In Supreme Court of India

Union of India vs. M/S Yasho Industries Ltd [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 17547 of 2025]

Background of the Case

The legal dispute between the Union of India and Yasho Industries Limited originated from conflicting interpretations of Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, which governs pre-deposit requirements for filing GST appeals. Yasho Industries, a manufacturer and exporter of specialty chemicals, had deposited Rs. 3.36 crore as a mandatory pre-deposit using its Electronic Credit Ledger while challenging a GST demand. However, tax authorities rejected this method, insisting the payment be made through the Electronic Cash Ledger.

The Gujarat High Court, in its October 2024 judgment, ruled in favor of Yasho Industries, holding that the Electronic Credit Ledger payment complied with the law. The Union of India, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking reversal on grounds of statutory misinterpretation.

Arguments by the Appellant (Union of India)

The Union of India contended that the Section 107(6)(b) implicitly required pre-deposits to be made in cash, not through input tax credits, to ensure revenue certainty. They argued that permitting Electronic Credit Ledger payments for pre-deposits could lead to potential misuse, as credit ledgers might contain disputed or unverified claims. Additionally, the appellant highlighted that similar cases filed by taxpayers were pending before the Supreme Court and urged the Court to tag this case with those matters for a consolidated ruling. The department maintained that the High Court’s interpretation conflicted with the legislative intent of safeguarding tax collection mechanisms.

Respondent’s Response (M/S Yasho Industries Limited)

Yasho Industries countered the appellant claims by emphasizing the Bombay High Court’s precedent in Oasis Realty and a 2022 CBIC circular, both of which explicitly allowed pre-deposits via the Electronic Credit Ledger. The respondent argued that the deletion of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules in 2024 had already resolved the underlying dispute, rendering the department’s appeal redundant. The respondent further pointed out that the pending cases cited by the Union were filed by taxpayers, not the Revenue, making them irrelevant to this appeal. The respondent asserted that the High Court’s decision aligned with GST laws and that the department’s insistence on cash payments imposed an unjust financial burden on businesses.

Court Findings and Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s judgment and dismissed the Union’s appeal. The Court ruled that the pre-deposit through the Electronic Credit Ledger was legally valid, as Section 107(6)(b) did not explicitly mandate cash payments. It noted that the pending cases referenced by the Revenue were materially distinct, as they involved challenges by taxpayers rather than the department. The bench also observed that the deletion of Rule 96(10) had eliminated the core controversy, making further intervention unnecessary. The judgment reinforced taxpayer-friendly interpretations of GST procedures and curtailed arbitrary revenue demands, providing clarity for similar disputes.

GST Appeal Pre-Deposit via Electronic Credit Ledger:

To download official order of Gujarat High Court, Click Here and for Supreme Court order, Click Here.“

The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Supreme Court Upholds Gujarat HC Ruling: 10% Pre-Deposit for GST Appeals Can Be Paid Through Electronic Credit Ledger appeared first on Tax Unplug.

1. Mismatch of Sales Data Between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B

Problem:
Many businesses report sales figures incorrectly in GSTR-1 compared to GSTR-3B, leading to discrepancies.

Fix:
Always reconcile sales data monthly before filing. Use automated accounting software or maintain clean Excel sheets to match figures. You can refer our blog on “A Practical Guide to GST Reconciliation for 2025” to understand that why GST Reconciliation is necessary and how to reconcile the data.

2. Incorrect Claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC)

Problem:
Claiming ITC without verifying whether the supplier has uploaded invoices can result in disallowance of credits.

Fix:
Before filing, match your GSTR-2A/2B report with your purchase records. Only claim ITC if it appears in GSTR-2A/2B. Claiming excess ITC can lead to scrutiny of your GST Returns.

3. Non-Payment of Tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM)

Problem:
Tax under RCM (like legal services, security services) is often forgotten, causing non-compliance.

Fix:
Maintain a separate record for RCM liabilities and pay them in cash through GSTR-3B. Then claim ITC in the next return.

4. Wrong GST Rates Applied

Problem:
Applying incorrect GST rates on products or services can lead to underpayment or overpayment.

Fix:
Always refer to the latest GST rate notifications on the GST portal or consult a tax expert before invoicing.

5. Delayed Filing of GST Returns

Problem:
Late filing results in late fees, penalties, and interest, hurting business cash flow.

