5 GST Judgments in 2026 Every Business Should Be Watching

The year 2026 has already delivered several landmark GST decisions that could significantly influence tax compliance, assessments, and litigation strategy. Businesses, tax professionals, and finance leaders should closely track the following developments:

PMS commission allowed as deductible expenses.

 In an important ruling in the case of Ameeta Jagdish Thackersey, the Mumbai ITAT has held that Portfolio Management Service (PMS) fees are deductible while computing capital gains under Section 48 of ITA, 1961. The ITAT noted that Coordinate Benches (Delhi, Mumbai, Pune etc) have taken divergent views on this issue. In the absence of a binding decision from the Jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court, the ITAT upheld the view favourable to the assessee. A one pager summary of the ruling is attached below.

The ruling is also a useful reminder that where genuine divergence exists in judicial interpretation, the benefit of a reasonable alternative view cannot ordinarily be denied to the taxpayer merely because the Revenue Authorites prefers the other interpretation.

Safe Harbour vs. Advance Pricing Agreements: Choosing the Right Path to Transfer Pricing Certainty

 While Safe Harbour focuses on standardization, an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) provides a customized solution.

An APA is a binding agreement between a taxpayer and the tax administration that determines in advance the appropriate transfer pricing methodology, margins, critical assumptions, and pricing parameters for specified international transactions.

𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗜𝗧𝗔𝗧 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗥𝘀 𝟮𝟲𝟴 𝗖𝗿 𝗜𝗣𝗟 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁

 Mumbai ITAT held that depreciation on Rajasthan Royals franchise rights is allowable on the entire acquisition cost of ₹268 crore, even though only ₹26.8 crore was paid during the year. Acquisition occurs upfront, while payment may be deferred. Any later adjustment in consideration would require corresponding WDV revisions

How Do Investors Choose Between CCPS and CCDs?

 At first glance, the distinction appears straightforward. Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) are preference shares, while Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) are debentures. Each is governed by separate provisions of the Companies Act, though the mechanics of issuance and conversion are largely comparable.

Refund of pre-deposit cannot be withheld merely because litigation continues on the balance demand

 In a significant judgment in IBM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026-VIL-955-BOM), the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed an important principle governing GST appeals and pre-deposits.

Taxability of Stock Option Buy-Backs: Salary or Capital Gains?

 . Introduction

Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) are widely used to attract and retain talent by aligning compensation with performance. The lifecycle of an ESOP traverses five stages: grant, vesting, exercise, allotment, and sale. Each carries distinct tax implications.

S𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐞𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬.

 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥in the case of Mohan Rajashekhar  𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐞𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

TAX DUE DATE - SEPTEMBER 2026

S. No	Due Date	Related to	Compliance to be made
1	11.09.2026	GST	Filing of GSTR-1 for August 2026.
2	13.09.2026	ISD	Filing for the month of Aug 2026
3	20.09.2026	GST	- Payment & filing of GST return for the Month of August 2026 - Form GSTR 3B

Key Changes in FEMA Export and Import Regulations Effective 1 October 2026

The Reserve Bank of India has introduced a new framework governing export and import transactions under FEMA. These regulations are effective from 1 October 2026 and will apply only to transactions initiated on or after that date. Transactions undertaken up to 30 September 2026 will continue to be governed by the earlier FEMA regulations.

SC holds extended period cannot be invoked if allegations are not justified in the show cause notice issued under section 74

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) ^[1] on whether a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) can be sustained merely on a generic allegation of fraud or concealment of facts, without the notice itself setting out the grounds for such allegation.

