial discretion, particularly where the process has advanced significantly. Applications by former directors post-liquidation are subject to stricter scrutiny. In this case, the unexplained and strategic delay, combined with the advanced stage of liquidation and lack of benefit to the creditors, led to the dismissal of the transfer application. The winding-up proceedings and all associated matters are to proceed before the High Court.

24-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31029 (BOMBAY)

Bombay High Court Upholds Legality of Negative Settlement Price in MCX Crude Oil Futures; Petition for Annulment Dismissed - The High Court decisively upheld the validity of MCX’s determination of a negative DDR for Crude Oil April 2020 futures, asserting that such settlement mechanisms are sanctioned under Section 18A of the SCRA and are not subject to the Sale of Goods Act. The decision underscores that parties trading in exchange-traded derivatives are strictly bound by the terms of the contract, including settlement mechanisms linked to international reference prices, and that courts will not intervene in the absence of fraud or material mistake.

07-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31028 (P&H)

Punjab & Haryana High Court Settles: No Pre-Cognizance Hearing Required in SFIO Prosecutions Under Companies Act, 2013 – Special Statute Prevails Over General Criminal Procedure - The High Court unequivocally held that accused persons in SFIO prosecutions under the Companies Act, 2013, have no statutory right to a pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223 of the BNSS. The claim for such a hearing was rejected, and the petition challenging the order of the Special Court was dismissed. The decision establishes that the Special Court’s cognizance of offences, based on the SFIO’s investigation report and complaint, proceeds without any requirement for a pre-cognizance notice or hearing for the proposed accused.

18-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31027 (NCLT)

NCLT Rejects Contempt Plea: No Violation Found in Board’s Actions Post-Order Declaring Sale Deed Void and Restraining Property Sale - Based on the factual matrix and legal analysis, the NCLT concluded that there was no breach or disobedience of its order dated 11.12.2024 by the respondents. The Board Meeting convened on 02.01.2025 was in compliance with the Tribunal’s directions and did not amount to contempt. The present contempt application was thus dismissed, and no further directions were warranted.

30-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31026 (NCLT)

NCLAT Clarifies Consent Not Mandatory for Unwinding Allegedly Fraudulent Transactions under Sections 241 & 242—NCLT’s Threshold Dismissal Set Aside - The NCLAT set aside the NCLT’s dismissal of the application for unwinding six disputed transactions. It held that the NCLT misinterpreted the earlier appellate order, erroneously imposed a consent requirement, and wrongly declined to examine the merits of the fraudulent transaction allegations. All related applications were revived and remanded for fresh consideration on merits, with the disputed amounts to remain in escrow pending final adjudication. The NCLAT’s decision is actionable in directing the NCLT to conduct a full, merits-based inquiry into the claims of fraud and regulatory circumvention.

01-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31025 (KERALA)

Kerala High Court Reaffirms Criminal Jurisdiction for Wrongful Withholding of Company Property under Section 452, Rejects Decriminalisation Argument Post-2020 Amendment - The Kerala High Court has conclusively held that Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013, continues to create a criminal offence triable by a competent Magistrate, and the 2020 amendment did not decriminalise the section or shift its adjudication to Adjudicating Officers under Section 454. The order of the Magistrate returning the complaint was set aside, and the Magistrate has been directed to receive the complaint and proceed according to law. This decision provides actionable clarity and a clear process for dealing with such offences post-amendment.

23-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31024 (GAUHATI)

Gauhati High Court Upholds Disqualification of E-Auction Bidder Over Provident Fund Default and Collusive Bidding in Fatemabad Tea Estate Sale - In view of the explicit violation of Clause XIV of the e-auction notice and the substantiated suspicion of collusion between bidders, the Gauhati High Court has upheld the cancellation of the petitioner’s bid. The actionable takeaway is that strict compliance with auction eligibility criteria, especially those pertaining to statutory dues, is mandatory, and any attempt to circumvent or collude will result in disqualification and loss of bidding rights.

02-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31023 (DELHI)

Delhi High Court Upholds Use of Interrogatories in Oppression & Mismanagement Cases, Clarifies Scope Under Company Law and CPC - The Delhi High Court has expressly held that interrogatories, when directly relevant to the issues in a petition for oppression and mismanagement, must be permitted, and cannot be dismissed as fishing or roving inquiries, nor on the ground of delay unless such delay causes demonstrable prejudice. As a result, the respondents are now bound to answer the specific interrogatories submitted by the appellants within the stipulated time.

