Categories
Blog Updates

[World Tax News] EU Direct Tax Simplification and TP Reforms

EU direct taxation

Editorial Team – [2026] 183 taxmann.com 580 (Article)

World Tax News provides a weekly snippet of tax news from around the globe. Here is a glimpse of the tax happening in the world this week:

1. European Commission Seeks Input on Simplifying the EU Direct Taxation Framework

The European Commission has issued a call for evidence inviting stakeholders to submit their views on measures to simplify EU law and reduce regulatory burdens for businesses. The initiative seeks to enhance competitiveness and improve the effectiveness of the EU corporate taxation framework, including rules on parent–subsidiary arrangements, interest and royalties, mergers, anti-tax avoidance, and dispute-resolution mechanisms. Comments may be submitted until 16 March 2026.

The initiative’s overarching objective is to simplify the existing EU legal framework on direct taxation and strengthen competitiveness within the internal market, without compromising the key policy goals of the relevant Directives. These goals include eliminating double taxation of cross-border profits, interest and royalty payments; ensuring tax neutrality in cross-border corporate reorganisations; safeguarding the internal market from aggressive tax planning; and facilitating effective resolution of cross-border tax disputes. To achieve this, the initiative proposes:

  • reducing unnecessary reporting and compliance burdens;
  • removing outdated and overlapping tax provisions;
  • simplifying tax legislation to improve internal market competitiveness;
  • clarifying concepts within the tax framework; and
  • streamlining and enhancing the application of tax rules, procedures, and reporting requirements.

The policy options under consideration may entail legislative amendments to the following instruments:

(a) Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) Rules under the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) – to remove overlaps with Pillar Two and address inconsistencies arising from varied implementation choices across Member States.

(b) Interest Limitation Rules under ATAD – to mitigate procyclical effects, account for inflation, and consider concerns of sectors with structurally high but legitimate leverage, as well as the needs of small and medium enterprises, including possible rule simplification.

(c) Scope of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive, Interest and Royalty Directive, and Tax Merger Directive – to enhance the effectiveness of these Directives and, consequently, the functioning of the internal market.

(d) Procedural Requirements for Accessing Benefits under the Parent-Subsidiary and Interest and Royalty Directives – to reduce administrative and compliance burdens for businesses and improve the overall operation of these frameworks.

(e) Targeted Amendments to the Tax Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Directive – particularly concerning the admission stage, to remove ambiguities, promote consistent application across Member States, and facilitate usability for both taxpayers and tax authorities.

Source – Consultation

2. Tax Authority of Chile confirms no foreign tax credit where foreign operations result in a loss

The Chilean tax authority, Servicio de Impuestos Internos (SII), has issued Letter Ruling No. 286 dated 4 February 2026 addressing the availability of a foreign tax credit where a taxpayer’s net foreign-source income is zero or negative (i.e., a loss). The ruling responds to a taxpayer’s request seeking (i) allowance of a foreign tax credit in such circumstances and (ii) a refund of excess foreign tax paid due to non-utilisation of the credit.

In the ruling, the SII reiterates consistent with the Tax Code and its interpretative guidance in Circular No. 31 of 2021 that a foreign tax credit is available only in respect of foreign income that is also taxable in Chile. The credit may be set off solely against First Category Tax (Impuesto de Primera Categoría), Second Category Tax (Impuesto Único de Segunda Categoría), Complementary Global Tax (Impuesto Global Complementario), and Additional Tax (Impuesto Adicional). A prerequisite for claiming the credit is that the relevant foreign income must be subject to double taxation.

Accordingly, the SII clarifies that no foreign tax credit can arise where the taxpayer’s determined net foreign income is nil or reflects a foreign loss, since in such cases there is no taxable income in Chile that could give rise to double taxation. The authority further confirms that no refund of foreign tax paid is permissible in these circumstances.

Source – Servicio de Impuestos Internos (SII)

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [World Tax News] EU Direct Tax Simplification and TP Reforms appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

No Cadre Change After Selection Finalised | SC

Cadre change after selection

Case Details: Rupesh Kumar Meena vs. Union of India [2026] 183 taxmann.com 177 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Rajesh Bindal & Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant was an IPS Officer of the Tamil Nadu Cadre. He was selected against a vacancy meant for the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. The appellant was third in the merit list for an insider vacancy in the Rajasthan cadre in the 2004 examination batch. The moment the first two candidates declined to join the Rajasthan cadre, which was offered based on an ‘insider’ vacancy, the appellant staked his claim to be considered for appointment to the same.

