Refund of pre-deposit cannot be withheld merely because litigation continues on the balance demand

 In a significant judgment in IBM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026-VIL-955-BOM), the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed an important principle governing GST appeals and pre-deposits.

Taxability of Stock Option Buy-Backs: Salary or Capital Gains?

 . Introduction

Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) are widely used to attract and retain talent by aligning compensation with performance. The lifecycle of an ESOP traverses five stages: grant, vesting, exercise, allotment, and sale. Each carries distinct tax implications.

S𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐞𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬.

 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥in the case of Mohan Rajashekhar  𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐞𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

TAX DUE DATE - SEPTEMBER 2026

S. No	Due Date	Related to	Compliance to be made
1	11.09.2026	GST	Filing of GSTR-1 for August 2026.
2	13.09.2026	ISD	Filing for the month of Aug 2026
3	20.09.2026	GST	- Payment & filing of GST return for the Month of August 2026 - Form GSTR 3B

Key Changes in FEMA Export and Import Regulations Effective 1 October 2026

The Reserve Bank of India has introduced a new framework governing export and import transactions under FEMA. These regulations are effective from 1 October 2026 and will apply only to transactions initiated on or after that date. Transactions undertaken up to 30 September 2026 will continue to be governed by the earlier FEMA regulations.

SC holds extended period cannot be invoked if allegations are not justified in the show cause notice issued under section 74

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) ^[1] on whether a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) can be sustained merely on a generic allegation of fraud or concealment of facts, without the notice itself setting out the grounds for such allegation.

The Arbitrator’s Ledger: Financial Forensics in ODR

 Let’s start with a small story in this regard. Client B, a mid-sized electrical components manufacturer registered as an MSME, supplied materials worth ₹2.5 crore to Firm Y, a large infrastructure developer. After receiving the goods, Firm Y delayed the payments well beyond the agreed credit period. Frustrated, Client B filed a delayed payment claim against Firm Y on the government's MSME ODR portal. The dispute was referred to an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform. To counter the claim, Firm Y suddenly produced a complex web of internal debit notes, backdated emails, and quality rejection reports, arguing that the materials were defective and no payment was due. The sole arbitrator was faced with hundreds of digital documents and conflicting accounting entries. This is exactly where CA X was brought in as a financial forensic expert to decode the ledger.

Gujarat HC upholds levy of GST on corporate guarantee while reads down mandatory 1% valuation where actual consideration is lower

 This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Gujarat High Court (HC)1 on the taxability of corporate guarantee provided by the Petitioners on behalf of their related party located in India and the constitutional validity of Rule 28(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).

The key observations of the HC are:

Foreign Assets disclosure scheme operationalized - CBDT prescribes valuation rules, forms and compliance framework

 This Tax Alert summarizes the recent Notification notifying “The Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers - Disclosure Scheme Rules 2026” (Rules) issued by the Central Government and 50 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes^[2] (CBDT), pertaining to “The Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers – Disclosure Scheme 2026” (Scheme) which was introduced vide Finance Act (FA) 2026^[3].

Taxability of Crypto Derivatives Under Indian Income-tax Law

 The Finance Act, 2022 introduced India's first dedicated tax regime for Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) through Sections 2(47A), 115BBH and 194S of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The framework was designed to tax income arising from the transfer of cryptocurrencies, NFTs and similar digital assets.

However, the growing popularity of crypto futures and options traded on offshore exchanges has created an interpretational challenge. Unlike spot crypto transactions, many derivative contracts are cash-settled, meaning parties pay or receive only the price difference without acquiring, delivering or transferring the underlying cryptocurrency.

This raises a crucial question: should profits from cash-settled crypto derivatives be taxed under the special VDA regime of Section 115BBH, or under the ordinary provisions relating to business income and speculative transactions? The answer has significant tax implications because the two regimes operate differently.

GAAR vs SAAR: A Practical Note for Businesses in India

 Taxation is one of the most significant financial obligations for any business. Alongside managing operations, growth, and profitability, companies must carefully plan their tax affairs to ensure compliance while optimizing cash flows. Effective tax planning begins well before the financial year-end and typically involves using the deductions, exemptions, and incentives provided under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

India’s Position on the OECD Model Tax Convention – At a Glance

 Comparison table highlighting how India’s treaty policy differs from the OECD Model Tax Convention, especially on key articles such as Permanent Establishment (Article 5), Business Profits (Article 7), Royalties (Article 12) and Capital Gains (Article 13).

𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁

 In DCIT v. Coca Cola India Inc., the Delhi ITAT held that a Working Capital Adjustment cannot be made merely because receivables from an AE remain outstanding for an extended period. The Tribunal observed that such adjustments under TNMM are intended to improve comparability and must be supported by evidence of actual financing cost or economic disadvantage. Since the assessee had no external borrowings, incurred no interest cost, and was fully funded by its US Head Office, the Revenue failed to establish any real financial burden arising from delayed receivables. Accordingly, the TP adjustment was deleted.