25-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31022 (BOMBAY)

Bombay High Court Nullifies Mutation Transfer of Company Land to Promoters as Fraudulent Preference; Orders Reversal to Protect Creditor Rights - Based on the facts and legal analysis, the Court allowed the Official Liquidator’s Report, declared the transfer of the property to the promoters as void on grounds of fraudulent preference under Section 531(1), and directed the reversal of all mutation entries in favor of the promoters, thereby restoring the property in the company’s name. This actionable outcome ensures that the company’s assets remain available for distribution among all creditors in the winding-up process.

24-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31021 (CALCUTTA)

Calcutta High Court Orders Borrower to Establish Debt Service Reserve Following Failure to Create Mortgage Security for Rs. 275 Crore Loan - The Calcutta High Court, considering the continuing absence of mortgage security and the pending obligation to constitute a Debt Service Reserve, concluded that the lender had established a case for interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court’s direction requiring the borrower to create the Debt Service Reserve within a stipulated period provides an actionable remedy to safeguard the lender’s interests during the pendency of arbitration or insolvency proceedings.

01-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31020 (DELHI)

Delhi High Court Upholds Rights of Bona Fide Plot Purchasers in Liquidation; Dismisses Proxy Review Petition for Lack of Locus Standi - Based on the above findings, the Delhi High Court directed the Official Liquidator to release and hand over possession of the plots to the 14 bona fide purchasers, affirming that their verified claims and registered sale deeds were not vitiated by Section 531 of the Companies Act, 1956 or by the RBI’s prohibition order. The review petition by Ms. Aneeta Sharma was dismissed for lack of merit and locus standi, with the connected amendment application rendered infructuous. The judgment provides actionable clarity: bona fide purchasers with registered sale deeds executed prior to the initiation of winding-up are entitled to have their interests protected, provided the transactions are genuine and have been duly verified.

01-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31019 (CALCUTTA)

Calcutta High Court Upholds FIR Investigation in Alleged Corporate Forgery and Conspiracy Case Despite Territorial and Mala Fide Objections - The Calcutta High Court declined to quash the FIR at the investigation stage, holding that the complaint, on its face, disclosed cognizable offences of conspiracy, forgery, and unauthorized disclosure of confidential company information. The objections based on territorial jurisdiction and mala fides were found insufficient to warrant interference, as the investigation had only just begun and all relevant facts were yet to be ascertained. The appropriate course is to permit the investigative process to continue; the truth or falsity of the allegations, and the question of jurisdiction for trial, will be decided at a later stage.

10-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31018 (AP)

High Court Clarifies: Interim Stay on 'Fraud' Tag Does Not Bar CBI Investigation or Searches in Bank Fraud Case - The High Court concluded that the interim suspension of the bank’s ‘Fraud’ classification did not extend to prohibit criminal investigation or related proceedings by law enforcement agencies. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed, affirming the CBI's authority to continue its investigation and execute judicially sanctioned searches.

07-05-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31017 (SC)

Supreme Court Affirms Collaborator’s Right to Invoke Arbitration Clause under Section 11; High Court’s Rejection Overturned Due to Inextricable Contractual Integration - On a careful reading of the Supreme Court’s judgment, it is clear that when a collaborator is integrated into the contractual framework via a DJU that is essential to contract execution, and where subsequent agreements and conduct reinforce the collaborator’s role and obligations, such a collaborator acquires the right to invoke arbitration under the main contract’s arbitration clause. The High Court’s refusal to appoint an arbitrator was erroneous in light of the true contractual relationship and the conduct of the parties. Accordingly, parties in similar arrangements should ensure that all documents and subsequent conduct correctly reflect the integrated nature of relationships, as this will determine their standing to seek arbitration.

22-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31016 (MP)

MP High Court Declines Winding Up Petition Over Disputed Dues: Genuine Debt Dispute Must Be Resolved in Civil Forum, Not Company Court - On the basis of the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and the facts of the present case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the winding up petition. The Court held that where a company’s liability is bona fide disputed and the dispute involves questions of fact needing detailed examination, the appropriate course is to pursue the claim before a competent civil forum. The parties were granted liberty to pursue their respective claims and remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

20-04-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31015 (SC)

Supreme Court Clarifies: Legal Representatives Can Challenge Arbitral Awards Only Under Arbitration Act, Not Under Article 227 or Section 115 CPC - The Supreme Court conclusively held that legal representatives of a deceased party, against whom an arbitral award is enforceable, have the statutory right under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge that award. Resort to Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 115 of the CPC is not available for such challenges. This decision reinforces the exclusivity of remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and mandates that all challenges to arbitral awards, whether by the original party or their legal representatives, must be pursued strictly within the Act’s framework.