He filed O.A. No.2326 of 2010 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2011. The High Court upheld the same, vide the order dated 26.08.2011. Even the review application was also dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2011.

The appellant submitted that two other candidates, senior to him in the merit list, had not joined the Rajasthan cadre against that vacancy and, thus, he should be offered an ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of Rajasthan.

It was noted that, in dispute, the appellant was not the next candidate in order of merit to be offered an ‘insider’ vacancy in the State of Rajasthan, in case the first one had not joined; rather, his case was that if the second candidate did not join, he should be offered that vacancy.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that such a process of cadre change could not be adopted, and that finality had to be attached to the selection process. Thus, the instant appeal against the order of the High Court upholding the order of the Tribunal dismissing the application filed by the appellant was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

  • Orders of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.6215 of 2011, Dated 26.08.2011 and in Review Petition No.612 of 2011, dated 21.10.2011[ Para 13] affirmed

The post No Cadre Change After Selection Finalised | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

No GST Interest Liability Without Invoice – Refund Directed | HC

GST interest without invoice

Case Details: Oam Industries India (P.) Ltd. vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. [2026] 183 taxmann.com 400 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Anil L. Pansare & Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.
  • R.R. Shrivasatava, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • C.S. Samudra, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the recovery of interest on the delayed payment of GST under an agreement of lease. It was submitted that the respondent had failed to raise a GST invoice within the time limit prescribed under the CGST Act, and, as such, the petitioner could not have known the exact amount of GST payable. The petitioners had made payment under protest, which included both GST and interest on delayed payment, and sought a direction for refund of the interest component. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the responsibility to pay GST rested solely with the respondent, who was duty-bound to issue the invoice within thirty days under Section 31 of the CGST Act and the Maharashtra GST Act. The Court observed that the petitioners were under no obligation to pay GST without a proper invoice and that imposing the burden of interest on them was illegal and unsustainable in law. It was held that the respondent was liable to pay interest itself, and the amount of interest recovered from the petitioners was required to be refunded. The petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner under Section 50 read with Section 31 of the CGST Act.

The post No GST Interest Liability Without Invoice – Refund Directed | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Property Can Be Attached Without Direct Money Laundering Charge | SAFEMA

Property attachment money laundering

Case Details: Ashok Mangal vs. Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur [2026] 183 taxmann.com 40 (SAFEMA-New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Balesh Kumar & Rajesh Malhotra, Member
  • S. Vasudevan Mahendra Singh, Adv. for the Appellant.
  • Abhimanyu Kaul, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, an investigation by ED revealed that one ‘M’, Accounts Assistant at the Office of the Divisional Finance Manager, North Western Railway, was under investigation for alleged embezzlement of government funds.

As per the charge sheet, during the investigation, it was revealed that from 17.08.2006 to 03.05.2011, ‘M’, while working as a Cheque Writer, fraudulently issued a total of 94 cheques, worth Rs. 4.16 crore, of different Treasury Banks of railways in his own name and deposited the same in his own different bank accounts.

He withdrew huge proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 3.68 crore in cash through cheques and from ATM and also issued cheques in the name of others and used the embezzled amount for his own purposes. In this way, he committed fraud to the extent of Rs 4.16 crore and caused a huge loss to the Railway Exchequer.

An investigation also revealed that ‘Cash money’ of Rs. 60 lakh was deposited in the accounts of the appellant (Assistant Divisional Finance Manager in the Office of the Senior Divisional Finance Manager, North Western Railway) and his wife, as he tendered amounts to both of them from time to time. The said deposits were clearly out of the embezzled amount given by ‘M’ and point towards the direction regarding the involvement of the appellant in the offence of money laundering.

Further, movable and immovable properties were acquired by the appellant and his wife from the proceeds of crime.

SAFEMA Held

It was noted that the appellant had actively colluded and assisted ‘M’ in layering, use and projection of tainted money, as untainted, and hence, the appellant’s involvement in money laundering was not completely ruled out.