Fix:
Set reminders or automate filing alerts. File NIL returns if there are no transactions to avoid penalties. If you did not file return for a long period, The GST department can cancel your GST registration.

6. Incorrect Classification of Goods and Services (HSN/SAC Codes)

Problem:
Using wrong HSN (for goods) or SAC (for services) codes can lead to mismatches and penalties.

Fix:
Double-check HSN/SAC codes from the official GST HSN Code list before filing returns.

7. Non-Reversal of ITC for Non-Payment to Vendors

Problem:
If payment to vendors is not made within 180 days, ITC claimed needs to be reversed.

Fix:
Regularly review your accounts payable and reverse ITC if payments are delayed beyond 180 days, as per GST rules.

8. Errors in Export/Import Reporting

Problem:
Incorrect reporting of export invoices or forgetting LUT (Letter of Undertaking) submission can block refunds.

Fix:
Ensure all export invoices are correctly reported with shipping bills, and LUT is filed timely every year.

9. Filing Wrong Type of Return

Problem:
Businesses sometimes file GSTR-1 quarterly when they should be filing monthly based on turnover.

Fix:
 Check your aggregate turnover of the previous financial year and select the correct filing frequency accordingly.

10. Failure to Report Advances Received

Problem:
Advance payments received (especially for services) must be reported, but many businesses miss this.

Fix:
Maintain a register of advances separately and report them under the “Advance Received” section of GSTR-1.

 Final Thoughts:

GST filing may seem complicated, but with the right practices, you can avoid costly errors.
 Always reconcile your records, stay updated with the latest GST rules, and take expert help if needed.

At TaxUnplug, we specialize in making your GST filing process easy, accurate, and hassle-free.

• Stay compliant
• Maximize your ITC
• Avoid penalties

Need help with GST filing?

Top 10 Common GST Filing Errors
Contact TaxUnplug today and file your GST returns with complete confidence!

The post Top 10 Common GST Filing Errors and How to Fix Them (2025 Update) appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Mark Foods vs. Revenue [Income Tax Appeal No.4102 & 4103 of 2024]

Background of the Case

The appellant filed appeal before ITAT Mumbai against reassessment orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Income Tax Department had initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the company had engaged in bogus purchases and unexplained financial transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 148, seeking to reopen previously concluded assessments. The appellant contested these notices on multiple grounds, including procedural irregularities, lack of proper approval, and violation of natural justice. The case gained significance due to its reliance on key judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s rulings in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, which dealt with the legality of reassessment proceedings under the amended tax regime.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant, raised several critical objections against the reassessment proceedings. For AY 2015-16, the appellant argued that the notice under Section 148, issued 15.07.2022, was time-barred, as the six-year limitation period had already expired on 31.03.2022. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajeev Bansal, where the Revenue itself admitted that notices issued after 01.04.2021 for this assessment year were invalid. For AY 2016-17, the appellant contended that the sanction for reopening was granted by an unauthorized authority the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the higher-ranking Principal Chief Commissioner, as mandated under Section 151(ii) of the amended law.

Additionally, the appellant challenged the reassessment on grounds of violation of natural justice, arguing that they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the AO. They also disputed the double taxation of the same amount, first as unexplained income under Section 68 and then as bogus purchases.

Respondent’s Response

The Revenue defended the reassessment proceedings, asserting that the notices were validly issued under the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, read with the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). The department argued that TOLA extended the timelines for initiating reassessment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, making the notices legally permissible. For AY 2016-17, the Revenue maintained that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner was sufficient, as the new reassessment regime did not require a higher authority’s sanction in all cases. They further contended that the reassessment was based on credible evidence of bogus transactions and that the appellant’s objections were merely technical, lacking substantive merit.

The Revenue also emphasized that the denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the proceedings, as the AO had relied on independent material to form his belief about escaped income.

Court Findings and Decision

The ITAT bench of Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the reassessment proceedings for both AYs. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajeev Bansal, where the Revenue had conceded that notices issued after 01.04.2021 for this assessment year were invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that the six-year limitation period had expired before the notice was issued, rendering the reassessment void.

For AY 2016-17, the ITAT found that the sanction for reopening was invalid because it was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as required under Section 151(ii) of the amended law. The Tribunal stressed that strict compliance with statutory procedures was mandatory, and the failure to obtain proper approval made the reassessment legally unsustainable.