21-04-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31014 (BOMBAY)

Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award: Principal Broker Liable for Fraudulent Trades by Alliance Partner under Section 238 of Indian Contract Act - In summary, the Bombay High Court’s decision reinforces the legal principle that a principal broker is vicariously liable for fraudulent or unauthorized acts committed by its agents or sub-brokers in the course of their agency, as per Section 238 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This liability persists even where the client has not objected to the trades within a reasonable time, if the underlying trades are blatantly unauthorized or fraudulent. The arbitral award in favor of the client is thus sustained, and brokers must ensure diligent oversight of their agents’ activities.

19-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31013 (GUJARAT)

Gujarat High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights of Guarantors and Assignees in Company Winding Up: Guarantors Must Prove Payments, Assignee Bank Entitled to Full Assigned Debt - The Gujarat High Court upheld the principle that a guarantor or subrogee may claim as a secured creditor in winding up only to the extent of debts actually discharged, and such entitlement must be established through clear documentary evidence. Furthermore, it affirmed that an assignee bank holding a valid assignment and DRT decree is entitled to the entire assigned debt, not just the value of the security initially hypothecated. The directions for a fresh Chartered Accountant’s report were found to be appropriate and no interference was warranted.

31-03-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31012 (CALCUTTA)

Calcutta High Court Refuses to Reject Inheritance Partition Suit: Limitation and Jurisdiction Objections Dismissed in Company Shareholding Dispute - The Calcutta High Court held that the plaintiff’s suit for partition and declaration of rights in company shares and business assets, arising from inheritance, could not be dismissed at the threshold on grounds of limitation or jurisdiction under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Court directed that the plaint be read as a whole, with factual disputes regarding limitation and the legitimacy of the alleged settlement to be determined at trial. The actionable takeaway is that courts should not summarily reject partition suits involving company assets where the right to sue and facts are contested and require adjudication.

04-09-2025 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31011 (GAUHATI)

Gauhati High Court Quashes Charges Against Co-Accused in Child Trafficking Case for Lack of Evidence; Main Accused to Face Trial - The judgment underscores that in criminal matters, courts must intervene to quash proceedings only when there is a clear lack of evidence or absence of the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offence. In the present case, actionable relief was granted to those petitioners against whom no incriminating material was found on record, while proceedings continue against the main accused, upholding the fairness of the criminal justice process.

17-04-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31010 (DELHI)

Delhi High Court Restricts Bank-Driven Look Out Circulars: Asserts Article 21 Right to Travel Prevails Absent Live Criminality - This decision provides an actionable blueprint for both assessees and authorities: LOCs must be grounded in clear, contemporaneous criminal proceedings, supported by specific material justifying the executive restraint. Mechanical or indefinite imposition of such measures, absent independent application of mind and ongoing judicial review, is unconstitutional. Petitioners must approach the trial court for relief where criminal proceedings are pending, as per the Sumer Singh Salkan principle. The Court’s directions secure the fundamental right to travel, while recognizing the need for proportionate, evidence-based executive action in exceptional cases.

08-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31009 (BOMBAY)

Bombay High Court Clarifies Priority of Maritime Claims: Jetty Damage May Override Mortgage in Vessel Sale Proceeds - The Bombay High Court’s decision establishes that, in disputes involving the allocation of sale proceeds from an arrested vessel, the order of priority for maritime claims is governed by Section 10 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. Registered mortgages do not automatically obtain first priority where a valid maritime lien exists, such as claims for physical damage caused by the operation of the vessel. Actionably, creditors holding a mortgage must be prepared to substantiate their priority only after the resolution of any competing maritime lien claims, especially those arising from vessel operations.

10-06-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31008 (KERALA)

Kerala High Court Allows Challenge to Per Day Liability in Consent Order—Limits Bar on Appealability under Section 421 - The Kerala High Court has clarified that the statutory bar on appeals from consent orders under Section 421 does not prevent a challenge to those parts of the order to which the petitioner did not actually consent, such as the imposition of per day liability for non-compliance. The Court has provided interim protection to allow the petitioner adequate time to approach the appellate Tribunal, specifically directing that any appeal filed within the granted time frame will be considered to be within limitation. Thus, parties aggrieved by a component of a consent order to which they have not agreed may seek redressal in the appropriate forum without being precluded by the statutory bar.

