Navigating the Complexities of GST Pre-deposit Requirements Before GSTAT

 The introduction of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has brought significant changes to the pre-deposit framework for taxpayers appealing adverse orders. Understanding these nuanced requirements is essential for ensuring seamless appellate proceedings and avoiding procedural pitfalls.

Power of Commissioner to Reduce or Waive Income Tax Penalty

Overview of Penalties Under the New Act

Before looking at the waiver provisions, it's helpful to know what penalties exist. The 2025 Act, under Chapter XXI, continues to impose penalties for various defaults, including:

• Under-reporting and misreporting of income (Section 439)

• Failure to keep, maintain, or retain books of account (Section 441)

• Failure to get accounts audited (Section 442)

• Failure to deduct TDS (Sections 448 & 449)

Cross border 'fast track' merger permitted under automatic route

On 6 June 2026, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a notification ^[1] amending the rules governing cross-border mergers under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), as part of India’s ongoing efforts to simplify the regulatory framework and enhance ease of doing business.

Inbound Merger of a U.S. Company into an Indian Company: Regulatory Framework, Benefits and Key Compliance Requirements

Introduction

India has emerged as a preferred jurisdiction for multinational groups and technology startups seeking to simplify global structures, access Indian capital markets, and align their corporate domicile with business operations. One of the most effective mechanisms for achieving this objective is an inbound merger, wherein a foreign company merges into an Indian company, and the Indian company becomes the surviving entity.

A common scenario involves a U.S. holding company being merged into its Indian subsidiary or affiliate, resulting in the Indian company absorbing the U.S. entity. This structure has gained significant momentum due to the increasing trend of "reverse flipping," where overseas holding companies relocate their corporate headquarters to India in anticipation of domestic fundraising or public listing opportunities. Recent regulatory reforms have also streamlined the approval process for eligible inbound mergers, making India a more attractive destination for corporate reorganizations.

GST Insights: Three Key Rulings on Taxability, Intermediary Status, and ITC

1. Healthcare Services Retain Exemption Even When Provided Through Another Hospital

Valuation vs Demerger: Kolkata ITAT Clarifies the Boundaries

 Recently, the Kolkata ITAT held that no addition under section 56(2)(x) can be made in respect of assets received pursuant to a qualifying demerger, where the prescribed conditions under the Income-tax Act are duly satisfied. The Tribunal further clarified that valuation principles as prescribed under Rule 11UA of Income-tax Rules (ordinarily applicable for determining fair market value of shares) cannot be imported to challenge a demerger that otherwise complies with the statutory framework.

India Grants Full Tax Exemption to FIIs and BIS on Government Securities via Ordinance

 In a significant policy move, the Government of India has promulgated the Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026, granting complete tax exemption to Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) on interest and capital gains arising from investments in government securities (G-Secs).

The ordinance, which took effect retrospectively from April 1, 2026, was promulgated by President Droupadi Murmu as Parliament was not in session.

Single Show Cause Notice for Multiple Financial Years Under GST: Why Courts Are Striking It Down

 A single show cause notice (SCN) issued for multiple financial years has become a common flashpoint under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. While the tax department often adopts this practice for administrative convenience, it is now consistently being struck down by various High Courts across India. This article examines why such consolidated proceedings are legally untenable.

CBDT guidelines for compulsory scrutiny selection for FY 2026-27

 Recently, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) has issued guidelines prescribing the parameters for compulsory selection of income-tax returns filed in FY 2025-26 for complete scrutiny during FY 2026-27. The guidelines identify specific categories of cases that will be mandatorily selected for scrutiny and set out the procedure to be followed by the tax authorities for such selection.

Mumbai ITAT Rejects LIFO and Upholds FIFO Approach for Capital Gains Computation

 In a recent ruling of Megasolis renewable , the Mumbai ITAT upheld the application of the First-In-First-Out ("FIFO") method for computing capital gains on the sale of shares held in physical form, rejecting the taxpayer's attempt to compute gains based on LIFO method. Significantly, the Tribunal invoked the doctrine of substance over form and characterised the taxpayer's approach as a colourable device aimed at reducing its tax liability.

ITAT Mumbai Upholds Tax Certainty for Category III AIFs

In a significant ruling delivered in the case of 360 One Core Aggressive, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has reinforced crucial tax principles for Category III Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs).

