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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