22-05-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(CL) 31007 (KERALA)

Kerala High Court Affirms Exclusive NCLT Jurisdiction Over Disputes Involving Company Records Amidst Oppression and Mismanagement Proceedings - The Kerala High Court decisively ruled that any relief connected to company records and accounts, when forming part of an oppression and mismanagement dispute, falls squarely within the exclusive domain of the NCLT. Civil courts are barred from entertaining such suits or granting interim relief, as per Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013. Parties aggrieved by acts relating to company affairs must seek all interim and final reliefs from the NCLT, and not from the civil court.

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138015 (CESTAT-CHANDIGARH)

CESTAT Chandigarh Restricts CENVAT Credit on Inputs Used in Capital Goods Fabrication Where Works Contract Abatement Availed; Extended Limitation Period Not Invocable Due to Lack of Suppression - On a thorough review of the statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and factual matrix, the CESTAT Chandigarh partly allowed the appeals. The Tribunal held that the manufacturer is entitled to CENVAT credit on inputs used for on-site fabrication of capital goods by a contractor, provided the contractor has not availed service tax abatement under the Works Contract Composition Scheme. Where such abatement is availed, credit is to be denied to avoid the impermissible double benefit. The issue of quantification was remanded to the lower authority. Additionally, the Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of evidence of wilful suppression or fraud, as the appellant had complied with all statutory requirements.

14-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138014 (CESTAT-NEW DELHI)

CESTAT Delhi Upholds Denial of CENVAT Credit and Duty Demand for Fraudulent Non-Receipt of Inputs and Clandestine Removal of Aluminium Products - The CESTAT, New Delhi, has categorically upheld the lower authority’s order reversing the inadmissible CENVAT credit, confirming the duty demand on clandestine removals, and sustaining both the extended period of limitation and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeals of the assessee were dismissed, affirming that only actual receipt and use of inputs in the factory qualify for CENVAT credit, and that fraudulent conduct will attract strict penal and recovery provisions.

14-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138013 (CESTAT-CHENNAI)

CESTAT Chennai Nullifies Demand and Penalties for Alleged Clandestine Removal of MS Ingots Due to Violation of Natural Justice and Denial of Cross-Examination - The CESTAT Chennai’s decision unequivocally underscores that any adjudication, especially in cases involving allegations of clandestine removal, must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice. The denial of cross-examination and the opportunity to submit a final reply on merits are fatal procedural lapses that vitiate the entire adjudication. When such rights are denied, demands and penalties cannot be sustained, and proceedings must be set aside as a matter of law. Assessees facing similar procedural deficiencies should, therefore, assert their rights at every stage and challenge any such denial before higher forums.

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138012 (CESTAT-CHANDIGARH)

CESTAT Chandigarh Rules Stringent Bank Guarantee for Provisional Release of Allegedly Misdeclared Sugar Imports Unjustified in Absence of Conclusive Evidence - Based on this decision, customs authorities should refrain from imposing excessive or punitive conditions for the provisional release of seized import consignments in the absence of conclusive evidence of misdeclaration or outright prohibition. Importers facing similar circumstances should be prepared to refer to this precedent and CBIC guidelines to challenge unreasonable security requirements, ensuring that provisional release is not rendered illusory through harsh conditions.

15-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138011 (CESTAT-CHANDIGARH)

CESTAT Chandigarh Permits Provisional Release and Re-Export of Seized Silver Jewellery Pending Classification Dispute - The decision modifies the impugned order by allowing provisional release of the seized silver jewellery with synthetic stones, strictly for re-export, subject to the importer furnishing a bond equal to the value of the goods. The Tribunal’s direction ensures that the policy objective of import restrictions is met while safeguarding the importer’s procedural rights under Section 110A of the Customs Act. This order is to remain operative pending the outcome of the final adjudication of the disputed classification and alleged import restrictions.

14-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138010 (CESTAT-NEW DELHI)

Delhi CESTAT Rules QFT Tubes Not Eligible for ELISA Kit Customs Duty Exemption—Strict Interpretation of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs - Based on the above findings, the CESTAT conclusively held that QFT Tubes, when imported separately, do not qualify for the concessional customs duty applicable to ELISA kits under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs. Importers must ensure that only complete ELISA kits, as specified in the notification, are claimed under the concessional rate, and not individual components, irrespective of their functional necessity or integration in the kit.