Independent Director Eligibility – Cousin of Promoter/Promoter Group Member is Eligible

 In a recent informal guidance letter, SEBI clarified whether a cousin of a Promoter Group member qualifies as a person ‘related to promoters or directors’ for the purposes of Independent Director eligibility under the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (‘LODR Regulations’) and concluded that such a relationship, standing alone, does not trigger disqualification.

Background

olkata ITAT reaffirms that suspicion alone cannot justify additions under Section 68 (Unexplained Cash Credits)

 Recently, the Kolkata ITAT in Action Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ruled in favour of the taxpayer and reiterated that additions towards alleged bogus sale transactions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of suspicion, third-party statements, or general allegations of accommodation entries, especially where the taxpayer has furnished complete documentary evidence supporting the transactions.

In the present case, the assessee company had sold investments in unlisted shares during the relevant assessment years. The tax authorities alleged that the transactions were accommodation entries and treated the sale proceeds as unexplained cash credits. The allegation was primarily based on statements recorded from certain third parties during search proceedings and the observation that some purchaser entities were subsequently struck off by the Registrar of Companies. The Assessing Officer further alleged that the assessee and related entities were merely “pass-through” or “shell” entities facilitating accommodation entries.

However, the assessee submitted detailed documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions, including audited financial statements, bank statements, confirmations, income tax records, details of investments held over multiple years, and responses received directly from purchasers in compliance with notices issued by the department. It was also highlighted that the investments had been acquired in earlier years and accepted by the department in scrutiny assessments.

The Hon’ble Tribunal, after examining the facts and legal position, ruled in favour of the assessee and made the following key observations:

SC holds GST is leviable on supply of actionable claim in online gaming, fantasy sports and casinos, retrospectively from July 2017

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:

Gains from Derivatives based trading income not taxable in India but only in Mauritius

 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.

GST Not Leviable on Transfer of Leasehold Rights of MIDC Plots: SC Dismisses Revenue’s SLP

 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.

Tax Due Date - June 2026.

 

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.

The E-Rupee Paper Trail: Vouching in the CBDC Era

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.

Kolkata Tribunal Rules Compensation for Settling Litigation Is Non-Taxable When Only 'Right to Sue' Is Surrendered

 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.

Depreciation Allowed on Workforce Intangible Acquired under Slump Sale

 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.

 

ITAT Special Bench allows deduction for provisioning made by banks on standard assets

 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:

ITAT Mumbai Rules in Favour of Category III AIF: Gains from Securities Held as Capital Assets, Unit Premium Not Taxable

 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 Model and Tax Treaty Policy: A Strategic Contrast with the OECD

 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.

Understanding the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM)

 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.

Madras High Court Clarifies Taxability of Capital Gains Under Unimplemented Joint Development Agreements

 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.

Supreme Court Allows Interest Deduction on Funds Advanced to Sister Concern – Reaffirms ‘Commercial Expediency’ Test

 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.

ITAT Chennai Reaffirms Tax Neutrality for Genuine Intra-Group Restructurings

 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.

CIT(A) cannot direct reopening of years not under appea

 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.

ITAT: Property Received on Family Trust Dissolution Qualifies as ‘Devolution’, Long-Term Capital Gains Tax Applies

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.

No GST on Corporate Guarantees to Group Companies? Bombay High Court Says Yes, but Ruling Faces Criticism

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.

Mere execution of JDA with developer does not trigger capital gains tax in real estate transactions

 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 assessee and his family jointly owned ancestral land in Bangalore. In September and December 2012, they entered into JDAs with a developer for construction of residential projects. The family also executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPoA) granting the developer extensive powers and received substantial advances through banking channels. The Assessing Officer computed LTCG, treating the JDA execution coupled with the GPoA and advance payments as a "transfer" under Income Tax Act read with the provisions of the TOPA. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, holding that the family had effectively transferred possession and control of the land to the developer.
The Tribunal deleted the entire addition, making several crucial technical observations - Section 53A of TOPA requirements not satisfied as for transfer provisions to apply, possession must be transferred "in part performance of a contract" under Section 53A. This requires: (a) transferee put in actual possession, (b) contract capable of specific performance, and (c) transferor debarred from denying the contract. These conditions were not conclusively met. The Tribunal also observed that the ownership rights of the land remained disputed as following the JDA execution, family disputes arose and a partition suit was filed. The Civil Court's decree in 2018 allotted substantial portions of the property to other family members, not the assessee. This proved that underlying ownership was never settled when the JDA was executed. If possession had truly been transferred under Section 53A, family members would have been legally debarred from filing partition suits - yet they successfully did so.
A completely new JDA was executed in August 2023 between the developer and the assessee's brother (excluding the assessee). This wasn't a renewal but a fresh arrangement between different parties, proving conclusively that the 2012 JDA never achieved completion. If the 2012 JDA had resulted in effective transfer under Section 53A, no fresh agreement would have been necessary.

