Accu Iconic Mark Private Limited

Home
India
Gurugram
Accu Iconic Mark Private Limited

Directions Website

Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Accu Iconic Mark Private Limited, Financial Consultant, sec 103, Gurugram.

ACCU ICONIC MARK PRIVATE LIMITED offers professional financial consulting, accounting services, and innovative advertising & marketing solutions to support business growth and success.”

01/10/2026

# # # CASE SUMMARY

The taxpayer challenged the refusal to grant a stay on tax recovery while the appeal was pending. The authority had relied mainly on **non-payment of the disputed demand and pendency of the appeal**, without properly examining the merits of the stay request, relevant facts, and surrounding circumstances. The court held that the stay application must be considered through **reasoned, merit-based discretion**. Non-payment of 20% of the disputed demand cannot, by itself, be treated as an automatic bar to considering the stay request.

# # # EXPERT ADVICE

A stay application should clearly present the **merits of the appeal, financial circumstances, disputed issues, supporting documents, and other relevant facts**. Authorities should consider these factors rather than mechanically rejecting the request only because the disputed demand has not been paid. A reasoned stay application can therefore be important in protecting the taxpayer from recovery proceedings while the appeal is being decided.

30/09/2026

CALL ME 9220641168

29/09/2026

# # CASE SUMMARY

**TDS on External Development Charges – Issue Remains Unresolved**

The dispute concerned the correct TDS treatment of **External Development Charges (EDC)** paid by the assessee. The key question was whether such payments should be treated as **“rent” taxable under Section 194-I** or as **contractual payments covered under Section 194C** of the Income-tax Act.

The Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court was filed with a **delay of 328 days**. The Court found the reasons given for condonation of delay to be unsatisfactory and insufficient in law. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and, consequently, the SLP was also dismissed.

**Importantly, the SLP was not decided on the merits of the TDS classification issue.** Therefore, the dismissal did not determine whether EDC is subject to TDS under Section 194-I or Section 194C. ([TaxTMI][1])

# # # EXPERT ADVICE

* **Do not treat the SLP dismissal as a final ruling on the EDC TDS classification.**
* Examine the **nature and statutory character of the EDC payment** before determining the applicable TDS provision.
* The distinction between **Section 194-I (rent)** and **Section 194C (contractual/work payment)** should be analysed based on the applicable facts, agreements and governing regulations.
* Maintain supporting documents such as **payment challans, authority demands, licences, agreements and correspondence** to establish the nature of EDC.
* Any TDS position should be reviewed in light of the **applicable jurisdictional High Court and subsequent Supreme Court decisions** before taking a final compliance position. Earlier Delhi High Court litigation, for example, separately considered whether EDC could constitute rent under Section 194-I. ([itatonline.org][2])

**Key Takeaway:**
**“SLP Dismissed on Delay ≠ TDS Issue Decided on Merits.”**

28/09/2026

call me 092206 41168

26/09/2026

# # # **CASE SUMMARY**

Assessment proceedings under **Section 153A** were challenged on the ground that the mandatory approval under **Section 153D** was granted without proper application of mind. The challenge sought to question the validity of the assessment on the basis of the alleged defect in the approval process. Section 153D requires prior approval of the Joint Commissioner before the relevant assessment/reassessment order is passed. ([Etds][1])

In the matter referred to, the **Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order and dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP)**. Thus, the challenge based on alleged non-application of mind did not result in interference with the assessment at the Supreme Court stage.

# # # **EXPERT ADVICE**

* **Section 153D approval should be examined carefully** whenever a search assessment under Section 153A is challenged.
* The approval is a statutory requirement and, in several decisions, courts/tribunals have examined whether the approving authority had considered the relevant assessment material and draft order. ([Indian Kanoon][2])
* However, **an allegation of “non-application of mind” should be supported by concrete material**, such as the approval record, dates, draft assessment orders, number of assessment years/cases involved, and relevant correspondence.
* The mere fact that an approval order contains limited reasoning does not automatically establish invalidity; recent tribunal decisions have also considered the distinction between an administrative approval and a detailed quasi-judicial order. ([Indian Kanoon][3])
* Therefore, before challenging a Section 153D approval, the **complete assessment and approval records should be reviewed year-wise** and the precise procedural defect should be identified.

**Key Takeaway:**
**Section 153D approval is an important statutory safeguard, but a challenge based on non-application of mind needs to be established from the actual approval process and relevant records.**

25/09/2026

# # # **Case Summary**

The case concerns a challenge to **assessment additions involving factual and evidentiary issues**. Since the applicable statute provided an **effective appellate remedy**, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and directed the dispute toward the statutory appellate mechanism. The **Supreme Court declined to interfere and dismissed the SLP**, leaving the High Court’s approach undisturbed. ([Sci.gov.in][1])

The principle is that where an assessment dispute requires examination of **facts, documents, evidence and the correctness of additions**, the prescribed appellate forum is ordinarily the appropriate route. The availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but courts generally exercise discretion cautiously where an efficacious statutory remedy exists. ([Sci.gov.in][1])

# # # **Expert Advice**

* **Prefer the statutory appeal** when the dispute primarily involves factual or evidentiary examination.
* Carefully calculate the **appeal limitation period** and file within the prescribed time.
* Prepare complete documentary evidence supporting each ground of appeal.
* A writ petition may still be relevant in exceptional situations, such as **breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the validity of legislation**. ([Sci.gov.in][1])
* Before approaching the High Court, examine whether the statutory appellate mechanism can provide an effective remedy for the specific dispute.