Additionally, the ITAT noted that the AO had failed to provide the appellant with a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the reassessment orders in their entirety.

To download official order, Click Here“

The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post ITAT Sets Aside Reassessment Orders; Holds Section 148 Notices Time-Barred and Sanctions under section 151(ii) Invalid for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 appeared first on Tax Unplug.

By TaxUnplug

Have you ever received a notice from the GST department or Income Tax department?
 It can feel scary — but with the right steps, you can manage it calmly and smartly.

In this article, TaxUnplug shares a simple, actionable plan to help you handle any tax notice confidently.

Step 1: Stay Calm and Read Carefully

When you first receive a notice, do not panic.
 Action Tip:

• Read the entire notice carefully.
• Understand which law it relates to — GST or Income Tax.
• Check important details:
  • Your name and PAN/GSTIN
  • Notice date
  • Response deadline
  • Reason for the notice (like a mismatch, late filing, non-disclosure).

Pro Tip: Sometimes, small clerical errors cause notices. Not every notice means a big problem!

Step 2: Verify the Authenticity

Fraudulent notices and phishing scams are increasing. Always verify if the notice is genuine.

Action Tip:

• Visit official portals like:
  • Income Tax Portal
  • GST Portal
• Cross-check with your tax records.

Pro Tip: Never click on links inside suspicious emails. Always verify independently.

Step 3: Identify the Type of Notice

Different notices require different responses.
Here’s a quick breakdown:

Action Tip:
 Identify if it’s an informational, correctional, or penalty notice.

For detailed understanding about Income Tax and GST Notice, refer our following blogs:

• GST Notices Explained: A Quick Guide for Businesses
• Common Reasons Why Taxpayers Get GST Notices – Are You at Risk?
• Did You Receive a Demand Notice from the Income Tax Department?
• How to Respond to a Tax Notice without Stress

Step 4: Consult a Professional

Never take notices lightly, even if they look simple.

Action Tip:

• If you are not able to understand the scenario for which notice were issued, Contact a qualified Tax Consultant.
• Share the complete notice and your past returns/filings.

Pro Tip: Experts can often get minor notices closed easily by replying correctly.

Step 5: Prepare a Strong Response

If you are ready to respond at your own, Your reply should be:

• Correct by facts and explanation
• Complete with all supporting documents
• Must be submitted Within Deadline

Action Tip:

• Prepare a point-by-point reply.
• Attach supporting documents like tax returns, challans, invoices, bank statements, or sale deed, ledger confirmation etc.
• Mention your compliance history, if clean.

Pro Tip: Always keep a copy of your response for your records.

Step 6: Submit Your Reply Through Proper Channels

Each law has specific platforms for reply submission:

• GST: Submit via the GST Portal.
• Income Tax: Submit via the Income Tax e-Filing Portal.

Action Tip:
 Use official channels only, and keep an acknowledgment of submission.

Step 7: Follow Up and Stay Updated

After submitting your response, monitor the case closely.

Action Tip:

• Check your email/SMS regularly.
• Log in to your tax accounts to track status updates.
• If needed, attend hearings or submit extra documents.

Pro Tip: Quick follow-up can sometimes close cases faster without penalties.

Conclusion:

GST and Income Tax Notices

Receiving a tax notice is normal in today’s world.
 Handling it smartly and quickly is the real game.

• Stay Calm
• Verify and Understand
• Seek Expert Help
• Respond Properly
• Follow Up

TaxUnplug is always here to guide you through your tax compliance journey.

Stay stress-free and compliant — every step of the way!

Why Trust TaxUnplug?

At TaxUnplug, we specialize in guiding clients through tax-related challenges with a stress-free approach. Our team of experts offers tailored solutions to ensure compliance and peace of mind.

No matter where you are—Mumbai, Surat, Pune, Jaipur, Jodhpur, or Ahmedabad—TaxUnplug is here to help you handle tax notices effectively and professionally.

Facing a notice? Let TaxUnplug handle it for you!