Delhi ITAT allows write-off of obsolete inventory under AS-2

 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.

Mumbai ITAT clarifies: Capital gains exemption under Section 54F cannot be restricted by intra-head capital loss adjustment

 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:

ITAT Chandigarh holds leasehold rights cannot to be equated with freehold property for share valuation

 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.

TAX DUE DATE - MAY 2026.

 

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).

Income from Other Sources – Assessing Section 56(2)(x) to Off-Market Transfers of Quoted Shares

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?

When a Subsidiary Becomes a Permanent Establishment of Its Foreign Parent

 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.

India Overhauls Corporate Compliance: Key Amendments to Companies Act & LLP Act

 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.

Calcutta High Court clarifies inclusion of electricity duty in valuation of captive power for tax deduction purposes

 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.

Bombay HC allows filing of refund application for a period already covered under an earlier application

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-New Zealand FTA signed in April 2026, enabling zero-duty access for Indian exports to New Zealand

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:

SEBI Applies Substance-over-Form Test While Granting Exemption Under Takeover Code for Share Transfers to Private Trusts

 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.

The SEBI Takeover Regulations trigger an open offer obligation where an acquisition of shares or control entitles an acquirer to exercise 25% or more of the voting rights in a listed company. This applies to both direct and indirect acquisitions, including transfers of shares in holding entities. While certain bona fide transactions such as inter-se promoter transfers, transfers among immediate relatives, and succession-related transfers are exempt, no blanket exemption is available for transfers to family trusts. However, SEBI Master Circular permits case-specific exemptions upon application to SEBI, subject to conditions, including that the settlor must have been disclosed as a promoter for at least three years.

In the exemption application filed by Tega Industries Limited, the promoter family proposed to transfer shares of NFSPL, which held 49.71% in the company. During its review, SEBI observed that one of the settlors had not been formally disclosed as a promoter of Tega Industries Limited. However, she had held shares in NFSPL since 2006, and NFSPL itself had been disclosed as a promoter of Tega Industries Limited since its listing in 2021. Based on these facts, SEBI concluded that the requirement of being “disclosed as a promoter for three years” was substantively met and accordingly granted the exemption.

NCLT clarifies IBC applicability: Commercial profit-sharing not a trigger for CIRP

 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.

Tax Implications of Offshore Liquidation Structures Involving Indian Subsidiaries: A Practical Analysis

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.

The Four-Day CA Firm: Automating the Non-Busy Season

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.

Major Overhaul of Companies Act & LLP Act: Key Amendments Explained

 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.

Big Relief: Delay in Form-67 Not Fatal to Foreign Tax Credit (FTC)

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.

TDS on Interchange Fees & Payment Gateway Charges: Not Applicable

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.

Delhi High Court Rejects ‘Virtual Service PE’ in Clifford Chance Ruling

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

Calcutta High Court: Unlisted Share Sale Taxable as Capital Gains Absent Exceptional Circumstances

 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.

Calcutta High Court Reaffirms: Suspicion Cannot Replace Evidence in Share Capital Cases

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

Delhi HC: No Deemed Gift Tax on Share Buy-Back at Discount

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.

Big Relief for Taxpayers: Delay in Form-67 Not Fatal for Foreign Tax Credit

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.

Orissa High Court Rules Against Adjustment of Refund During Stay

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.

Taxation of Capital Gains on Property: The Allotment vs Transfer Debate

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.

Interest During Project Setup Phase Not Taxable and Set Off Against Project Cost

 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:

Chennai NCLAT Rules Composite Schemes Must Stand as One - Strikes Down NCLT Order Splitting Amalgamation and Demerger in Separate Scheme

 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.

High Court of Andhra Pradesh: Failure to prove donor’s creditworthiness and source renders cash gifts unexplained income

 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.

Navigating the New Foreign Remittance Compliance Regime under ITA 2025

 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.

Asset' vs ‘Undertaking’: NCLAT provides clarity

 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.

When Buy-Back Becomes a Restructuring Activity

 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.

TDS Critical Takeaway from the Pfizer Case

A recent ruling in the Pfizer case has delivered an important lesson for taxpayers deducting TDS on cross-border payments.

Major Shift in LDC Framework: Act Now

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.