The Arbitrator’s Ledger: Financial Forensics in ODR

 Let’s start with a small story in this regard. Client B, a mid-sized electrical components manufacturer registered as an MSME, supplied materials worth ₹2.5 crore to Firm Y, a large infrastructure developer. After receiving the goods, Firm Y delayed the payments well beyond the agreed credit period. Frustrated, Client B filed a delayed payment claim against Firm Y on the government's MSME ODR portal. The dispute was referred to an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform. To counter the claim, Firm Y suddenly produced a complex web of internal debit notes, backdated emails, and quality rejection reports, arguing that the materials were defective and no payment was due. The sole arbitrator was faced with hundreds of digital documents and conflicting accounting entries. This is exactly where CA X was brought in as a financial forensic expert to decode the ledger.

Gujarat HC upholds levy of GST on corporate guarantee while reads down mandatory 1% valuation where actual consideration is lower

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Gujarat High Court (HC)1 on the taxability of corporate guarantee provided by the Petitioners on behalf of their related party located in India and the constitutional validity of Rule 28(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).

The key observations of the HC are:

Foreign Assets disclosure scheme operationalized - CBDT prescribes valuation rules, forms and compliance framework

 This Tax Alert summarizes the recent Notification notifying “The Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers - Disclosure Scheme Rules 2026” (Rules) issued by the Central Government and 50 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes^[2] (CBDT), pertaining to “The Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers – Disclosure Scheme 2026” (Scheme) which was introduced vide Finance Act (FA) 2026^[3].

Taxability of Crypto Derivatives Under Indian Income-tax Law

 The Finance Act, 2022 introduced India's first dedicated tax regime for Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) through Sections 2(47A), 115BBH and 194S of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The framework was designed to tax income arising from the transfer of cryptocurrencies, NFTs and similar digital assets.

However, the growing popularity of crypto futures and options traded on offshore exchanges has created an interpretational challenge. Unlike spot crypto transactions, many derivative contracts are cash-settled, meaning parties pay or receive only the price difference without acquiring, delivering or transferring the underlying cryptocurrency.

This raises a crucial question: should profits from cash-settled crypto derivatives be taxed under the special VDA regime of Section 115BBH, or under the ordinary provisions relating to business income and speculative transactions? The answer has significant tax implications because the two regimes operate differently.

GAAR vs SAAR: A Practical Note for Businesses in India

 Taxation is one of the most significant financial obligations for any business. Alongside managing operations, growth, and profitability, companies must carefully plan their tax affairs to ensure compliance while optimizing cash flows. Effective tax planning begins well before the financial year-end and typically involves using the deductions, exemptions, and incentives provided under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

India’s Position on the OECD Model Tax Convention – At a Glance

 Comparison table highlighting how India’s treaty policy differs from the OECD Model Tax Convention, especially on key articles such as Permanent Establishment (Article 5), Business Profits (Article 7), Royalties (Article 12) and Capital Gains (Article 13).

𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁

 In DCIT v. Coca Cola India Inc., the Delhi ITAT held that a Working Capital Adjustment cannot be made merely because receivables from an AE remain outstanding for an extended period. The Tribunal observed that such adjustments under TNMM are intended to improve comparability and must be supported by evidence of actual financing cost or economic disadvantage. Since the assessee had no external borrowings, incurred no interest cost, and was fully funded by its US Head Office, the Revenue failed to establish any real financial burden arising from delayed receivables. Accordingly, the TP adjustment was deleted.

TAX AMENDMENT BILL 2026

The Lok Sabha has passed the Taxation & Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 (‘Amendment Bill’). The said Amendment Bill replaces the Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 which was earlier passed on 5 June 2026 and also proposes other amendments to the Income-tax Act, 2025 (‘the Act’), the most notable amendment being in respect of taxation of unitholders and SPVs of business trusts.

SC confirms omission of Rule 96(10) applies to even pending proceedings absence any saving clause

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Supreme Court (SC)^[1] dealing with the effect of omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) on any proceedings pending disposal on the date of such omission.

Rule 96(10) inter alia restricted any person from claiming refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods or services if benefit of specified exemption notifications was availed. The said rule was omitted w.e.f. 8 October 2024^[2].