14-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138009 (CESTAT-NEW DELHI)

Preferential Customs Exemption Restored: CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Denial for Thai Diamond-Gold Jewellery Due to Procedural Lapse in Certificate of Origin Verification - Given the Tribunal’s findings, authorities must strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards laid down in bilateral or multilateral trade agreements regarding verification of certificates of origin. Any denial of preferential exemption without invoking the mandatory verification mechanism is legally untenable and liable to be set aside upon challenge.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138008 (CESTAT-KOLKATA)

CESTAT Kolkata Nullifies Excise Demand Due to Unsubstantiated Stock Verification and Invalid Extended Limitation - Based on the failure of the Revenue to substantiate the alleged shortage through proper evidence and the unjustified invocation of the extended period of limitation, the CESTAT Kolkata set aside the impugned order. The appeal was thereby allowed, with consequential relief in accordance with law. This decision underscores the necessity for the Department to ensure robust and complete documentation before raising demands based on stock shortages.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138007 (CESTAT-KOLKATA)

CESTAT Kolkata Upholds Demand for Improper Cross-Utilisation of Education Cess Credits, but Sets Aside Interest and Penalty Due to Sufficient CENVAT Balance and Bona Fide Legal Dispute - In summary, the CESTAT Kolkata confirmed that accumulated credits of abolished Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess cannot be transferred to the regular CENVAT account for payment of excise duty. The demand for recovery of such wrongly utilised credits was upheld. However, since the appellant maintained a sufficient CENVAT balance at the relevant time, no interest would arise on the confirmed demand. The penalty was also set aside considering the bona fide nature of the legal dispute and the ongoing interpretational uncertainty at the material time.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138006 (HC-BOMBAY)

Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt Plea for Lack of Proof of Wilful Disobedience in Customs Baggage Declaration Case - The High Court categorically held that in the absence of clear, prima facie evidence indicating wilful, deliberate, or intentional disobedience of its prior order, the contempt jurisdiction could not be invoked. The contempt petition was, therefore, disposed of as not maintainable, with a specific finding that no ingredient of civil contempt was made out against the respondents.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138005 (CESTAT-KOLKATA)

No Late Fee on Supplementary Bills of Entry for Excess Bulk Cargo—Sufficient Cause Prevails Where Duty Paid and No Mala Fide Intent - Based on the Tribunal’s decision, late filing fees for supplementary Bills of Entry covering excess bulk cargo, where the original Bills of Entry are timely and the delay is due to recognized industry variances (such as moisture in bulk coal), should not be imposed provided the importer has paid the applicable duty and there is no indication of mala fide conduct or regulatory violation. Importers should ensure prompt and transparent disclosure of excess quantities and settle any resultant duty liabilities without delay to avoid adverse findings.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138004 (CESTAT-CHENNAI)

CESTAT Chennai Upholds Ophthalmic Classification; Rejects Extended Limitation, Confiscation and Penalties in Customs Case - Based on the analysis, CESTAT Chennai fully set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed in entirety, leading to the restoration of the appellant’s original classification under Heading 9018, and all consequential reliefs, including quashing of duty demand, confiscation, and penalties.

13-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138003 (CESTAT-CHENNAI)

CESTAT Chennai Rules No Duty on Duty-Free Inputs Destroyed by EOU After Proper Intimation; Retrospective Clarification Upheld - In view of the above, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals filed by the EOU. It was conclusively held that no duty, interest, or penalty was payable on the destruction of duty-free inputs within the factory when destruction was carried out after proper intimation to the authorities and in accordance with FTP and exemption notification provisions, as clarified by the 2015 amendments.

02-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138002 (HC-KARNATAKA)

Karnataka High Court Mandates Tribunal to Decide Limitation Objection Before Remand on Merits in Service Tax Demand Involving Alleged Suppression - In summary, the Karnataka High Court directed the Tribunal to first decide the appellant’s objection regarding limitation before proceeding further on merits. The Tribunal’s earlier failure to address this core issue was corrected, and the remand on merits was expressly made subject to the limitation finding. The appeal was thus disposed of with a specific direction that the Tribunal must adjudicate the limitation issue as a matter of priority.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138001 (CESTAT-HYDERABAD)

CESTAT Hyderabad Rules Unmachined Castings for Wind Generators Qualify for Excise Exemption Based on Plain Reading of Notification - In light of the notification’s plain language, the Tribunal set aside the denial of exemption and allowed the appeal, confirming that unmachined castings manufactured to specific customer requirements for exclusive use in wind operated electricity generators are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE. Assessees supplying such goods should ensure that their documentation clearly establishes the exclusive end-use in WOEGs to avail of the exemption.

07-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 138000 (CESTAT-BANGALORE)

CESTAT Bangalore Quashes Penalty for Lack of Evidence of Knowledge in Attempted Export of Prohibited Goods: Mere Breach of Cargo Handling Regulation Not Enough for Section 114 Penalty - Based on the findings and legal precedents, the Tribunal conclusively held that mere breach of the obligation to provide secure transit under Regulation 6(1)(k) does not, by itself, justify the imposition of a penalty for abetment under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, in the absence of admissible evidence showing knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation. The impugned penalty was accordingly set aside and the appeal was allowed, reinforcing the need for the Revenue to establish knowledge or active complicity before invoking penal provisions.

