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.