The post GST and Income Tax Notices: A Simple Action Plan to Handle All appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Revenue vs. M/s.Vetrivel Minerals (VV Minerals) [WA (MD) No.119 to 123 of 2022]

Background of the Case

The case arose from a series of writ appeals filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging a common order passed by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The dispute stemmed from income tax assessments conducted against M/s. Vetrivel Minerals (VV Minerals) and M/s. Vijay Cements following search operations carried out in October 2018. The Income Tax Department had issued notices under Sections 153A and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequently passed assessment orders in June 2021, making substantial additions to the income of the firms. The respondent filed writ petitions before the High Court, alleging violations of natural justice, including non-furnishing of crucial documents (such as 101 panchnamas) and reliance on statements recorded without allowing cross-examination. The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, quashing the assessment orders and directing fresh assessments with specific procedural safeguards.

Arguments by the Appellant (Income Tax Department)

The Revenue, represented by its standing counsel, contended that the writ petitions should not have been entertained due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, which permits appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, the Revenue argued that High Courts should not interfere in tax matters when statutory appellate mechanisms exist. The Department also defended the validity of the assessment proceedings, asserting that all necessary documents had been made available to the respondent and that the principles of natural justice were substantially complied with. Additionally, the Revenue challenged the Single Judge’s finding that electronic evidence had to comply strictly with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, contending that income tax proceedings are not bound by such technical rules of evidence.

Respondent’s Response (Respondent)

The respondent supported the Single Judge’s order, emphasizing that the assessment orders were passed in violation of natural justice. They highlighted that key documents, including panchnamas and statements of third parties, were not provided, depriving them of a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The respondent also argued that electronic evidence relied upon by the Department was inadmissible without certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. They maintained that the case fell within the exceptions outlined in Chhabil Dass Agarwal, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents further contended that the Single Judge’s directions for a fresh assessment were necessary to ensure a fair and transparent process.

Court Findings and Decision

The Division Bench of Madras High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order, ruling that the respondent should have exhausted the statutory appellate remedy before approaching the High Court. The Bench reaffirmed the principle laid down in Chhabil Dass Agarwal and earlier precedents, stressing that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists. While acknowledging the exceptions to this rule, such as cases involving blatant violations of natural justice, the Court held that the respondent had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to bypass the appeal process.

On the issue of electronic evidence, the Bench clarified that income tax authorities are not strictly bound by Section 65B of the Evidence Act, as assessment proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and not governed by formal rules of evidence. However, the Court directed the Department to furnish copies of all 101 panchnamas to the respondent within three weeks, enabling them to pursue their appeals effectively. The respondent were granted four weeks thereafter to file appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), with all legal and factual issues left open for adjudication, except the applicability of Section 65B.

In conclusion, the writ appeals were allowed, and the assessment orders were restored, subject to the respondent’ right to challenge them in appellate proceedings.

To download official order, Click Here

Section 65B Certificate in Income Tax

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Section 65B Certificate Not Mandatory in Income Tax Assessment Proceedings appeared first on Tax Unplug.

M/s.US Electricals,, vs. Revenue [W.P. No. 6262 of 2025]

Background of the Case

The appellant M/s. US Electricals was issued a show cause notice under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, citing discrepancies between the turnover declared in the appellant’s GSTR-3B and the TDS deductions shown in Form 26AS of the Income Tax Act. The appellant was requested to submit documents for verification. However, the appellant was unaware of the notice due to a lack of access to the GST portal and only became aware of the notice when informed over the phone by the respondent in December 2023. The appellant responded with a clarification and requested a personal hearing. Subsequently the assessment order passed dated 05.02.2025. The appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashing of this order and a direction to reconsider the matter afresh.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant contended that despite providing a detailed reply to the show cause notice, the respondent passed the assessment order on the same day, without considering the response or offering a personal hearing. This, the appellant argued, was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the appellant filed a rectification application, which was also rejected on 05.02.2025, and the disputed tax liability was recovered by debiting the appellant’s e-credit ledger. The appellant, thus, filed the writ petition to challenge the validity of the order and sought a fresh hearing.

Respondent’s Response

The respondent’s, Revenue acknowledged the procedural lapse. They conceded that the assessment order was passed without providing the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing and that this was a mistake on part of the authorities. They further suggested that if the court deems it appropriate, the case should be reconsidered in accordance with the proper procedure.