Subsequently, the Gujarat High Court (HC)^[3] held that such omission will be applicable to all proceedings/cases which are pending for final adjudication either before courts or adjudicating authorities. Revenue filed an appeal before SC.

The key observations of the SC are:

Delhi HC holds 10% pre-deposit requirement for penalty-only appeals inapplicable where SCN was issued before amendment

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Delhi High Court (HC)^[1] on whether the newly introduced pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal against penalty-only order applies where the show cause notice (SCN) was issued before 1 October 2025, while the adjudication order was passed thereafter.

The key observations of the HC are:   

Karnataka HC holds HSNS Cess framework unconstitutional due to manner of Cess calculation

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Karnataka High Court (HC) ^[1] on the constitutional validity of Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025 (HSNS Cess Act), the Health Security se National Security Cess Rules, 2026 (HSNS Cess Rules) and the notifications issued thereunder.

The key observations of the HC are:

GSTN keeps proposed e-Way Bill enhancements on hold until further notice

 This Tax Alert summarizes the recent advisory¹ issued by Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) keeping the proposed enhancements to the e-Way Bill system on hold until further notice.

The key observations of the HC are:

TAX DUE DATE - AUGUST 2026.

 

Sl. No	Due Date	Related to	Compliance to be made
1	11.08.2026	GST	Filing of GSTR – 1 for the month of July 2026
2	31.08.2026	Income Tax	Filing of Form 10 of Charitable Trust
3	13.08.2026	ISD	Filing for the month of July 2026
4	20.08.2026	GST	Payment & filing of GST return for the Month of July 2026 - Form GSTR 3B
5	07.08.2026	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 July 2026. · Deposit TDS from Salaries deducted during the month of July 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

The Forensic Ledger: Spotting Early Warning Signals of Employee Embezzlement in Small Businesses

-Sakshi Agarwal 

 Let’s start with a small story in this regard. Client B runs a highly successful, medium-sized manufacturing firm that produces industrial packaging. Because he spent most of his time on the factory floor and pitching to new clients, he entrusted his entire back-office operations to Mr. A, a loyal senior accountant who had been with the company for over a decade. Mr. A was considered part of the family; he rarely took vacations, worked late on weekends, and single-handedly managed vendor payments, payroll, and bank reconciliations.

Kentucky Sales Tax Changes Effective August 1, 2026: What Businesses Need to Know

 

Kentucky has introduced several important sales and use tax developments that take effect August 1, 2026. If your business sells products or services into Kentucky—especially digital offerings or through remote sales channels—now is a good time to review your compliance obligations.

Here are the key updates:

Protecting Taxpayer Rights: Three Landmark Indian Tax Rulings

 Recent judicial pronouncements have provided significant clarity on the rights of taxpayers and the limitations of tax authorities under Indian tax law. Three important rulings—from the Supreme Court on GST input tax credit, the Chennai ITAT on income tax penalties, and the Mumbai ITAT on demergers—offer crucial guidance for businesses navigating complex tax disputes. Each decision reinforces the principle that tax authorities must act within statutory boundaries and cannot penalize taxpayers arbitrarily.

Mauritian Cabinet approves ratification of Protocol to India-Mauritius DTAA introducing Principal Purpose Test condition

 The India-Mauritius DTAA, which entered into force on 1 April 1983, was amended by way of Protocol signed on 10 May 2016 ^[1] (2016 Protocol), wherein largely the source country taxation rights were enhanced and Limitation of Benefits (LOB) clause was included apart from the Exchange of Information (EOI) and Assistance in Collection of Taxes related provisions. The 2016 Protocol did not contain the Base Erosion and Profit Sharing (BEPS) related changes.

Delhi HC holds secondment reimbursements taxable as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under India–USA tax treaty

 The Delhi High Court (HC) ^[1] has recently ruled in favor of the Revenue on the issue of taxability of cost reimbursements received by a foreign Taxpayer from Indian entities in respect of secondment of employees. The HC held that such receipts are taxable as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under Article 12 of the India–USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘the treaty’) as the secondment arrangement satisfied the “make available” test.