07-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137999 (CESTAT-BANGALORE)

CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Post-Export Shipping Bill Amendments for RoSCTL Benefits; Department’s Time-Limit Objection Under Circular Invalid - On a careful consideration of the facts, legal provisions, and judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the post-export amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 for scheme code conversion from “drawback” to “RoSCTL” was legally permissible at the time of the impugned order. The Department’s objection based on the time limit in Circular No. 36/2010-Cus was unsustainable, as no valid Regulation prescribed such a time bar at the material time. Consequently, the order allowing the amendment was upheld, and the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

07-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137998 (HC-DELHI)

Delhi High Court Affirms Statutory Right of Appeal Against Revocation of Courier Authorisation—CESTAT Order Set Aside - In light of the above, the Delhi High Court held that an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, is maintainable against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs revoking an Authorised Courier authorisation under Regulation 13(1) of the 2010 Regulations, and that the existence or prior availing of the representation to the Chief Commissioner under Regulation 13(2) does not extinguish or override the statutory right of appeal. The case was remitted to the CESTAT for adjudication on merits.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137997 (HC-CALCUTTA)

Calcutta High Court Clarifies: Respondents Cannot Contest Maintainability at Pre-Admission Stage in Customs Appeals; Statutory Scheme Prevails Over High Court Rules - In light of the above analysis, the Calcutta High Court has categorically held that, in appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, the pre-admission exercise must remain an ex parte statutory screening confined to the discernment of a substantial question of law. Respondents are barred from intervening at this threshold stage to contest maintainability or jurisdictional issues. The preliminary objections raised by respondents at the admission stage are liable to be rejected, and the matter should proceed ex parte for admission.

06-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137996 (CESTAT-MUMBAI)

CESTAT Mumbai Rules Dealer Commission for Sales Promotion Eligible for CENVAT Credit under Rule 2(l); Denial of Credit Set Aside - In light of the Tribunal’s detailed findings, it is actionable for manufacturers to claim CENVAT credit on service tax paid for dealer commissions, provided these are demonstrably linked to sales promotion activities. Taxpayers should ensure their dealer agreements clearly articulate the promotional responsibilities to withstand scrutiny and facilitate admissibility of credit under Rule 2(l).

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137995 (CESTAT-KOLKATA)

Kolkata CESTAT Quashes Duty Demand on Coal Clearances: No Proof of Cenvat-availed Inputs and No Suppression in Statutory Returns - In summary, the CESTAT Kolkata has conclusively held that, without independent corroborative evidence, a duty demand for clearance of Cenvat-availed inputs as such cannot be sustained. Furthermore, where all relevant facts are disclosed in statutory returns, the extended period of limitation for raising such demand cannot be invoked. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the impugned order set aside in its entirety.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137994 (CESTAT-HYDERABAD)

CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds CENVAT Credit on Concessional CVD for Imported Steam Coal Despite Excise Exemption, Reduces Penalty on Construction Inputs - The CESTAT Hyderabad concluded that CENVAT credit on concessional CVD paid under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus (as amended) for imported steam coal is admissible, and cannot be denied merely because an excise exemption exists on similar goods. The Tribunal set aside the demand and related penalties on this issue. For the reversed civil construction credit, the penalty under Section 11AC was disallowed, and only a reduced penalty was retained. Assessees should ensure compliance with all procedural credit requirements and carefully select the most advantageous exemption notification available.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137993 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)

Uttarakhand High Court Clarifies Cumulative Pre-Deposit Requirement for Second Appeals, Remands Matter for Merits-Based Decision - The Uttarakhand High Court has clarified that, pending further judicial pronouncement or legislative amendment, the amount deposited as pre-deposit at the first appellate stage is to be counted towards the aggregate 10% pre-deposit required for a second appeal before the Tribunal. Dismissal of appeals solely for non-compliance with an additional pre-deposit, when the cumulative threshold stands satisfied, is not legally sustainable. The matter must be adjudicated on merits if the statutory pre-deposit requirement is cumulatively fulfilled.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137992 (CESTAT-CHENNAI)

Appeal Against Personal Penalty Abates Upon Appellant’s Death: CESTAT Chennai Applies Rule 22 and Supreme Court Precedent - Based on the combined reading of Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Shabina Abraham & Ors., the Tribunal concluded that an appeal against a personal penalty cannot survive the death of the appellant unless specifically continued by a legal representative. In the present case, where no such application was made, the appeal stood abated by operation of law and was disposed of as such.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137991 (CESTAT-CHENNAI)