Court Findings and Decision

The Madras High Court observed that the assessment order had been passed without due consideration of the reply filed by the appellant, and more critically, without providing the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing. The court noted that this action violated Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which mandates that a personal hearing should be provided before passing an order.

The court emphasized that the appellant was denied the fundamental right to establish their case, thereby infringing upon the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court decided to set aside the impugned assessment order and directed the respondent to reconsider the case. The respondent was ordered to consider the appellant’s reply and objections, schedule a personal hearing, and pass a fresh order based on the merits of the case. The court directed that this process be completed expeditiously, preferably within three weeks from the receipt of the court’s order.

To download official order, Click Here

Madras HC cancels GST assessment

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Madras High Court Sets Aside GST Assessment Order for Violation of Natural Justice: Personal Hearing Denied and Reply Ignored in Breach of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Technic Infrastructure Private Limited, vs. Revenue [W.P. No. 1298 of 2025]

Background of the Case

The Appellant, Technic Infrastructure Private Limited, engaged in the business of construction and works contract services and registered under the GST regime, was issued an assessment order dated 29.08.2024 under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2019–20. The order was based on discrepancies identified during scrutiny, including mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, GSTR-8 and GSTR-1, as well as alleged non-generation of e-way bills. The final order was passed without properly considering the reply and documentary evidence submitted by the appellant.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant contended that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as their reply dated 29.06.2024 was not adequately considered and they were not given a reasonable opportunity to present supporting documentation. The appellant further submitted that they were in a position to fully explain the alleged discrepancies if given another opportunity. In support of their claim, they relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. K. Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, where under similar circumstances, the matter was remanded subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax. The appellant expressed their willingness to comply with a similar condition for a fresh adjudication.

Respondent’s Response

The respondent, Revenue did not raise strong objection to the appellant’s plea and was agreeable to remanding the matter subject to the appellant making a partial tax deposit. It was submitted that the impugned order was passed due to the appellant’s failure to substantiate their reply with documentary evidence, but the department was open to a fresh assessment if the appellant adhered to conditions ensuring partial recovery of dues.

Court Findings and Decision

The Madras High Court held that the assessment order suffered from procedural irregularities and violated principles of natural justice. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 and directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. If any part of the tax had already been paid or recovered, the same would be adjusted toward the 25% requirement. Further held that the assessment order would be treated as a show cause notice, and the appellant would be allowed to file objections within four weeks, accompanied by relevant supporting documents. The assessing authority was directed to pass a fresh order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Madras High Court Sets Aside GST Assessment for Breach of Natural Justice; Allows Fresh Adjudication Subject to Partial Tax Deposit appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Nayanaben Hasmukhbhai Patel & Ors. vs. Revenue [Special Civil Application No.14635 of 2024]

Background of the Case

A search and seizure operation conducted by the Income Tax Department at the premises of petitioner no. 3, Anandkumar Hasmukhbhai Patel. During the proceedings, jewellery worth Rs. 77.82 lakh was discovered, of which Rs. 42.86 lakh was accepted under CBDT Instruction No.1916 as belonging to his family members and not seized. However, the remaining jewellery worth Rs. 34.96 lakh along with Rs. 7 lakh in cash was seized under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the jewellery was subjected to scrutiny during the assessment for AY 2014–15. Though a partial relief of ₹15 lakh was granted, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 19.96 lakh to the taxable income of petitioner no. 3.

This addition was later deleted in full by the CIT(A) on 02.04.2019, a decision that reached finality as no appeal was filed by the department. Despite this, the Income Tax Department did not release the entire seized jewellery, prompting the petitioners to approach the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant argued that once the addition had been deleted by the CIT(A), and the penalty amount under Section 271(1)(c) had been duly paid, there remained no outstanding tax liability for AY 2014–15. They contended that the Department’s continued retention of jewellery worth Rs. 16.33 lakh, especially after releasing a portion worth Rs. 18.63 lakh to petitioner no.1, was unjustified. It was also emphasized that the jewellery in question was not owned by petitioner no.3, but by his wife and mother, as evidenced by a joint affidavit submitted on 07.11.2024.

The petitioners invoked Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, asserting that the seized assets could only be retained against liabilities pertaining to the relevant assessment year, and not for future demands. Relying on both statutory provisions and precedents, they pleaded for the immediate release of the remaining seized jewellery and sought interest compensation for the undue retention.