Thus, the impugned order passed by ED provisionally attaching (PAO) appellant’s properties to the extent of Rs. 60 lakh and the subsequent order of Adjudicating Authority confirming said PAO, was justified.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post Property Can Be Attached Without Direct Money Laundering Charge | SAFEMA appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

ITC Block Under Rule 86A Can’t Replace Adjudication | HC

Rule 86A ITC block adjudication

Case Details: Gopal Metal Stores vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [2026] 183 taxmann.com 269 (Calcutta)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Om Narayan Rai, J.
  • Ankit KanodiaMs M. AgarwalP. KhaitanMs Tulika Roy for the Petitioner.
  • Tanoy Chakraborty & Saptak Sanyal for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax’s refusal to initiate adjudication proceedings after the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger (ECL) was blocked under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules. It was submitted that the ECL had been blocked on suspicion that input tax credit (ITC) had been fraudulently availed. It was contended that the blocking of ITC under Rule 86A is an interim protective measure and does not dispense with the statutory requirement of adjudication. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that Rule 86A clearly provides that if revenue authorities have reasons to believe that ITC in the ECL has been ineligibly availed, they may withhold a corresponding amount as a temporary measure to secure potential tax liability. The Court emphasized that such blocking is intended solely as an interim security and does not negate the requirement for statutory adjudication under Section 17 of the CGST Act and the West Bengal GST Act. The Court directed the proper officer to promptly initiate adjudication proceedings, issue an appropriate show cause notice, and conclude the adjudication by passing a reasoned order. The writ petition was allowed.

The post ITC Block Under Rule 86A Can’t Replace Adjudication | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Reopening Invalid for Want of Lender Certificate Under Section 24(b) | HC

Section 24(b) interest deduction

Case Details: Shantilal Gulabchand Muttha vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2026] 183 taxmann.com 328 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • B. P. ColabWalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.
  • Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv., Ramesh SoniAmeya GokhaleKriti Kalyani Swarupini Srinath, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Vikas Khanchandani, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee filed its return of income and offered income from house property for tax. The assessee had claimed a deduction for interest on borrowed capital while computing income from house property. The return was selected for scrutiny, and assessment was completed under section 143(3).

After four years, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice for reassessment. The reason for reopening the assessment was that the deduction under section 24(b) had been allowed without a lender’s certificate. The assessee contended that no such certificate was statutorily required and none had been called for during the original assessment. Unsatisfied with the assessee’s response, the AO issued a notice under section 148 for reopening the assessment. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed a writ petition to the Bombay High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the only basis on which the AO formed his belief that income had escaped assessment was that the deduction of interest claimed under section 24(b) was allowed despite there being no certificate from the recipient of the interest on record. It was an undisputed position that the property in respect of which the deduction of interest is claimed is one which is let out throughout the previous year and in respect of which the assessee has received rental income which has been offered for tax under the head “Income from house property”. Thus, it was apparent that the belief formed by the AO was bereft of any legal basis.

A deduction under section 24(b) is allowed in respect of interest paid on capital borrowed, which was utilised for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, repairing, renewing or reconstructing the house property. The deduction is to be allowed in its entirety without any other condition to be fulfilled in terms of clause (b).

The link between the material and the formation of the belief has no rational connection and is so tenuous that one would have no option but to conclude that the first jurisdictional condition, that the AO does not have the requisite material to form a belief that income has escaped assessment, was not satisfied. Hence, the impugned notice must be quashed.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post Reopening Invalid for Want of Lender Certificate Under Section 24(b) | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Ind AS 115 | Revenue Recognition for Free Trials and Subscriptions

Ind AS 115 free trial revenue recognition

1. Facts

Fit-life Wellness Limited, hereinafter referred to as “the company”, operates a chain of premium fitness centres that provide subscription-based gym and wellness services. To attract new members and encourage them to experience its facilities, the company runs a promotional scheme offering new customers a 2-month free trial membership.

During the trial period, customers are allowed full access to gym equipment, group fitness sessions, and digital wellness programs without any payment or contractual obligation. At the end of the trial, customers may either subscribe to a paid membership or discontinue the service without any penalty.

A customer enrols in the free trial on 1st April 2025. The standard annual membership fee charged by FitLife is Rs. 24,000, payable upfront, which provides access to services for a period of twelve months (equivalent to Rs. 2,000 per month). Initially, the customer is only entitled to the free trial for April and May, with no commitment to purchase paid services.

However, after completing one month of the trial, on 30th April 2025, the customer decides to subscribe to the annual membership and pays Rs. 24,000 in advance. As per the terms of the offer, the paid membership period begins only after completion of the free trial period, i.e., from 1st June 2025 to 31st May 2026. Consequently, the customer continues to receive services during May 2025 as part of the remaining free trial period, even though the annual subscription has already been purchased.

