Management Support Services Not FTS

 

Mumbai ITAT Rules in Favour of Taxpayer in Tech Data (Singapore) Case

Tech Data (Singapore) Pte Limited v. DCIT [ITA 8995/MUM/2025] | Date of Order: June 17, 2026

Introduction

Secondment of Employees & FTS under India-USA DTAA: Delhi High Court Upholds Make Available Test in EY US Case

 Ernst & Young U.S. LLP (ITA 423, 424, 715, 753 & 760 of 2025)

Introduction

On June 18, 2026, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1 v. Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, fundamentally reshaping the tax treatment of cross-border employee secondment arrangements under the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar set aside all ITAT orders and held that cost-to-cost reimbursements for seconded employees constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the DTAA.

HC strikes down GST Notifications to the extent issued without GST Council’s recommendation and holds subsequent ratification invalid

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Madras High Court (HC) ^[1] on the validity of notifications issued under Sections 9 and 11 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) which incorporated provisions beyond the recommendations of the GST Council, and whether the same could subsequently be ratified by the GST Council.

The key observations of the HC are:

• Notifications issued under Sections 9 and 11 of the CGST Act are required to be issued “on the recommendations” of the GST Council, implying that such recommendations must precede and support the exercise of the Government’s delegated legislative powers.
• The Government may choose not to act upon a recommendation of the GST Council; however, it cannot act without a recommendation or travel beyond the scope of the recommendation where the statute expressly mandates the same.
• Article 279A of the Constitution confers upon the GST Council the power to make recommendations on GST matters but does not confer any express or implied power of ratification.
• Since neither the Constitution nor the GST law framework grants the GST Council the power to ratify actions already taken by the Government, the subsequent approval accorded by the Council could not cure the absence of a prior recommendation.

Basis above, HC allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notification to the extent it contained aspects on which there was no recommendation of the GST Council. Its subsequent ratification was also held to be invalid.

Comments:

• The ruling may have implications beyond the specific dispute under consideration. There are several instances (especially during COVID-19) where notifications were issued or amendment in Rules and other notifications were carried out by the Government and were subsequently placed before the GST Council for ratification in subsequent meetings. The validity of the same may be called into question basis this ruling.
• Validity of the Notification No. 56/2023 – Central Tax extending time limit to issue show cause notices (SCN) for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 is also under challenge on the ground that they were issued without recommendation of the GST Council. Divergent HC rulings exist, and the issue is currently pending before the SC [SLP(C) No. 4240/2025].

Bombay High Court rules excess royalty refunded pursuant to tax authority’s Advance Pricing Agreement with associated enterprise is not taxable

 This Tax Alert summarizes Bombay High Court (HC) ruling ^[1] in the case of CIT v. Gemological Institute of America Inc (Taxpayer/GIA US) which held that refund of excess royalty repaid in tax year 2018-19 pertaining to tax year 2010-11 pursuant to Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) entered by Taxpayer’s Indian subsidiary/associated enterprise (AE) with tax authority is not taxable in tax year 2010-11.

Cash shortage in taxpayer's proprietary concern not taxable as deemed dividend

 Recently, the Bangalore Tribunal held that a cash shortage in a taxpayer's proprietary concern cannot, by itself, be treated as a deemed dividend from a company in which the taxpayer is a substantial shareholder. The Tribunal clarified that, unless the Revenue establishes that the company has actually advanced funds or conferred a benefit on the shareholder, no addition can be made under the deemed dividend provisions.

ITAT Ruling on Interest for Delayed Payments to Foreign Associates: Key Takeaways

 A recent decision by the Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Subex Assurance LLP offers important guidance for companies dealing with transfer pricing adjustments on overdue receivables from their associated enterprises.

CBIC clarifies officer’s jurisdiction in GST proceedings upon change in taxpayer’s principal place of business

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent Circular^[1] issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) regarding the authority competent to act at various stages of proceedings under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) where a taxpayer migrates or transfers from one jurisdiction (transferor jurisdiction) to another (transferee jurisdiction) due to a change in principal place of business.

The key clarifications are:

Government notifies 31 July 2026 as the date upto which appeal in specified cases can be filed before GSTAT

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent Press Release^[1] and Notification ^[2] issued by the Ministry of Finance extending the last date for filing appeal or application before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

Capital Gains Exemption on Reinvestment in Residential House to Be Allowed Before Set-off of Capital Losses

 In a recent ruling, the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Nikesh Bhagwandas Mehta held that capital gains exemption must be granted before applying the provisions relating to set-off of capital losses. Accordingly, where the conditions are satisfied, long-term capital gains eligible for exemption cannot be reduced by long-term capital losses before allowing the exemption.