Calcutta HC upholds validity of GST adjudication order digitally signed within limitation, despite subsequent portal upload

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Calcutta High Court (HC) ^[1] on whether an adjudication order under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), which was digitally signed within the prescribed limitation period but uploaded on the common portal thereafter, can be treated as validly issued order, enforceable in law.

GST Invoice Rejected in IMS After Tax Paid? Here’s Your Complete Action Plan

 1. The Core Solution: Coordinate with Your Customer and Re-Report

The GST law provides a very clear and straightforward remedy for this situation. The system is designed to capture the "delta" (the net change) rather than penalizing you for a one-off rejection. The golden rule here is reconciliation, not refund.

The most efficient and widely recommended solution involves a simple two-way coordination between you (the supplier) and your customer (the recipient).

Delhi Tribunal rules that court-approved capital reduction cannot be re-characterized as buy-back

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in case of Seaview Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) v DCIT^[1] on the issue of characterization of a court-approved reduction of share capital undertaken by an unlisted company. The key issue before the Tribunal was whether a reduction of share capital implemented pursuant to a scheme sanctioned by the Bombay High Court could be recharacterized as a buy-back of shares and subjected to the buy-back tax regime which trigger levy in the hands of the company while the income in the hands of shareholders is exempt.

Commission Paid to Overseas Sourcing Agents Not Taxable as FTS; No Witholding Obligation

 Delhi ITAT held that commission paid by an exporter to an overseas sourcing agent for procurement of export orders and follow-up on realisation of proceeds is not Fee for Technical/Consultancy Services, and accordingly no tax was required to be withheld and therefore, the resultant disallowance for non-deduction was deleted.

Background

Key changes notified in ITR-1 to ITR-5 and ITR-7 for AY 2026-27

 The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 139 read with section 295 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) recently vide multiple notifications (Notification No. 57/2026 to Notification No. 60/2026 and Notification No. 62/2026) introduced various income-tax return forms (ITR-1 to ITR-5 and ITR-7) applicable for AY 2026-27.

Section 56(2)(ix): Forfeiture of Advance Money Received – A Critical Analysis

The Dual Conditions for Taxability

Section 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act imposes tax liability on sums received as advance or otherwise during negotiations for transfer of a capital asset, provided two essential conditions are concurrently satisfied: (i) the amount must be received in the course of negotiation for transfer of a capital asset, and (ii) such negotiation must not result in transfer, with the amount being forfeited. The legislature has consciously employed the conjunction 'and', making both conditions mandatory for the provision to apply.

Gujarat High Court reaffirms mandatory right to personal hearing in Faceless Assessments

 Recently, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in B.M. Developers v. Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department ruled in favor of the taxpayer and reaffirmed that an assessment completed under the faceless assessment regime cannot disregard the taxpayer's statutory right to a personal hearing. The Hon’ble Court held that where a taxpayer specifically requests a hearing through video conferencing, the same must be granted in accordance with the prescribed procedure, failing which the assessment would be vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice.

CBIC clarifies drawback and refund mechanism under customs where import duty is paid through duty credit scrips

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) clarifying the manner of grant of drawback or refund in cases where import duty was paid through duty credit scrips.

The key clarifications are:

Section 54F Survives Family Connection: ITAT Backs Genuine Intra-Family Property Transaction

 In a recent ruling, the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal examined the availability of deduction under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where a residential property is purchased from close relatives, and whether such a transaction can be disregarded as a colourable device merely because the parties are family members.

Strategic Grounds for Tax Appeals in GST

 

There is a visible surge in Indirect Tax litigations in recent times. An effective litigation strategy is built not just on merits of the case but also on various other grounds. In this Insight, we have discussed such grounds that Taxpayers can consider evaluating.

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.