This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) addressing the GST implications on online gaming, fantasy sports and casino transactions, including constitutional validity of levy on actionable claims and the valuation mechanism prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Rules framed thereunder.
The key observations of the SC are:
Under Article 13(3A) of the India-Mauritius DTAA capital gains from the transfer of shares of an Indian company acquired by a Mauritius resident on or after 1 April 2017 are taxable only in India. Article 13(4) provides that capital gains from transfer of any other property not covered specifically under any other Para of the said article, are taxable in the country of residence of the transferor, i.e., Mauritius.
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) ruling in the case of Aerocom Cushions Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner. The High Court had previously held that the assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot allotted by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) does not constitute a “supply of services” under Section 7 of the CGST Act, and therefore is not subject to GST.
|
Sr No |
Due Date |
Related to |
Compliance to be made |
|
1. |
11.06.2026 |
GST |
Filing of GSTR1 for the month
of May 2026 |
|
2. |
13.06.2026 |
GST |
ISD Return |
|
3. |
20.06.2026 |
GST |
Payment of GST for the month of
May 2026 Filing of GSTR 3B for the month
of May 2026 |
|
4. |
7.06.2026 |
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 May 2026. ·
Deposit TDS from Salaries deducted during the month of May 2026 • Deposit TCS for collections
made under section 394 including sale of scrap during the month of May 2026,
if any
|
|
5 |
15.06.2026 |
Income tax |
Payment of Advance tax for the
Corporate assesses –Amount not less than 15% of advance tax. |
Let’s start with a small story in this regard. Client B, a forward-thinking wholesale distributor of electronic components, decided to participate in the Reserve Bank of India’s corporate pilot for the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), the e-Rupee (e₹). Mr. A, the managing director, was thrilled. By using the e-Rupee for massive B2B vendor settlements, the company bypassed weekend RTGS delays and traditional banking transaction fees, achieving instant, real-time finality.
In a recent ruling, the Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that compensation received by a taxpayer to settle ongoing disputes and withdraw pending litigation constitutes a non-taxable capital receipt, provided the taxpayer merely gave up its ‘right to sue’ and no enforceable contractual right existed.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on intangible assets in the form of “workforce” acquired pursuant to a slump sale transaction, where such assets have been independently valued and form part of the consideration paid for acquisition of the business as a going concern.
This Tax Alert summarizes a Special Bench ruling of the Chandigarh Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Malwa Gramin Bank[1] on the allowability of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) in respect of provisions created on “standard assets”. The ruling assumes significance in light of divergent judicial precedents on the issue.
The Special Bench has ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that provision on
standard assets, made in accordance with RBI norms qualifies for deduction
under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, subject to the overall ceiling limit as
prescribed therein.
The key observations of the Special Bench are:
The Mumbai Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of 360 One has delivered a significant ruling in favour of a SEBI-registered Category III Alternative Investment Fund (AIF), holding that income from securities transactions must be treated as capital gains (not business income) when consistently reported as such. The Tribunal further ruled that unit premium arising from NAV-based issuances does not constitute taxable income, provided the valuation methodology is duly substantiated.
India's economic story is one of striking contrasts. On one hand, the country stands out as a global growth leader, with the OECD consistently ranking it at the top among G20 nations. On the other, significant structural challenges—particularly in fiscal capacity and social infrastructure—remain deeply embedded.
In a typical transaction, the supplier of goods or services is responsible for collecting and paying the tax to the government, known as the forward charge mechanism. However, under specific circumstances outlined in the GST law, this responsibility is reversed. For services, RCM is applicable to imports, certain transport services by road, legal services provided to business entities, and a range of services provided by government bodies, among others.
In a recent judgment of Vijaya Productions, the Madras High Court has offered crucial guidance on when capital gains tax becomes applicable under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), specifically addressing the concept of "transfer" under income tax law.