CESTAT Chennai Rules Appeal Abates on Appellant’s Death: No Continuance Without Legal Representative’s Application - The CESTAT Chennai has reaffirmed that, under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, appeals abate automatically on the death of an appellant unless the legal representative files an application for substitution within the prescribed period or obtains condonation for any delay. The Tribunal’s decision, rooted in established Supreme Court precedent, makes it clear that proceedings against a deceased person are not maintainable in law. Therefore, parties must ensure timely action by legal representatives to avoid abatement and loss of appeal rights.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137990 (CESTAT-HYDERABAD)

CESTAT Hyderabad Affirms Quick Lime’s Classification Under Heading 25221000: Specific Tariff Entry Outranks General Chemical Heading - In summary, the CESTAT Hyderabad reaffirmed that imported Quick Lime must be classified under the specific tariff heading 25221000 in line with the wording of the Customs Tariff and the General Rules of Interpretation. The attempt by Revenue to reclassify the goods under Heading 28259090 was found to be without legal merit, given the clear statutory language and binding precedent. The decision provides a clear, actionable directive for importers regarding the tariff classification of Quick Lime.

10-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137989 (CESTAT-KOLKATA)

CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Penalties for Abetment and False Material in Export Case, Citing Lack of Evidence and Show Cause Notice - In light of the above findings, the CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed under Section 114(iii) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal also categorically held that penalty under Section 117 could not be imposed in the absence of a specific show cause notice proposing such action. The decision underscores the necessity for the Revenue to issue precise and detailed show cause notices and to establish clear, corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the alleged statutory contraventions before imposing penalties.

01-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137988 (HC-GUJARAT)

Gujarat High Court Upholds Exceptional Suo Motu Re-credit of Cenvat by 100% EOU Pending Revision, Restricts Order to Case Facts - In light of the above, the Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the recovery communication and accepting the EOU’s suo motu re-credit of Cenvat. The decision was premised on the undisputed eligibility of the credit and the extraordinary delay in adjudicating the revision application. The Court’s order is expressly non-precedential and limited to the peculiar facts at hand, providing no blanket authorization for similar actions by other assessees.

08-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137987 (CESTAT-MUMBAI)

CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Water Pump Classification for Boiler Feed Pumps, Grants Excise Exemption Under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. - The Tribunal decisively concluded that boiler feed pumps and condensate extraction pumps, being centrifugal pumps primarily designed for water handling, must be classified under CETI 8413 7010. Consequently, these goods are eligible for the concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 235 of Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. The duty demand, with associated interest and penalties, was quashed and the appeal allowed. Manufacturers and assessees dealing in similar products should ensure accurate classification based on principal design rather than mere end-use application for proper availing of central excise exemptions.

08-07-2026 (2026) TaxCorp(IDT) 137986 (CESTAT-KOLKATA)

CESTAT Kolkata Affirms: No Revisit Allowed on Rebate Orders Once Limitation Expires—Subsequent Departmental Refusal Not Appealable - The CESTAT Kolkata conclusively dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant’s remedy was to challenge the original rebate sanction orders within the prescribed appellate period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The subsequent request for a cash refund, made through a letter to the Assistant Commissioner, was not maintainable, and the Tribunal found no merit in the attempt to circumvent the statutory procedure by appealing against a non-appealable communication.

Direct Tax

15-07-2026 NOTIFICATION NO. 84/2026

Notification for Granting Exemption from tax to Specification of Social Protection Fund (SPF) under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

15-07-2026 NOTIFICATION NO. 85/2026

Central Government specifies the Cost Inflation Index for the financial years 2026-27

13-07-2026 NOTIFICATION NO. 82/2026

Granting Exemption to Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority in respect of the specified income arising to that Authority under Section 10(46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (AY 2019 to 2024)

13-07-2026 NOTIFICATION NO. 83/2026

Granting Exemption to Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority in respect of the specified income arising to that Authority under Section 10(46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (AY 2024 to 2027)

10-07-2026 NOTIFICATION NO. 80/2026

Notification for Non-Deduction of Tax at Source on Specified Payments to Units in International Financial Services Centres (IFSCs) under the provisions Income-tax Act, 2025

GST

10-07-2026 Order No. 156/2026 - F.NO. ADM-ADMI/40/2026-AR-PRGSTAT-601

Advisory for token generation for filing appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112 of the CGST Act 2017

30-06-2026 NOTIFICATION No. F. No. A-50/7/2025-GSTAT-DOR

GST Appellate Tribunal Appeals: Deadline Extended up to 31st July 2026 and within the prescribed three-month or six-month periods from communication or passing of the order, as the case may be, for order thereafter.