**Key Takeaway:**
**Fact + Evidence Dispute → Statutory Appeal → Writ Jurisdiction Generally Exercised Sparingly.**

24/09/2026

# # # Case Summary

The case concerns a GST refund claim for an **inadvertent deposit lying in the Electronic Cash Ledger**. The taxpayer sought recovery of the unintended amount along with applicable interest. The matter highlights that merely having excess or wrongly deposited funds in the Electronic Cash Ledger is not enough; the taxpayer must follow the **prescribed refund procedure** and submit the required application and supporting documents.

# # # Expert Advice

Taxpayers should maintain proper evidence of the inadvertent deposit, including **challans, Electronic Cash Ledger records, GST returns and reconciliation statements**. Before filing the refund claim, the amount should be properly verified and the relevant documentary requirements should be complied with.

**Key Takeaway:**
**Proper documentation + correct refund procedure = stronger GST refund claim.**
Businesses should review their Electronic Cash Ledger regularly to identify unintended or excess deposits and take timely action for recovery.

23/09/2026

# # Case Summary

**Amended GST Pre-Deposit Rule — Applicability to Earlier Proceedings**

The issue concerns the **10% pre-deposit requirement introduced from 1 October 2025** for appeals involving penalty-only orders under Sections 107(6) and 112(8) of the CGST Act.

In **Reddy Veeranna Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner (GST)**, GSTAT Hyderabad considered proceedings where the show-cause notice, adjudication order and first appellate order had all arisen **before 1 October 2025**. The Tribunal held that the amended pre-deposit condition could not be applied retrospectively and admitted the appeal without insisting on the 10% penalty deposit. ([SCC Online®][1])

A similar principle was considered by the **Delhi High Court in Gaurav Jain v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST Delhi Zone**, where the Court examined whether the amended requirement could apply when the underlying proceedings had commenced before 1 October 2025. The Court treated the right of appeal as a substantive right arising with commencement of the dispute. ([Indian Kanoon][2])

# # # Expert Advice

1. **Check the date of the SCN and commencement of proceedings** before determining whether the amended pre-deposit provision applies.
2. If the proceedings commenced **before 1 October 2025**, the taxpayer may have a legal basis to contest application of the newly introduced 10% penalty pre-deposit requirement.
3. The **exact nature of the order** is important—particularly whether it is a penalty-only order or involves disputed tax as well.
4. Maintain the complete chronology: **SCN → adjudication order → first appeal order → GSTAT appeal**, as the dates can materially affect the applicability question.
5. The issue remains dependent on the **specific facts and applicable judicial interpretation**, so the filing should clearly preserve the contention regarding prospective application of the amendment. ([SCC Online®][1])

**Key Takeaway:**
**An amendment introducing a new appellate pre-deposit condition may not automatically govern proceedings that had already commenced before the amendment's effective date.**

22/09/2026

# # # CASE SUMMARY

A co-operative society was held eligible for deduction under **Section 80P(2)(d)** in respect of eligible income, as it was **not a co-operative bank**. The cancellation of its licence did not, by itself, defeat the deduction claim. The High Court quashed the reassessment notices and related departmental orders, and the **Supreme Court declined to interfere**, leaving the High Court’s decision undisturbed.

# # # EXPERT ADVICE

* Verify whether the society qualifies as a **co-operative society and not a co-operative bank** for the relevant assessment year.
* Examine the **nature of the income** claimed as deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
* Cancellation of a licence should be analysed separately from the society’s statutory eligibility for deduction.
* Maintain complete records supporting the society’s status, income source and deduction claim.
* If reassessment proceedings are initiated, examine the **jurisdiction, reasons recorded and statutory limitation** before responding.

19/09/2026

# # # CASE SUMMARY

A final settlement order under the Income-tax settlement scheme attains statutory finality for the matters covered by it, including deductions considered while determining total income. Once settlement proceedings are validly concluded, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the settled issues through reassessment proceedings. Allegations of fraud or misrepresentation must be dealt with through the specific mechanism provided under the settlement scheme.

# # # EXPERT ADVICE

Where an assessment year has been conclusively settled by the Settlement Commission, reassessment should not be used to reopen matters already covered by the settlement order. If the Revenue alleges fraud or misrepresentation, the prescribed settlement mechanism should be followed, while the Revenue may place relevant evidence before the Settlement Commission. Taxpayers should preserve the settlement application, disclosures, orders and supporting records to establish the scope and finality of the settlement.

Address

Sec 103
Gurugram
122101

Website

https://taxexpress.co.in/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Accu Iconic Mark Private Limited posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.