Summary
The Supreme Court (SC) has recently ruled in the case of L. K. Trust v. CIT on the deductibility of interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds that were advanced to a sister concern. The key issue was whether such interest qualifies as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA 1961) – specifically, when the borrowed funds are used by the sister concern to acquire shares in another company.
In cross-border group restructurings, multinational corporations frequently undertake internal share transfers and mergers to streamline operations and simplify holding structures. In a significant ruling on the scope of tax neutrality, the Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has reaffirmed that legitimate tax planning and commercially driven intra-group reorganisations cannot be disregarded solely because they result in a tax advantage.
Recently, the Hon’ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (‘ITAT’) in the case of Mr. Chandanmal Nagaraj v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax held that the appellate authority cannot issue directions for reopening assessments relating to years which are not the subject matter of appeal before it. The ITAT observed that while allowing the assessee’s appeal in relation to addition made on account of alleged unexplained expenditure, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] had directed the Assessing Officer (A.O) to reopen assessment for earlier years for verification of the genuineness of transaction. The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the appellate authority is confined to the year under consideration and that it cannot travel beyond the scope of the appeal to issue directions concerning other years. Accordingly, the ITAT expunged the directions issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for reopening the earlier years.
Under income tax law, when a capital asset is acquired by way of succession, inheritance or devolution, the cost of acquisition is deemed to be the cost incurred by the previous owner. Additionally, the previous owner’s holding period is included when determining whether the asset is long-term or short-term.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner issued Corporate Guarantees (CGs) to banks to secure loans obtained by its group companies. The guarantee deeds explicitly stated that no consideration would be received from the group companies for providing these guarantees. The GST authorities, however, demanded tax on the CGs. In response, the petitioner challenged both the levy of GST and the constitutional validity of an amendment to Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules, which prescribes the valuation methodology for such guarantees.
Recently Bangalore ITAT recently delivered an important ruling clarifying that merely executing a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) does not automatically constitute a "transfer" for capital gains tax purposes. The Tribunal held that for transfer provisions to apply, there must be a conclusive transfer of possession meeting all requirements of the Transfer of Property Act (‘TOPA’) - not merely contractual arrangements that remain contingent.
The Delhi ITAT held that write-off of slow-moving and non-moving inventory is allowable as deduction where the inventory had lost utility or become obsolete and the write-off was undertaken in accordance with Accounting Standard-2 (‘AS-2’) supported by technical evaluation and documentary evidence. The Tribunal observed that such write-off reflects the true and correct value of inventory.
Recently, in a significant taxpayer-friendly ruling, the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT, in the case of Nikesh Bhagwandas Mehta vs. ITO, has clarified an important issue concerning the interplay between capital gains exemption under section 54F and set-off/carry forward of long-term capital loss under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The ruling reaffirms that where the conditions of section 54F are duly satisfied, the exemption is to be granted on the entire eligible long-term capital gain, and the assessee cannot be compelled to first adjust long-term capital losses before claiming such exemption.
In the present case, the assessee, an individual taxpayer,
had earned long-term capital gains (LTCG) of approximately Rs. 69.84 lakhs
from sale of certain equity shares during AY 2022-23. Since the net sale
consideration was duly invested in a qualifying residential house property, the
assessee claimed full exemption under section 54F on the aforesaid
capital gains. During the same year, the assessee had also incurred long-term
capital loss (LTCL) of approximately Rs. 37.72 lakhs on sale of another set
of equity shares, which was claimed to be carried forward to subsequent years
in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
However, while processing the return under section 143(1), the CPC denied the
carry forward of such LTCL. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the CPC’s
action and held that the provisions relating to set-off/carry forward of losses
under the Act, require the long-term capital loss to be first adjusted against
the long-term capital gains earned during the year, and only the net capital
gains remaining thereafter would qualify for exemption under section 54F.
Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the exemption under section 54F to the
net gain and denied the carry forward of LTCL.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the assessee preferred an
appeal before the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT. After examining the statutory scheme and
the interplay between the exemption available under section 54F and the
provisions governing set-off and carry forward of capital losses, the
Hon’ble Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee and made the following
important observations:
In a recent ruling, the Chandigarh Tribunal held that leasehold rights in land cannot be regarded as “immovable property” for the purposes of valuation of unquoted shares and such rights cannot be equated with freehold property while determining fair market value.
|
Sr No |
Due Date |
Related to |
Compliance to be made |
|
1. |
11.05.2026 |
GST |
Filing of GSTR1 for the month
of April 2026 |
|
2. |
13.05.2026 |
GST |
ISD Return |
|
3. |
20.05.2026 |
GST |
Payment of GST for the month of
April 2026 Filing of GSTR 3B for the month
of April 2026 |
|
4. |
7.05.2026 |
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 April 2026. ·
Deposit TDS from Salaries deducted during the month of April 2026 • Deposit TCS for collections
made under section 206C including sale of scrap during the month of April 2026,
if any |
|
5 |
31.05.2026 |
TDS/TCS (Income Tax) |
Furnish quarterly statement of
tax deducted at source (TDS) and tax collected at source (TCS) for the
quarter ended Jan-March 2026 in Form 24Q / 26Q / 27Q / 27EQ. |
|
6 |
31.05.2026 |
Income Tax |
Filing of Annual Information
Return u/s 285BA(Old Act). |
1. Introduction
The taxation of gifts under the Gift Tax Act, 1958 was abolished in 1998. To prevent routing of unaccounted money through bogus gifts, the Finance Act, 2004 introduced provisions that eventually consolidated into Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 via the Finance Act, 2017. This section taxes receipt of money or property without consideration, or for inadequate consideration below Fair Market Value (FMV), where the excess exceeds ₹50,000. FMV is determined under Rule 11U and 11UA.
The provision is an anti-abuse measure, as confirmed by CBDT Circulars and the Finance Minister’s speech. However, it operates as a deeming fiction – taxing notional income. A critical question arises: does Section 56(2)(x) apply where listed shares are transferred off‑market at a price below the exchange‑listed value?
A subsidiary company is not automatically a Permanent Establishment (PE) of its foreign parent under tax treaties. However, depending on the functions it performs, it can cross the threshold and become a PE under Article 5 of the OECD/UN Model Convention.
In a landmark move following the Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP v. Union of India (Feb 2025) case, the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) has been granted corporate status and significantly expanded enforcement powers. The Delhi High Court’s validation of NFRA’s authority to investigate and penalize auditors for misconduct has been codified. NFRA can now issue advisories, censure, mandate additional training, and refer matters for further action. Professional misconduct now explicitly includes contravention of the CA 2013 provisions, with penalties ranging from fines and imprisonment to debarment.
Recently, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Graphite India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax ruled in favour of the taxpayer and put to rest the controversy regarding valuation of captively consumed electricity for tax deduction purposes. The Hon’ble Court clarified that while electricity duty may not be separately payable on power consumed internally, the same would nevertheless form part of the market value of power when computing the eligible deduction on captive power undertakings.
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Bombay High Court (HC) [1] on the validity of multiple refund applications filed by the taxpayer under section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) for the same tax period.
Assessee filed a refund application for the tax period of August 2022 which was
rejected by the Revenue on the ground that assessee had earlier filed and
obtained refund through a consolidated application covering the period July
2022 to September 2022. The petitioner contended that the August 2022 invoice
had been inadvertently omitted from the earlier application. The rejection was
thus challenged before the HC.
The key observations of the HC are:
India and New Zealand have signed a landmark India–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (IN–NZ FTA) on 27 April 2026 in New Delhi. The FTA aims to boost exports, MSMEs, investment flows, skills mobility and broader economic cooperation.