Respondent’s Response

The respondent, Revenue argued that a substantial outstanding demand of Rs. 3.36 crore existed against petitioner no.3 for subsequent assessment years, and that the remaining jewellery was being rightfully retained to safeguard recovery of these dues. The Department took the stand that despite the relief granted for AY 2014–15, the assets were lawfully being adjusted against the petitioner’s overall liability. Thus, they sought validation of the order dated 12.11.2024, through which the partial release of jewellery had been made, while the remainder was retained as security for future recoveries.

Court Findings and Decision

The Gujarat High Court held that the Income Tax Department could not retain jewellery seized for one assessment year against liabilities arising from other assessment years, especially when the assessment in question had concluded without any outstanding demand. The Court noted that the CIT(A)’s order had attained finality and that there was no pending liability for AY 2014–15. Furthermore, the department’s reliance on general instructions could not override the specific statutory limitations of Section 132B as it stood at the relevant time. The Court directed the respondents to release the remaining jewellery and dismissed the justification for withholding the same against unrelated tax dues.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Gujarat High Court Directs Release of Seized Jewellery; Disallows Adjustment Against Unrelated Tax Liabilities of Other Assessment Years appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Prasad Nimmagadda vs. Revenue [Black Money Appeal No. 2 of 2024]

Background of the Case

The appellant, Prasad Nimmagadda filed his ITR but failed to disclose certain foreign assets for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appellant not disclosed assets included investments in foreign entities and residential properties. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh under Section 43 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA Act) for this non-disclosure, which was later upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellant approached the ITAT Hyderabad, seeking relief on the grounds that the omission was inadvertent and not deliberate.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant, contended that the failure to disclose foreign assets in the ITR for AY 2017-18 was an unintentional oversight. He argued that the investments in question had been consistently reported in previous and subsequent years, demonstrating that there was no attempt to conceal information. Additionally, he emphasized that the sources of these investments had been fully explained and accepted by the tax authorities during assessment proceedings, confirming that there was no undisclosed income involved. The appellant further submitted that the stringent provisions of the BMA Act should not be applied mechanically, especially in cases where the taxpayer has acted in good faith and rectified the omission voluntarily.

Respondent’s Response

The respondent, Revenue defended the imposition of the penalty, asserting that Section 43 of the BMA Act mandates strict consequences for non-disclosure of foreign assets, irrespective of the taxpayer’s intent. The respondent argued that the appellant failed to report these assets in the designated Schedule FA of the ITR constituted a clear violation of statutory obligations. The respondent maintained that the Assessing Officer had the discretion to impose penalties in such cases and that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the omission was beyond his control. They emphasized that the BMA Act was enacted to combat black money and that leniency in its application could undermine its effectiveness.

Court Findings and Decision

The ITAT Hyderabad ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty. The Tribunal observed that the non-disclosure was a bona fide error, given that the same assets had been consistently reported in other assessment years. It noted that the AO had accepted the legitimacy of the investments during the assessment proceedings, indicating that there was no attempt to evade taxes. The ITAT referenced its earlier decision in Ocean Diving Centre Ltd., where it was held that penalties under the BMA Act should not be levied for inadvertent omissions.

The Tribunal also relied on the Telangana High Court’s judgment in Mylan Laboratories, which underscored the importance of judicial discipline and the need to avoid mechanical application of penalties in cases involving technical breaches.

ITAT Black Money Penalty

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post ITAT Sets Aside Penalty in Black Money Case: Non-Disclosure Was Inadvertent and the Technical Lapses Shouldn’t Attract Harsh Penalties appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Paying income tax is a crucial responsibility for every taxpayer in India. Whether you are paying Self-Assessed Tax (due at the time of filing ITR if additional tax is payable) or Advance Tax (paid in instalments during the financial year), the process can be completed online easily. This guide provides detailed, step-by-step instructions to help you navigate the online tax payment system.​

Understanding Self-Assessment Tax and Advance Tax

Self-Assessment Tax: This is the tax you pay when filing your Income Tax Return (ITR) if the total tax liability exceeds the sum of taxes already paid through Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and advance tax. It covers any remaining tax payable for the financial year.​

Advance Tax: Also known as “pay-as-you-earn” tax, advance tax is paid during the financial year in instalments, based on your estimated income. If your total tax liability exceeds 10,000 in a financial year, you’re required to pay advance tax.​

However, a resident senior citizen (i.e., an individual of the age of 60 years or above) not having any income from a business or profession is not liable to pay advance tax.

