TaxTalks by CA. NRK

🏛️ GST • HIGH COURT RULING Madras High Court allows appropriation of wrongly-headed tax payment 📌 Case: SYA Homes vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) ⚖️ Citation: [2026] 188 taxmann.com 395 (Madras)  |  Dated: 07-07-2026 Ever filed your GSTR-3B and accidentally dumped the entire tax under the wrong head? The Madras High Court has just delivered welcome relief for exactly this situation — a genuine clerical slip should not cost you a second payment. 🔍 What Happened? Filed GSTR-3B Full tax → IGST ↓ Dept. Demand CGST + SGST dues ↓ "Pay again, then refund" ↓ ✔ High Court: No! Appropriate the IGST The petitioner inadvertently paid the entire tax under IGST instead of splitting it into CGST and SGST. The department passed an order demanding CGST and SGST dues. Even...

📖 2 min read 🗓️ Order dated 08-07-2026 Think your foreign account details stay abroad? Think again. Data shared by foreign tax authorities is now headed straight to your AIS — and the 90-day clock has already started. Via Order F. No. 225/73/2025-ITA-II, dated 08-07-2026 , the CBDT has authorised the DGIT (Systems), Delhi, to upload Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) data into the Annual Information Statement. 📌 The Legal Backing Issued under: Section 239, ITA 2025 (earlier Sec. 119, ITA 1961) Read with: Rule 245(2), IT Rules 2026 (earlier Rule 114-I(2)) Information relates to: Treaty agreements under Sections 159 & 160, ITA 2025 (earlier Sec. 90 & 90A) Lands in: AIS — Form 168 (earlier Form 26AS) ⏱️ The 90-Day Timelines Period Upload Deadline CY 2022, 2023 & 2024 Where already in DGIT's possession Within 90 days from the date of the order CY 2025 onwards Whenever it comes into his possession Within 90 days from the...

Raju Jamnadas Babani vs. DCIT: Handover Date and Family Settlements Cannot Defer or Split Tax Liability. In a significant decision impacting property sellers, the Hyderabad ITAT has reinforced the strict timelines governing property transfers. The ruling in Raju Jamnadas Babani vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2026) clarifies that the execution date of a registered agreement to sell fixes the year of taxability, overriding later fund clearances or possession handovers. The Dispute: When Does a "Transfer" Occur? The assessee executed a registered agreement to sell a flat on March 28, 2016 (Assessment Year 2016-17) for a total consideration of ₹3.75 crore. However, the taxpayer argued that the capital gains should not be taxed in AY 2016-17 based on two main arguments: ⏳ Deferred Possession: The substantial portion of the sale consideration was received, ...

🖇️ ITC Reporting Errors: Clubbing RCM Under the  Wrong Table A common reporting issue occurs when a registered person correctly pays Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) liability on the import of services but inadvertently clubs the Input Tax Credit (ITC) in Table 4(A)(3) (Inward supplies liable to reverse charge) instead of the designated Table 4(A)(2) (Import of services). Will the ITC be Denied? The short answer is no. According to established principles and reporting guidelines: ✅ Procedural vs. Substantive: Mere misclassification between these tables is considered a procedural lapse and does not lead to the denial of ITC. ✅ Eligibility Criteria: As long as the tax has been duly paid under RCM and the credit is otherwise admissible under the law, the right to claim remains intact. ...

🛠️ Rectifying Rule 86B Non-Compliance: A Procedural Guide Under Rule 86B of the CGST Rules, 2017 , taxpayers with a monthly taxable turnover exceeding ₹50 lakhs (excluding exempt and zero-rated supplies) are restricted from utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC) beyond 99% of their output tax liability. This rule mandates that at least 1% of the tax liability must be discharged through the Electronic Cash Ledger. Nature of the Non-Compliance If a taxpayer inadvertently uses ITC to pay more than 99% of their liability, the consequences are procedural rather than substantive: ⚠️ ITC Validity: The excess utilization does not render the underlying ITC itself ineligible or invalid. ⚠️ Shortfall: It creates a shortfall in the mandatory 1% cash payment portion required by law. Steps for Rectification ...

Case Law Alert Ghanshyam Infrastructure Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) A recent ruling by the ITAT Ahmedabad has sent a clear message to corporate taxpayers: discrepancies in Form 26AS are sufficient grounds for reopening assessments. The tribunal upheld the validity of Section 147 proceedings where undisclosed contract income was revealed through TDS data. The Core Issue: Mismatched TDS Data The case revolved around the following key observations made by the tax authorities and subsequently upheld by the Tribunal: 📊 TDS Trail as Evidence: The reassessment was deemed valid because Form 26AS reflected unreported income upon which Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) had been deposited. ⚠️ Escaped Income: The Tribunal ruled that the reflection of TDS in Form 26AS is, by itself, enough to indicate that income has esca...

Retrospective Impact of Section 147A on Faceless vs. Jurisdictional Assessments. In a landmark ruling in the case of Income Tax Officer vs. Tej Partap Singh [2026], the Supreme Court has cleared the air regarding a long-standing jurisdictional conflict. The decision addresses whether reassessment notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) are valid in the era of faceless tax regimes. The Core Dispute: Faceless vs. JAO The controversy began with the notification of the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A . This scheme stipulated that reassessments and notices under Section 148 should be handled via automated allocation in a faceless manner. ❌ High Court Stand: Various High Courts previously quashed reassessment notices and orders on the grounds that they were issued by the JAO instead of through the mandated faceles...