Defining features of the FTA are:
Succession planning for promoter families has emerged as a critical priority for business-owning families. It necessitates a structured evaluation of legal and regulatory considerations, including compliance with the SEBI framework, particularly the takeover regulations when transferring control of a listed company to the next generation.
In a recent ruling, the NCLT, Mumbai Bench (‘Tribunal’) held that a claim arising from a revenue or profit-sharing arrangement under film rights and co-production agreements does not qualify as 'operational debt' within the meaning of Section 5(12) of the IBC. The Tribunal held that the petitioner, being a commercial partner, sharing profits from the exploitation of cinematographic rights, could not be treated as a supplier of goods or services so as to invoke the corporate insolvency resolution process.
Global corporate structures often evolve over time, and simplification through liquidation of intermediate holding entities is a common strategic move. However, when such structures involve Indian subsidiaries, the Indian Income-tax Act introduces complex tax implications—particularly through the indirect transfer provisions. This article examines the tax consequences of liquidating an intermediate holding entity within a multi-tier structure and outlines the associated risks, responsibilities, and litigation considerations.
Let’s start with a small story in this regard. CA X was the managing partner of a rapidly growing, mid-sized tax and audit practice in Pune. It was the second week of June historically the one brief window of calm between the grueling March year-end closing and the impending avalanche of July income tax filings. Yet, as CA X walked through the office on a Saturday afternoon, the atmosphere felt as tense as the final week of September. His brightest senior associate, Mr. A, walked into his cabin and handed in his resignation, citing extreme burnout and a desire to move to a corporate job for a better work-life balance.
Recent legislative amendments have brought sweeping changes to India’s corporate compliance landscape, strengthening regulatory oversight while introducing targeted relaxations for small companies and IFSC entities.
In a taxpayer-friendly ruling, the ITAT Hyderabad (ITA No. 1705/Hyd/2025) - Amit Vishnav H held that delay in filing Form-67 cannot be the sole ground to deny Foreign Tax Credit under a DTAA.
A key question in digital payments is whether TDS applies to interchange fees, payment gateway charges, or Merchant Discount Rate (MDR). The settled position—backed by CBDT clarifications and judicial rulings—is that TDS is generally not required.
In a significant ruling today, the Delhi High Court in Clifford Chance PTE Ltd rejected the Revenue’s theory of a “Virtual Service Permanent Establishment” under the India-Singapore DTAA.
The Department argued that physical employee presence is no longer essential for a Service PE, citing Hyatt, Verizon, and ABB FZ LLC. The Court, however, held that Article 5(6)(a) explicitly requires services to be furnished “within a Contracting State… through employees or other personnel.” The words “within” and “through personnel” mandate a physical footprint in India.
Observing that the DTAA must be interpreted strictly, the Court refused to read in a virtual PE concept where the treaty conspicuously omits it. The cited precedents were held factually distinguishable. Consequently, the argument for a virtual service PE was dismissed
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court held in the case of Russel Credit Ltd that gains from the sale of unlisted shares must be taxed as capital gains, consistent with CBDT Instruction dated May 2, 2016. The court emphasized that only exceptional circumstances—such as sham transactions or lack of genuineness—can warrant a different treatment.
In PCIT v. Shipra Enclave (P.) Ltd., the Calcutta High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that share capital additions cannot be based on mere suspicion or non-appearance of directors when documentary evidence exists.
The assessee raised ₹6.22 crore from 15 corporate investors. The AO treated the amount as unexplained cash credit, citing non-appearance of directors and branding the investors as “shell entities”. However, the assessee furnished PAN, ITRs, audited financials, and banking confirmations.
The High Court ruled that credible documentation, banking channels, and investor confirmations prevail over subjective assumptions. Non-appearance of directors alone does not vitiate genuine transactions. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace concrete evidence.
The decision reinforces an evidence-driven approach, offering clarity and reassurance to taxpayers facing similar scrutiny under section 68
The Delhi High Court in the case of Globe Capital market has ruled that a company’s buy-back of its own shares cannot be taxed under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act merely because the buy-back price is below fair market value. Dismissing the tax department’s appeal, the Court held that buy-back results in reduction of share capital, not acquisition of property.