JULY 2026 - TAX DUE DATE.

Sr No	Due Date	Related to	Compliance to be made
1	11.07.2026	GST	Filing of GSTR – 1 for the month of June 2026
2	13.07.2026	GST	ISD Return Filing for the month of June 2026
3	20.07.2026	GST	Payment and Filing the GSTR – 3B for the month of June 2026
4	07.07.2026	TDS/TCS (Income Tax)	Deposit TDS for payments of Salary, Interest, Commission or Brokerage, Rent, Professional fee, payment to Contractors, etc. during the month of June 2026. Deposit TDS from Salaries deducted during the month of June 2026 Deposit TCS for collections made under section 394 including sale of scrap during the month of June 2026 if any Deliver a copy of Form 121(15G/15H), if any to CCIT or CIT for declarations received in the month of June 2026, if any
5	31.07.2026	TDS/TCS (Income Tax)	Furnish quarterly statement of tax deducted at source (TDS) and tax collected at source (TCS) for the quarter ended June 2026 in Form 138/140/144/143 (Form 24Q / 26Q / 27Q / 27EQ).

Haryana AAAR allows ITC on services used for raising capital based on end-use of funds

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Haryana Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) on availability of input tax credit (ITC) on services used directly in relation to raising capital by issuance of shares. Assessee arranged a Qualified Institutional Placement (QIP) to raise funds for restructuring/ repayment of borrowings and for investment in its subsidiary. ITC w.r.t expenses incurred in this regard was treated not eligible by Haryana Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the AAAR.

Recent Landmark GST Judgments: A Comprehensive Overview

 The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime continues to evolve through judicial interpretations. From the Supreme Court to various High Courts and the GST Appellate Tribunal, recent rulings have provided much-needed clarity on several contentious issues. This article summarizes the most significant recent GST judgments in simple language.

Supreme Court Rulings

1. No GST on Transfer of Leasehold Rights of MIDC Plots

The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's Special Leave Petition and affirmed that assignment of leasehold rights in industrial plots does not attract GST.

In Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion) & Anr. v. Aerocom Cushions Private Limited, the assessee had transferred its leasehold rights in a MIDC industrial plot (with a factory building) to a third party with MIDC's consent. The Revenue sought to levy 18% GST on the consideration, treating it as a 'supply of services'.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Bombay High Court that the transaction amounted to a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property, not a supply of service under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The one-time assignment extinguished the assessee's rights in the property and had no nexus with business.

Key takeaway: Transfer of long-term leasehold land rights is exempt from GST as it represents transfer of immovable property rights.

2. 28% GST on Online Gaming, Fantasy Sports & Casinos — Retrospectively from 2017

On May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the levy of 28% GST on the full face value of stakes in online gaming, fantasy sports, and casinos. The demands at stake are approximately ₹2.5 lakh crore.

The Court ruled that for GST purposes, what matters is not whether a game involves skill or chance, but whether money is staked on an uncertain outcome. Critically, the Court held that the 2023 amendments were "clarificatory and explanatory" and therefore retrospective, reaching back to July 2017.

This aspect has drawn significant criticism, as the GST Council had originally finalised the amendments prospectively from October 1, 2023. Many experts argue this represents an unprecedented case of judicial retrospectivity.

Key takeaway: Online gaming, fantasy sports, and casinos attract 28% GST on full stake value retrospectively from July 2017.

High Court Rulings

3. Bombay High Court: No GST on Corporate Guarantees Without Consideration

The Bombay High Court in D P Jain & Co. Infrastructure Private Limited v. UOI held that GST is not leviable on corporate guarantees issued to group companies without consideration.

Relying on the Supreme Court's Edelweiss decision under the service tax regime, the Court concluded that in the absence of consideration, the transaction does not qualify as a taxable supply.

However, this ruling faces strong criticism. Legal experts argue that unlike the service tax regime, GST law explicitly deems transactions between related persons (including group companies) as taxable supplies even without consideration under Schedule I of the CGST Act. The definition of 'business' under GST is also exceptionally broad.

Key takeaway: While the Bombay High Court held no GST on corporate guarantees without consideration, the ruling may not survive further appeals.

4. Bombay High Court: Multiple GST Refund Applications Allowed

In Valmet Flow Control Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Bombay High Court held that a second refund application for the same tax period cannot be rejected merely because an earlier application covered that period.

The petitioner had inadvertently missed an invoice worth ₹1.10 crore in their first refund application and filed a second claim within the two-year limitation period. The Court ruled that Section 54(1) of the CGST Act does not impose any restriction on filing multiple refund applications.