The management of the company faced uncertainty regarding the appropriate accounting treatment for the above transactions. The key accounting questions that arose were as follows:

(a) Whether any revenue should be recognised during the free trial period when the customer has not opted for a paid subscription and is free to discontinue the service without any obligation?

(b) Whether revenue should be recognised for the remaining portion of the free trial period once the customer opts for and pays for the annual membership before the trial ends, or whether revenue recognition should commence only from the beginning of the paid annual membership term?

Relevant Provisions

Ind AS 115 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers

Para 9 of Ind AS 115

An entity shall account for a contract with a customer that is within the scope of this Standard only when all of the following criteria are met:

(a) the parties to the contract have approved the contract (in writing, orally or in accordance with other customary business practices) and are committed to perform their respective obligations;

(b) the entity can identify each party’s rights regarding the goods or services to be transferred;

(c) the entity can identify the payment terms for the goods or services to be transferred;

(d) the contract has commercial substance (i.e. the risk, timing or amount of the entity’s future cash flows is expected to change as a result of the contract); and

(e) it is probable that the entity will collect the consideration to which it will be entitled in exchange for the goods or services that will be transferred to the customer.

Para 15 of Ind AS 115

When a contract with a customer does not meet the criteria in paragraph 9, and an entity receives consideration from the customer, the entity shall recognise the consideration received as revenue only when either of the following events has occurred:

(a) the entity has no remaining obligations to transfer goods or services to the customer and all, or substantially all, of the consideration promised by the customer has been received by the entity and is non-refundable; or

(b) the contract has been terminated, and the consideration received from the customer is non-refundable.

Para B39 of Ind AS 115

Customer options to acquire additional goods or services for free or at a discount come in many forms, including sales incentives, customer award credits (or points), contract renewal options or other discounts on future goods or services.

Para B41 of Ind AS 115

If a customer has the option to acquire an additional good or service at a price that would reflect the stand-alone selling price for that good or service, that option does not provide the customer with a material right even if the option can be exercised only by entering into a previous contract. In those cases, the entity has made a marketing offer that it shall account for in accordance with this Standard only when the customer exercises the option to purchase the additional goods or services.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post Ind AS 115 | Revenue Recognition for Free Trials and Subscriptions appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

[Opinion] Finance Bill 2026 – New Buyback Tax Rules and Shareholder Impact

Finance Bill 2026 buyback taxation

Dindayal Dhandaria – 2026] 183 taxmann.com 453 (Article)

1. Introduction

Buyback of shares has long been used by companies as an alternative to dividend distribution. In a buyback, a company repurchases its own shares from shareholders—either through the stock exchange route or through a tender offer. Historically, buybacks were regarded as tax-efficient for shareholders because the tax incidence was largely contained at the company level and the shareholder’s receipt was exempt.

This position changed fundamentally with effect from 1 October 2024, when the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 shifted the incidence of taxation from the company to the shareholder by treating the buyback consideration as dividend income in the hands of shareholders. This created practical issues such as taxation on gross receipts (including return of capital) and allowance of the cost of shares only in the form of a capital loss, which could not always be effectively utilised.

Subsequently, the Finance Bill, 2026 proposes to rationalise the buyback taxation framework again under the Income-tax Act, 2025 with effect from 1 April 2026 by restoring a capital gains-based model, so that shareholders are taxed on real gains rather than on gross buyback proceeds. While this proposal appears conceptually equitable, the practical impact is not uniform. As illustrated later in this article, the proposed change may operate favourably for high-income shareholders while increasing the tax burden for small shareholders, particularly those who would otherwise fall within the rebate range under section 87A.

This article therefore explains:

  • the buyback taxation regime up to 30 September 2024;
  • the regime applicable from 1 October 2024; and
  • the proposed changes from 1 April 2026, along with their practical impact on different classes of shareholders.

2. Taxation of Buybacks Up To 30 September 2024 Company-Level Tax With Shareholder Exemption

2.1 Statutory Framework

For buybacks undertaken by a domestic company up to 30 September 2024, the relevant provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961 were:

  • Section 115QA – Tax on distributed income on buyback of shares by domestic companies; and
  • Section 10(34A) – Exemption to shareholders in respect of income arising from such buyback.

2.2 Mechanism of Taxation

Under this regime:

  • The domestic company was liable to pay additional income tax at 20% (plus applicable surcharge and cess) on “distributed income” arising from the buyback.
  • The amount received by the shareholder on buyback was exempt under section 10(34A).