Prerequisites for Online Tax Payment

Before proceeding, ensure you have:

• A valid Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the person for which you are paying Income Tax.
• Access to net banking or other online payment methods.​
• Accurate calculation of the tax amount to be paid.​

Step-by-Step Guide to Paying Taxes Online

1. Visit the official e-Filing portal: https://www.incometax.gov.in/iec/foportal/

2. On the homepage, locate the ‘Quick Links’ section

3. Navigate to the ‘e-Pay Tax’ Section

4. Enter the PAN of the person for which you are paying Income Tax and Mobile Number for OTP verification and click ‘Continue’.

5. Enter the 6-digit OTP received on mobile number to verify.

6. Select the Tax Payment Type ‘Income Tax’ and click ‘Proceed’.

7. Now, If You are paying “Self-Assessment Tax”, select the relevant Assessment Year (e.g., A.Y. 2025-26 for income earned in F.Y. 2024-25) and choose ‘Self-Assessment Tax (300)’.​

8. For Advance Tax, select the relevant Assessment Year and choose ‘Advance Tax (100)’.​ (e.g., If you are paying advance tax for F.Y. 2025-26, select A.Y. as 2026-27)

9. Enter the amount under the relevant column. (e.g. If you are paying ‘Tax’ than enter the same in Tax Column). Late fee under 234F can be paid through ‘Others’ section.​

10. After filing payable amount under appropriate column, click ‘Continue’.

11. On the next window, you have to choose the payment method. Select your preferred payment option and click ‘Continue’.

12. Review all entered details for accuracy and click on ‘Pay Now’. If details are incorrect, you can edit the details by clicking on ‘Edit’.

13. Agree to the terms and conditions and click ‘Submit to Bank’ to proceed.

14. You’ll be redirected to your chosen bank’s portal.​ Log in and authorize the payment.

15. Upon successful transaction, you will be redirected back to Income tax portal and a challan counterfoil with the Challan Identification Number (CIN) will be generated.

16.Download and Save the Challan Receipt for your records.

17. The format of the challan receipt is as follows:

Important Points to Remember

• Timely Payment: Ensure advance tax instalments are paid by their respective due dates to avoid interest penalties under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act.​
• Accurate Calculation: Use the Income Tax Department’s tax calculator or consult a tax professional like ‘Taxunplug’ to determine the correct tax amount.​
• Record Keeping: Maintain copies of all challans and receipts as proof of payment.​

Important Deadlines for Advance Tax Payments

FAQs on Income Tax Payment (How to Pay Self-Assessed Tax )

Q. What is Self-Assessed Tax and Advance Tax?

Self-Assessment Tax is paid at the time of filing your Income Tax Return (ITR) if an additional tax liability is identified. Applicable when TDS/TCS or advance tax paid is less than the actual tax liability.

Q. Can we verify tax payment in AIS, TIS & Form 26AS?

Yes You can verify your payment of income tax in AIS & TIS by visiting at AIS portal or at TDS portal to check the same in 26AS.

Q. Can I pay advance tax in one instalment?

Yes, but paying in instalments avoids interest penalties.

Q. What if I miss an advance tax deadline?

You can pay later, but interest will apply.

Q. How long does it take for tax credit to reflect in Form 26AS?

Usually it will take 3 to 4 working days.

Paying Self-Assessed Tax or Advance Tax online is quick and hassle-free if you follow the correct steps. Always verify payments in Form 26AS and keep challan receipts safely for future reference. If you need further assistance, consider consulting a tax professional like Taxunplug by dropping your Name, Email and Phone No. Our team of experts will take care of all the sticky things and helps to take timely action, and ensure compliance to avoid legal complications.

How to Pay Self-Assessed Tax and Advance Income Tax Online

The information provided in above blog is for general informational only and should not be considered as legal or tax advice. Request you to please follow latest updated in reference to above details. We advise to consult with a qualified tax professional such as “Taxunplug” for all your tax needs.

The post How to Pay Self-Assessed Tax and Advance Income Tax Online in India – A Step-by-Step Guide appeared first on Tax Unplug.