25-06-2026 Circular No. 255/01/2026-GST

Clarification regarding jurisdiction in cases involving migration/ transfer of taxable persons from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction

12-06-2026 F.No. GSTAT/CHENNAI/ADMN./2026-27

Operationalization of Help Desk for the GSTAT, Chennai Bench

11-06-2026 Public Notice No. 01/2026

Functioning of The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench

Corp Law

15-07-2026 CORRIGENDUM No. G.S.R. 629 (E)

Corrigendum – Notification No. G.S.R. 343(E) dated 8th May, 2026

10-07-2026 NOTIFICATION No. G.S.R. 623(E)

Standard for Payment of Training Allowance to Trainers and Instructors under Rule 172(1) & (2) of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026

10-07-2026 NOTIFICATION No. G.S.R. 622(E)

Standard on Qualification, Training and Experience Requirements for Trainers and Instructors of Vocational Training Centres under Rule 169 of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026

10-07-2026 NOTIFICATION No. G.S.R. 621(E)

Notification for Specifying the qualification and experience required for a whole-time training officer appointed as in-charge of a Vocational Training centre under rule 165(1) of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026

10-07-2026 NOTIFICATION No. G.S.R. 620(E)

Standard on Staff, Equipment and Other Facilities for Vocational Training Centres under Rule 164 of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026

IDT

15-07-2026 NOTIFICATION NO. 63/2026-CUSTOMS (N.T.)

Fixation of Tariff Value of Edible Oils, Brass Scrap, Areca Nut, Gold and Silver

15-07-2026 NOTIFICATION NO. 38/2026-CENTRAL EXCISE

Seeks to amend Notification No. 06/2026-Central Excise, dated the 26th March, 2026

15-07-2026 NOTIFICATION NO. 39/2026-CENTRAL EXCISE

Seeks to amend Notification No. 08/2026-Central Excise, dated the 26th March, 2026

14-07-2026 DGFT - Trade Notice No.12/2026-27

Launch of Global Outreach for Branding, Labelling and Export Packaging under Export Promotion Mission (EPM) - Niryat Disha

14-07-2026 NOTIFICATION NO. 29/2026-CUSTOMS

Central Government exempts goods falling under the Chapter, heading, sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975

14-07-2026 DGFT - Trade Notice No. 13/2026-27

Clarifications on Interest Subvention Support for Pre- and Post- Shipment Export Credit under Export Promotion Mission (EPM) - Niryat Protsahan

13-07-2026 Circular No. 33/2026-Customs

Implementation of self-certification of Origin Declarations under the India-United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (India-UK CETA)

13-07-2026 FTP - Notification No. 23/2026-27

Prohibition on Import of Goods Produced Using Forced Labour - Insertion of Para 2.20B and Para 11.64 in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2023

13-07-2026 DGFT - Public Notice No. 20/2026-27

Amendments under Para 2.92 and Appendix-2A of Handbook of Procedure 2023 for inclusion of TRQs under India – Oman Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA)

13-07-2026 DGFT - Trade Notice No. 11/2026-2027

Electronic filing and Issuance of Preferential Certificate of Origin (CoO) under India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with effect from July 15, 2026

Budget 2026

Finance Bill, 2026: Complete Coverage

TaxCorp International Taxation

Comprehensive and exhaustive resource on International Taxation, Transfer Pricing, Double Taxation Tax Treaties, FDI, FEMA, BIPA, NRI. All Indian Transfer Pricing cases as well as News

TaxCorp intelligent Search Tool developed exclusively for International Taxation and Transfer Pricing Module. Search DTAA Article-wise case laws, Country-wise, topical search. Analysis of important international judgments on Transfer Pricing. Expert columns and Articles related to TP

Tweets by @thetaxcorp

Highlights

Direct Tax

GST

Corp Law

IDT

Budget 2026

Most Read

Top Categories

Commentary

Direct Taxes

Service Tax

Corporate Laws

Company Law Ready Reckoner, 2015

FEMA/RBI

Indian Acts

Deeds & Documentation

GST

Excise

Customs

VAT

Accounting/Auditing

Annual Reports

Indian Rules

TaxCorp Forms

Income Tax Commentary

GST

TaxCorp Search

Top Tax Stories

Company Law Ready Reckoner

TaxCorp International Taxation

About TaxCorp

Announcements

Useful Links

Contact Us