Recommended Free Tools
No. The reported tribunal order did not allow Bihar Medical Services & Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. to deduct ₹84.92 crore. It set aside the lower orders and sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, giving the corporation another opportunity to support its claim with evidence. The final tax treatment remains undecided.
What the ₹84.92 crore claim covered
The case concerns assessment year (AY) 2023-24 and expenditure the corporation said it paid during financial year (FY) 2022-23. Reports published by TaxCorp and TaxGuru on 10 October 2026 give the claim as:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
| Claim component | Reported amount |
|---|---|
| GST | ₹84,90,34,589 |
| GST filing fees | ₹2,19,998 |
| Total | ₹84,92,54,587, or about ₹84.92 crore |
The corporation reportedly claimed the amount on an actual-payment basis. Its return, filed on 29 September 2023, declared total income of ₹2,72,02,570.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Why the lower authorities disallowed it
Assessing Officer
The assessment was made under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the full claim, citing inadequate documentary support and unresolved questions about the accounting and GST treatment of the corporation’s centage receipts.
- Whether centage receipts from the Government of Bihar were inclusive or exclusive of GST.
- How the GST payments related to income disclosed in the return.
- How the receipts and related GST liability had been recorded.
The reports state that assessed income was computed at ₹87,64,57,157.
CIT(A)
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, upheld the disallowance in an order dated 14 May 2026 under section 250. As summarized by the reports, the appellate authority found no reliable reconciliation establishing that the income credited to the profit and loss account excluded GST. It also reasoned that paying a statutory liability, by itself, did not prove that the amount was deductible.
Why GST liability and income-tax deductibility are separate questions
The corporation reportedly argued that its services to Bihar were exempt under clause (8) of Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28 June 2017. According to the submissions reproduced in the reports, the Bihar GST Authority for Advance Ruling issued an adverse ruling on 24 March 2022. It found that the corporation did not qualify as “Government” or “Local Authority” for the relevant provision and was liable to pay GST on centage receipts from 1 July 2017. The corporation reportedly accepted that ruling.
That reported GST ruling concerns whether GST was payable on the receipts. The income-tax proceedings concern whether, and on what evidence, the claimed payments can be deducted in computing taxable income. The remand did not decide the latter question simply because GST had reportedly been paid.
What the tribunal ordered
The corporation reportedly told the tribunal that it had supporting evidence but had not submitted it earlier. It argued that its liability crystallized after it accepted the advance ruling and sought a remand; the Revenue supported the CIT(A)’s order.
The reported tribunal did not finally determine the crystallization argument or the deductibility of the claim. Instead, it set aside the Assessing Officer’s and CIT(A)’s orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for assessment de novo—a fresh assessment. The corporation must receive a reasonable opportunity to make further submissions supporting the relief claimed and was directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was described as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The reports reproduce the order as stating: “Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the order of the Ld. AO and remand the matter before the Ld. AO for making the assessment de novo.” This is a quotation from order text reproduced by secondary reports, not a statement independently checked against the primary tribunal order.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
What evidence will matter in the fresh assessment
The reports do not provide a tribunal checklist of documents. However, the concerns attributed to the lower authorities indicate why a clear reconciliation may matter: the claim needs to be connected to the corporation’s receipts, accounting and payments. Relevant records could include:
- Centage receipts reconciled by period to the corporation’s books and reported income.
- Calculations showing whether those receipts were treated as GST-inclusive or GST-exclusive.
- GST liability records and evidence of the payments included in the claim.
- Accounting entries explaining when the liability was recognized and how the amounts relate to the income reported for the relevant period.
These are practical implications of the evidentiary issues described in the reports, not a list expressly ordered by the tribunal. Whether the claim is ultimately allowed will depend on the fresh assessment and the applicable law.
Why the reported bench identity is uncertain
The reports’ headlines identify ITAT Patna, but the reproduced order text says the appeal was against an ITAT Kolkata order and labels its conclusion “FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA.” The available reports therefore conflict on the bench identity. The official appeal number and primary tribunal order were not available in these accounts, so the venue should not be treated as settled.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