Key takeaway: Refund claims cannot be denied on technical grounds when statutory conditions are satisfied and the claim is within the limitation period.

GST Appellate Tribunal Rulings

5. Three Key Rulings on Taxability, Intermediary Status, and ITC

Healthcare Services Retain Exemption: The High Court held that healthcare services provided by one hospital to another's patients remain exempt from GST. Classification must be based on substance over form — once the substance is healthcare, exemption applies regardless of contractual arrangements.

Overseas Procurement Hub Not an 'Intermediary': The GSTAT held that an overseas group company acting as a central procurement hub (identifying suppliers, negotiating terms, concluding contracts) does not qualify as an intermediary. Such services are principal services, not ancillary facilitation.

GSTR-2A Matching Not Required for ITC on Imports: ITC on import of goods and SEZ procurements cannot be denied merely because it was incorrectly reported in the wrong column of GSTR-3B.

Key takeaway: Substance over form applies to GST exemptions; intermediary status requires genuine facilitation, not full procurement; and ITC claims should not fail for minor reporting errors.

Conclusion

These recent judgments reflect a balanced approach to GST interpretation. While taxpayers have received relief on leasehold transfers and refund claims, the online gaming ruling imposes significant retrospective liability. The corporate guarantee ruling, though taxpayer-friendly, faces an uncertain future. As GST jurisprudence continues to develop, taxpayers must stay informed and ensure compliance while asserting their rights.

Recent Landmark Income Tax Judgments: A Comprehensive Overview

 The Indian tax landscape has witnessed several significant judicial pronouncements in recent months. From the Supreme Court to various High Courts and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), courts have delivered judgments that clarify long-standing tax issues and provide much-needed relief to taxpayers. This article summarizes the most important recent income tax judgments in simple language.

Supreme Court Rulings

Interest Deduction on Funds Advanced to Sister Concern

The Supreme Court delivered a taxpayer-friendly ruling allowing deduction of interest on borrowed funds that were invested in a sister concern. The Court reaffirmed the "commercial expediency" test — what matters is whether the advance was made for commercial reasons, not whether it directly earned profits.

In this case, the Assessing Officer had disallowed interest deduction because the funds were used to acquire controlling interest in a subsidiary rather than for earning income. However, the Supreme Court held that income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of a prudent businessman. The Court observed that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profits, and what is relevant is whether there was a nexus between the expenditure and the business purpose.

Key takeaway: Interest on borrowings used for investment in sister concerns is allowable if the transaction is driven by commercial expediency.

High Court Rulings

1. Bombay High Court: Genuine Bad Debt Write-offs

The Bombay High Court, in Madhusudan Babubhai Kocha v. ACIT, held that a deduction for bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) cannot be denied merely because the debtor's individual account was not formally closed.

The assessee had debited the amount to the Profit & Loss Account, made corresponding ledger entries, and even initiated recovery proceedings. The debtor's account was kept open only because litigation was pending. The Court clarified that a genuine write-off need not fail merely because of the accounting method adopted, provided the debt was effectively treated as irrecoverable.

Key takeaway: Substance over form — if a debt is genuinely written off, technical accounting issues should not defeat the claim.

2. Madras High Court: Capital Gains on Unimplemented Joint Development Agreements

In the case of Vijaya Productions, the Madras High Court ruled that signing a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) does not automatically trigger capital gains tax unless the agreement is actually implemented.

The Court observed that a "transfer" occurs only when a transaction genuinely enables a party to enjoy the property as an effective owner. Since key approvals were obtained only after the financial year ended and no consideration was received, no capital gains tax was chargeable.

Key takeaway: Mere execution of a JDA without actual implementation does not attract capital gains tax.

3. Calcutta High Court: Electricity Duty in Captive Power Valuation

The Calcutta High Court held that electricity duty must be included in the market value of electricity for computing deduction under Section 80-IA for captive power generation. Excluding such components would artificially reduce the eligible deduction.

Key takeaway: Market value for captive power must include all tariff components, including electricity duty.

4. Delhi High Court: Virtual Service Permanent Establishment

In a landmark ruling favouring Clifford Chance, the Delhi High Court rejected the Income Tax Department's theory of a "virtual service permanent establishment". The Court held that the India-Singapore DTAA only contemplates taxation when services are rendered through employees physically present in India.

The Court refused to read into treaties concepts not expressly included, stating that a virtual service PE does not exist under the DTAA or domestic law. The Department's appeals amounting to over ₹23 crore were dismissed.

Key takeaway: Virtual presence alone does not create a taxable presence in India under tax treaties.