Since bought-back shares are extinguished, the company does not acquire any capital asset capable of generating income. Thus, the deemed gift provisions do not apply.
While this ruling offers clarity for unlisted companies, the evolving buy-back tax framework and the new Income Tax Act, 2025 now require case-specific evaluation of applicable provisions.
In a landmark ruling, the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, in the case of Amith Vishnaw Gudimela, held that a delay in filing Form-67 cannot be the sole ground to deny Foreign Tax Credit (FTC). The tribunal allowed FTC to an assessee employed in the USA with Cognizant US Corp, even though Form-67 was filed after the due date.
The CPC had disallowed the claim under Section 143(1), citing Rule 128(9), which requires filing before the return due date. However, the ITAT observed that FTC prevents double taxation under Section 90 of the Income-tax Act and the India-USA DTAA. Procedural rules like Rule 128(9) are directory, not mandatory. Denying credit for a mere delay would violate treaty obligations.
The tribunal directed the department to grant FTC, reinforcing that substantive relief under DTAA overrides procedural lapses. This ruling is a key precedent for international tax professionals.
In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has held that adjusting an income tax refund against a disputed demand while a stay order is in force is illegal and arbitrary. The court directed the tax department to release a refund along with interest, declaring the adjustment as perfunctory and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Capital gains taxation on immovable property under the Income-tax Act, 1961 often turns on a deceptively simple question: when is a property “acquired” or “transferred”? In modern real estate transactions—especially under construction properties—this issue becomes complex due to multiple milestones such as allotment, agreement, possession, and registration.
The Delhi High Court held that interest earned on funds temporarily parked in bank deposits during the project setup phase is capital in nature and not taxable as income, where such funds are not surplus / idle funds but are inextricably linked to project. The Court further clarified that such interest is required to be adjusted against (i.e., set off against) project / pre-operative expenditure, thereby reducing the overall cost of project.
Background:
In a significant ruling, the Chennai NCLAT has held that where a Composite Scheme of Arrangement envisages amalgamation followed by an immediate demerger, the Tribunal cannot sanction only the amalgamation portion and direct the parties to file a separate application for the demerger.
Recently, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Bathina Srilakshmi v. Income-tax Officer held that where the assessee fails to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and source of funds of the donor with credible evidence, the claim of receipt of cash gifts cannot be accepted. The Court emphasised that mere assertions or unsupported explanations are insufficient to discharge the onus cast upon the assessee, and in the absence of proper documentation establishing the genuineness of the transaction, such amounts are liable to be treated as unexplained income.
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 (ITA 2025) and the accompanying Income-tax Rules, 2026 introduces a significantly overhauled compliance framework for foreign remittances and treaty benefit claims. The familiar forms—10F, 15CA, and 15CB—have been succeeded by Forms 41, 145, and 146 respectively. This rewrite outlines the key structural shifts, enhanced disclosure requirements, and a critical interpretational issue regarding treaty eligibility.
The scope of shareholder approval for asset sales has long been a contested area, particularly where high-value assets are involved. A recent ruling by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) provides useful clarity on when such approval is actually required.
Not all share buy-backs are mere return of capital. Under certain conditions, a buy-back can be recharacterised as a restructuring activity – with significant tax and legal implications.
A recent ruling in the Pfizer case has delivered an important lesson for taxpayers deducting TDS on cross-border payments.
A significant change under Section 395(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 is reshaping how Lower Deduction Certificates (LDCs) operate via TRACES.
⚠️ Critical Update: Starting April 1, 2026, a Master LDC Certificate will no longer be valid for quoting in TDS returns.
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai Tribunal held that a scheme floated under a SEBI-registered Category II AIF trust can claim pass-through exemption, and such benefit cannot be denied merely because the scheme has a separate PAN while the SEBI registration stands in the name of the parent trust.