2.3 Computation of “Distributed Income”

Broadly, “distributed income” for section 115QA purposes was computed as:

Buyback consideration paid by the company Less – Amount received by the company at the time of issue of such shares

Accordingly, the shareholder did not compute capital gains and did not bear tax incidence on the buyback proceeds.

2.4 Practical Consequence

This structure was particularly attractive for all shareholders, whether in a higher tax bracket or otherwise, since the buyback consideration remained fully exempt in their hands irrespective of their overall income.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] Finance Bill 2026 – New Buyback Tax Rules and Shareholder Impact appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

ICAI Updates UDIN Rules with New Reporting and Tax Audit Limits

ICAI UDIN new reporting requirements

1. Introduction

Pursuant to decisions taken at the Council’s 442nd meeting held on 26–27 May 2025, the UDIN Directorate of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has introduced key updates to the UDIN framework. These updates strengthen compliance and system-based validation. The changes includes the requirement to furnish preceding year audit details during UDIN generation, introduction of additional validation parameters on the CBDT e-Filing Portal, and implementation of a ceiling on UDIN generation in line with the prescribed tax audit limits, while ensuring confidentiality of the information provided by members. These updates are discussed in detail herewith:

2. Requirement to Furnish Previous Year Audit Details While Generating UDIN Under GST & Tax Audit and Audit & Assurance

The Council has introduced a provision on the UDIN portal requiring the succeeding auditor to capture details of the preceding year’s audit while generating UDIN under the ‘GST & Tax Audit’ and ‘Audit & Assurance Functions’ categories.

The information provided by members during UDIN generation will remain confidential and will not be disseminated or made publicly available.

Click Here to Access ICAI Notification

3. Introduction of New parameter for UDIN Validation on the e-Filing Portal

In line with the Council’s decision, members are informed that the PAN of the assessee has been made a mandatory requirement for generating UDIN under the ‘GST & Tax Audit’ category on the UDIN Portal.

Going forward, UDINs will be validated on the CBDT e-Filing Portal using the following five parameters:

(a) Membership Registration Number (MRN)

(b) UDIN

(c) Assessment Year/Financial Year (AY/FY)

(d) Form Number

(e) PAN of the assessee

The PAN information furnished on the UDIN portal will be compulsory and will remain confidential and will not be accessible to any third-party verifier.

Click Here to ICAI Notification

4. Ceiling on UDIN Generation for GST and Tax Audits

The Council has approved the implementation of a ceiling on the maximum number of UDINs that can be generated, in line with the prescribed limit of 60 Tax Audits. This shall be effective from 1st April 2026.

This ceiling will apply to the following sub-categories:

  • Form 3CA – 3rd proviso to Section 44AB
  • Form 3CB – Section 44AB(a)
  • Form 3CB – Section 44AB(b)
  • Form 3CB (Combined) under Section 44AB

Accordingly, the restriction on UDIN generation through the UDIN Portal will become operational from 1st April 2026, in alignment with the Council’s decision.

Further, field-level validation has already been implemented on the UDIN Portal and will continue to apply beyond this date across all sub-categories covered under Section 44AB [clauses (a) to (e)] at the time of UDIN generation under the ‘GST & Tax Audit’ category.

Click Here to Access ICAI Notification

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post ICAI Updates UDIN Rules with New Reporting and Tax Audit Limits appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Writ Against Private Company for Union Recognition Not Maintainable | HC

Trade union recognition

Case Details: Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Contractor’s Workers’ Union vs. Labour Commissioner & Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal [2026] 183 taxmann.com 251 (HC-Calcutta)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
  • Ranjit Kr. JaiswalMd. Ali JinnahNandalal Pradhan for the Petitioner.
  • Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv., Ms Sanjukta DuttaKinnor Ghosh for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner trade union was not recognised by the employer. Meanwhile, the respondent no. 4 union was recognised by the employer, a listed contractor, and the matter was settled with the respondent no. 4 union by way of a memorandum of settlement.

The petitioner filed the writ petition praying for direction upon the respondents to grant the recognition to the petitioner to participate as a constituent of the joint bargaining council and to derecognise the respondent no. 4 by declaring that the formation of respondent no. 4 was totally illegal and in contravention of section 7(2) of the Trade Union Act, 1926.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had not taken recourse to the provision of section 28A of the Trade Union (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1983.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the proper forum for recognition of a trade union was the respondent no. 5, the Registrar of trade unions, whom the petitioner/union had not approached. Thus, the writ petition was not maintainable and was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Referred to

The post Writ Against Private Company for Union Recognition Not Maintainable | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source