5. Calcutta High Court: Unlisted Share Sale Taxable as Capital Gains

In Russel Credit Ltd, the Calcutta High Court held that gains from the sale of unlisted shares must be taxed as capital gains, absent exceptional circumstances like sham transactions. The Court noted that the shares were acquired as investments per board resolution, held for nearly six years, and sold in a one-time transaction.

Key takeaway: Sale of unlisted shares is normally taxable as capital gains, not business income.

6. Calcutta High Court: Suspicion Cannot Replace Evidence

The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that transactions backed by strong documentary evidence cannot be dismissed on mere suspicion. Tax authorities cannot rely on "human probability" theory to disregard genuine share capital transactions.

Key takeaway: Tax additions must be based on evidence, not suspicion.

7. Delhi High Court: No Deemed Gift Tax on Share Buy-Back

The Delhi High Court held that a company's buy-back of its own shares is a reduction of share capital and not an acquisition of property for the purposes of Section 56(2)(x). Therefore, no deemed gift tax applies.

Key takeaway: Share buy-back at discount does not attract deemed gift tax.

8. Orissa High Court: No Refund Adjustment During Stay

The Orissa High Court ruled that adjusting a tax refund against a disputed demand while a stay order is in operation is illegal and arbitrary. The Court directed the release of the refund with interest.

Key takeaway: Refunds cannot be adjusted against disputed demands during the pendency of a stay.

9. Interest During Project Setup Phase Not Taxable

The High Court held that interest earned during the project setup phase is not taxable as income and should be set off against project cost. This follows the principle that pre-operative income goes to reduce the cost of the project.

10. Andhra Pradesh High Court: Cash Gifts Require Proof of Donor's Creditworthiness

The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the addition of unexplained cash gifts where the assessee failed to prove the donor's identity, creditworthiness, and source of funds.

Key takeaway: To avoid tax on cash gifts, taxpayers must fully establish the genuineness of the donor and their financial capacity.

11. Gujarat High Court: Relief for Delay in Opting Concessional Tax Regime

The Gujarat High Court directed the Revenue to condone delays in filing Form 10-IC for opting into the concessional corporate tax regime under Section 115BAA. Procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights when conditions are otherwise met.

Key takeaway: Technical delays in filing forms should not deny taxpayers the benefit of concessional tax rates.

ITAT Rulings

1. Delay in Form-67 Not Fatal to Foreign Tax Credit

The ITAT held that foreign tax credit cannot be denied merely because Form 67 was filed late — the requirement is directory, not mandatory. The DTAA provisions override the Income Tax Rules.

Key takeaway: Belated filing of Form 67 should not deny foreign tax credit.

2. No TDS on Interchange Fees and Payment Gateway Charges

The ITAT clarified that TDS under Section 194H is not applicable to interchange fees, payment gateway charges, or Merchant Discount Rate (MDR). This is consistent with CBDT notifications and RBI guidelines.

Key takeaway: Payment gateway charges and interchange fees are not subject to TDS.

3. Compensation for Cancellation of Share Sale Agreement Allowable as Deduction

The ITAT held that compensation paid to cancel an earlier share sale agreement to facilitate a higher-priced subsequent transaction is an allowable deduction while computing Long-Term Capital Gains.

Key takeaway: Cancellation compensation paid for commercial reasons reduces the capital gains tax liability.

4. Long-Term Capital Loss Set Off Against Gains from Depreciable Assets

The ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital losses can be set off against short-term capital gains arising from the sale of depreciable assets under Section 50. Section 50 is only a computation fiction and does not restrict such set-off.

Key takeaway: Long-term capital losses can be set off against deemed short-term capital gains from depreciable assets.

5. Compensation for Settling Litigation — Non-Taxable

The ITAT Delhi held that compensation received for settling disputes and surrendering the "right to sue" is a non-taxable capital receipt. A right to sue is not transferable under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act and does not qualify as a capital asset.

Key takeaway: Compensation for giving up the right to sue is not taxable.

6. Tax Neutrality for Genuine Intra-Group Restructurings

The ITAT Chennai reaffirmed that genuine intra-group restructurings undertaken for commercial reasons cannot be disregarded merely because they result in tax benefits. The Revenue cannot compel an assessee to adopt an alternative restructuring mode.

Key takeaway: Genuine business restructurings within a group are tax-neutral.

---

Conclusion

The recent spate of judicial pronouncements reflects a progressive approach to tax interpretation. Courts have consistently emphasized substance over form, commercial expediency, and the need for evidence over suspicion. Taxpayers have received clarity on issues ranging from interest deductibility and bad debts to international taxation and restructuring.

These rulings reinforce the principle that tax laws should be interpreted reasonably and that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights. For taxpayers and practitioners alike, these judgments provide valuable guidance for future tax planning and compliance.