The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'), in a recent decision, held that expenses incurred on withdrawn IPO are revenue in nature and that income arising from foreign exchange differences and write-back of provisions qualifies for export-linked deductions.
Background
Gujarat High Court has granted relief to a taxpayer by allowing condonation of delay in opting for the new tax regime, holding that genuine and bona fide procedural delays may not result in denial of tax benefits.
Background
1. Introduction
Cross-border investment structures often employ intermediate holding companies in jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands. A common corporate restructuring step involves liquidating such a holding entity, which results in the upstream shareholder (for example, a Singapore company) acquiring direct ownership of the underlying subsidiaries—including, potentially, an Indian company.
Recently, the Delhi Bench of the ITAT has held that a buy-back of shares within a corporate group can qualify as a “corporate reorganisation” under Article 13(5) of the India–Netherlands DTAA, thereby rendering the resultant capital gains taxable only in the Netherlands and not in India.
In a series of recent policy and regulatory interventions, the Government has introduced a set of measures aimed at strengthening export competitiveness, easing compliance, and enhancing domestic manufacturing resilience. Together, these measures spanning customs facilitation, import policy, sustainability regulation, and trade support reflect a calibrated policy response balancing trade facilitation, cost competitiveness, domestic industry protection, and sustainability alignment.
In a significant move to ease working capital pressures for manufacturers, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), vide Circular No. 08/2026-Customs dated 28.02.2026, has extended the facility of deferred payment of Customs import duty to a new category of importers termed Eligible Manufacturer Importers (EMI), effective from 1st April 2026. Under this framework, eligible importers can clear goods without upfront payment of Customs duty and instead discharge the duty liability on a consolidated monthly basis, thereby enabling more efficient cash flow management. This reform announced as part of the Union Budget 2026–27, is governed by the Deferred Payment of Import Duty Rules, 2016, is also aimed at expediting Customs clearance of imported goods at ports, airports, and inland container depots.
The tax treatment of interest on funds borrowed to acquire shares hinges on a single, crucial distinction: the purpose behind the acquisition.
In a significant victory for multinational enterprises and foreign portfolio investors, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), via a Third Member ruling, has held that a share buy-back by an Indian subsidiary from its Netherlands-based parent constitutes a “corporate reorganization” under the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The decision, pronounced on March 25, 2026, in the case of Huntsman Investment [Netherlands] BV vs. ADIT (Assessment Year 2009-10), sets a powerful precedent on treaty interpretation.
On 31 March 2026, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued two Notifications[1] amending General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) providing grandfathering benefit for income derived from transfer of investments which were made prior to 1 April 2017. The first Notification amends Rule 10U under Income Tax Rules (ITR), 1962 applicable to the erstwhile Income Tax Act (ITA), 1961, whereas the second Notification amends comparable Rule 128 under ITR 2026 applicable to the new ITA 2025 effective from 1 April 2026.
This Tax Alert summarizes a Notification1 issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) notifying concessional rates of basic customs duty (BCD) and Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) on specified goods manufactured by a unit in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and cleared into Domestic Tariff Area (DTA).
I.
International Taxation & Treaty Jurisprudence
The
Tiger Global Ruling: A Watershed Moment
Perhaps the most significant development in India's treaty jurisprudence is the ruling concerning Tiger Global. The decision marks a pivotal shift in how India approaches treaty shopping and beneficial ownership determinations. The ruling reinforces that mere routing of investments through tax-friendly jurisdictions will not automatically confer treaty benefits unless genuine commercial substance and beneficial ownership are established. This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for foreign portfolio investors and private equity funds operating in India.
The Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 has been introduced in the Lok Sabha, proposing various changes to the Companies Act, 2013 and the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. The amendments aim to improve ease of doing business, simplify compliance and provide clarifications.
The select proposed changes are as follows:
