Author: inavatiq

The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) has published its first-ever newsletter, marking an important step in enhancing transparency around the audit regulator’s work, priorities, and expectations. The publication serves as a formal communication channel to engage with stakeholders across the financial reporting ecosystem.

1. Overview of Regulatory Priorities

The newsletter provides insights into NFRA’s regulatory focus areas, outlining how the authority intends to strengthen audit quality and uphold the integrity of financial reporting. It highlights NFRA’s approach to supervision, enforcement, and standard-setting, offering clarity on the themes that will guide its oversight activities going forward.

2. Key Oversight Observations from Audit Reviews

A significant part of the newsletter discusses key observations emerging from NFRA’s audit inspections and reviews. These observations reflect recurring deficiencies and areas of concern identified during oversight, and signal the regulator’s expectations regarding professional scepticism, documentation, independence, and compliance with auditing standards.

3. Emphasis on Accountability and Professional Conduct

The publication underscores NFRA’s emphasis on accountability, ethical conduct, and professional discipline. It reiterates the regulator’s commitment to ensuring that auditors discharge their responsibilities with due care, objectivity, and independence, thereby reinforcing confidence in the audit profession.

4. Strengthening Trust in Financial Reporting

By sharing its perspectives and expectations, NFRA aims to build greater trust in financial statements and audit processes. The newsletter highlights the role of high-quality audits in protecting public interest and maintaining the credibility of India’s financial reporting framework.

5. Signals for Auditors, Preparers, and Users of Financial Statements

The newsletter also serves as a forward-looking guide for auditors, preparers, and users of financial statements, offering early signals on areas that may attract closer regulatory scrutiny. Stakeholders are encouraged to align their practices with NFRA’s expectations to mitigate compliance risks and enhance overall reporting quality.

6. Way Forward

NFRA’s inaugural newsletter sets the tone for ongoing engagement with the profession and other stakeholders. Going forward, such communications are expected to play a key role in promoting regulatory clarity, improving audit outcomes, and strengthening confidence in India’s financial reporting and governance landscape.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post NFRA Releases First Newsletter on Audit Oversight appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Editorial Team – [2026] 182 taxmann.com 808 (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. Japan to Implement Pillar Two Side-by-Side Package

Japan’s Ministry of Finance has issued a Cabinet Decision dated 23 January 2026 to align the country’s Pillar Two global minimum tax framework with the OECD’s side-by-side package released on 5 January 2026. Under this decision, Japan will revise its rules as follows:

• Exemption for Certain Parent Jurisdictions – Multinational groups headquartered in specified jurisdictions that maintain internationally recognised minimum tax regimes such as those with a corporate tax rate of at least 20% and a domestic minimum tax will have their GloBE top-up tax reduced to zero.
• Extension of Transitional Safe Harbor: The transitional Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) safe harbor will be extended by one additional year, remaining in effect through the end of 2027.
• Treatment of Investment Tax Credits – Certain investment-related tax credits may be included in covered taxes to mitigate unintended top-up tax exposure, subject to defined limitations.
• Revisions to UTPR Residual Tax Allocation – The approach to allocating residual top-up tax under the UTPR-equivalent mechanism will be refined.
• Updates to Local Inhabitant Taxes – Conforming amendments will be introduced to Japan’s local corporate inhabitant tax rules.

These revisions will apply to fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2026.

Source – Cabinet Decision

2. South Africa Lowers Interest Rates on Outstanding Taxes and Overpayments

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) has released updated interest rate tables dated 22 January 2026, reflecting the following adjustments:

• Table 1 – Interest on outstanding taxes and refunds – The interest rate applicable to unpaid taxes, duties, and levies, as well as interest payable on tax refunds arising from successful appeals and certain delayed refunds, has been reduced from 10.50% to 10.25%, effective 1 March 2026. This follows an earlier reduction from 10.75% to 10.50% effective 1 November 2025.
• Table 2 – Interest on credit balances – The interest rate payable on credit amounts, including overpayments of provisional tax, has been lowered from 6.50% to 6.25%, effective 1 March 2026. This comes after a prior decrease from 6.75% to 6.50% effective 1 November 2025.

The interest rates under both tables are linked to the rate prescribed under section 80(1)(b) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (PFMA), which sets the standard interest rate for debts owed to the State. The PFMA rate was most recently reduced from 10.50% to 10.25% with effect from 1 January 2026, as announced by the National Treasury. However, for income tax purposes, the revised rate becomes applicable only from the first day of the second month following its implementation under the PFMA namely, 1 March 2026.

Source – South African Revenue Service

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [World Tax News] Japan to Implement Pillar Two Side-by-Side Package and More appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Bhavi Shreyansh Shah Liquidator of Greendiamz Biotech Ltd. vs. Champat Singhvi - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 158 (NCLT-Ahd.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Shammi Khan, Judicial Member & Sanjeev Sharma, Technical Member
• Arjun Sheth, Adv. for the Applicant.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the CIRP was initiated against the corporate debtor by the NCLT, and an RP was appointed. The Applicant, being the RP, filed the instant application under Section 66, alleging that the respondent, suspended management, had entered into preferential transactions, unlawful transactions, undervalued and fraudulent transactions, wrongful trading, and had committed misconduct during the CIRP.

The NCLT observed that, considering consistent judicial pronouncements holding that the 130-day timeline under Regulation 35A is directory, the delay in filing the instant application due to completion of the transaction audit was condonable. Accordingly, the instant application was not barred by limitation.

Further, it was observed that the forensic audit report revealed that the suspended management had repaid unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 48.88 lakhs to related parties (directors and their relatives) before the dues of financial creditors. Such transactions constituted preferential transactions under Section 43.

The unexplained bogus capitalisation of alleged R&D expenses aggregating to Rs. 7.06 crores, followed by their complete write-off without any supporting evidence, amounted to carrying on business for a fraudulent purpose.

Book entry adjustments involving crediting unsecured loans to related parties without corresponding actual fund inflows constituted preferential transactions under Section 43. Held: Yes.

NCLT Held

The NCLT held that, since the respondents had failed to discharge the burden cast upon them under Section 43(3) read with Sections 44 and 66 to demonstrate that the impugned transactions were undertaken in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the corporate debtor, or that they had provided new value or were otherwise exempt, they were jointly and severally liable to make restitution of the benefits received through the preferential transactions and fraudulent trading, and were required to reverse and restore the said amounts to the corporate debtor.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Prasant Chandra Rath v. Surya Kanta Satapathy [2023] 149 taxmann.com 390 (Para 8.4)
• Tata Steel BSL Ltd. v. Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 146 taxmann.com 300 (Para 8.5)
• Anubhav Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Rajendra Kumar Girdhar [2025] 180 taxmann.com 730 (NCLAT- New Delhi)/(2025) (Para 11.7) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Chandresh Jajoo v. Vikas Garg Vikas Garg, Liquidator of Hema Engineering Industries Ltd. [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1713 of 2025] (para 6.9)
• Aditya Kumar Tibrewal v. Om Prakash Pandey [2022] 138 taxmann.com 433 (NCLAT- New Delhi) (para 6.9)
• Shekhar Arvind Parkhi Resolution Professional For Green India Building Systems and Services Private Ltd. v. Arun Shenoy [IA No.4565 of 2024] (para 6.9)
• Prasant Chandra Rath v. Surya Kanta Satapathy [2023] 149 taxmann.com 390 (NCLAT- New Delhi) (para 8.4)
• Jagdish Kumar Parulkar Jagdish Kumar Parulkar, Resolution Professional of Tayal Foods Ltd. v. Vinod Agarwal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 29 (NCLAT- New Delhi) (para 8.4)
• Tenny Jose v. Prathap Pillai, Resolution Professional of Tenny Jose Ltd. [2023] 155 taxmann.com 178 (NCLAT – Chennai) (para 8.4)
• Tata Steel BSL Ltd. v. Venus Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 146 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi) (para 8.5)
• Anuj Jain v. Axis Bank Ltd. [2020] 114 taxmann.com 656 (SC) (para 9.6)
• Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. Spade Financial Services Ltd. [2021] 124 taxmann.com 24/165 SCL 21 (SC) (para 9.6)
• GVR Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Pooja Bahry (2023) ibclaw.in 261 NCLAT (para 9.6)
• Chetan T. Shah v. Jayesh Vinod Valia (2023) ibclaw.in 120 NCLT (para 10.6)
• Anubhav Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Rajendra Kumar Girdhar [2025] 180 taxmann.com 730 (NCLAT- New Delhi) (para 11.7)
• Renuka Devi Rangaswamy v. Madhusudan Khemka [2023] 153 taxmann.com 118 (NCLAT – Chennai) (para 12.4)
• Regen Powetech Pvt. Ltd. v. Wind Construction Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 383 (NCLAT – Chennai) (para 12.4)
• Nalinesh Kumar Paurush v. Arvind Mittal [(CA) (AT) (Ins) No. 346 of 2024] (para 12.5).

The post Related Party Loan Repayment Held Preferential | NCLT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: DGAP vs. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 633 (GSTAT-NEW DELHI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Mayank Kumar Jain, Judicial Member & Anil Kumar Gupta, Technical Member

Facts of the Case

The assessee, a builder, was alleged to have engaged in profiteering under the anti-profiteering provisions in the real estate sector, and the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) computed the amount of profiteering at Rs. 67,02,147. The assessee submitted that it was ready to pay the said amount as determined by DGAP and requested that a period of three months be granted to make the payment, on the ground that the disbursement was to be made to numerous homebuyers. An undertaking was furnished by the assessee agreeing to pay the computed amount to eligible homebuyers. The matter was accordingly placed before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).

GSTAT Held

The GSTAT held that in view of the undertaking furnished by the assessee, the report of DGAP was liable to be accepted. It was observed that the quantified profiteering amount, as determined by DGAP, was not disputed and was agreed to be paid to eligible homebuyers. Referring to Section 171 and Rule 133(3) of the CGST Rules, the GSTAT concluded that the assessee was liable to deposit the profiteered amount along with applicable interest. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to pay the determined amount to the eligible homebuyers in terms of the statutory provisions.

The post Builder Directed to Pay Profiteering Amount to Homebuyers | GSTAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Vijaya Bank vs. Prashant B Narnaware - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 894 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Joymalya Bagchi & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
• Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Likivi K. Jakhalu, Deepanjal Choudhary, Sushant Kumar Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Gaurav Lomes, Prithvi Yadav, Rahul Chitnis, Ms Shwetal, Aditya Khanna, Surya Prakash, Ms Divya Singh Pundir, Devesh Dubey, Ms Shubhra Kapur, Sanjiv Goel, Annu Mishra, Advs., Chander Shekhar Ashri, Sanjay Kapur, Ms Asha Gopalan Nair, AORs and S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. for the Appearing Parties.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent was appointed as Senior Manager in the appellant bank. In his appointment letter, Clause 11(k) stated that he was required to serve the bank for a minimum period of three years and execute an indemnity bond for ₹2 lakhs, payable in the event he resigned from the services of the bank before completion of the stipulated minimum period of three years.

The Respondent tendered his resignation before completion of three years in order to join another bank and paid a sum of ₹2 lakhs to the appellant bank. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking the quashing of Clause 11(k) of the appointment letter, alleging that the same was in violation of Section 27. The High Court allowed the writ petition.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that a restrictive covenant operating during the subsistence of an employment contract does not place a clog on the freedom of a contracting party to engage in trade or employment. Clause 11(k) sought to impose a restriction on the Respondent’s option to resign, thereby perpetuating the employment contract for a specified term.

Further, Clause 11(k) of the appointment letter amounted to a restraint of trade or was opposed to public policy. The object of the restrictive covenant was in furtherance of the employment contract and not to restrain future employment and, hence, was not violative of Section 27.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the impugned order passed by the High Court was liable to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court, Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA-1159-2013, dated 20-08-2014 (para 36) set aside

List of Cases Referred to

• K.Y. Venkatesh Kumar v. BEML Ltd [Writ Appeal No.2736 of 2009, dated 9-12-2009] (para 8)
• Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co 1967 SCC OnLine SC 72 (para 13)
• Superintendence Company (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai (1981) 2 SCC 246 (para 14)
• Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly [1986] 60 COMP CASE 797 (SC) (para 19)
• Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills (2002) 3 SCC 496 (para 34).

The post Early Resignation Damages Clause Valid – No Restraint of Trade | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Jyoti Agro vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 630 (Gujarat)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
• Avinash Poddar & Gaurang Shah for the Member.
• Ms Shrunjal Shah, AGP & Ms Anchal A. Poddar for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner-assessee filed an application seeking a refund of accumulated IGST arising from zero-rated supplies, but was unable to upload shipping bills on the GST portal due to size constraints. The petitioner submitted that attempts were made to furnish hard copies of the shipping bills, which were not accepted by the jurisdictional officer under CGST. It was contended that the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the undertaking or declaration was not properly signed, alleging non-compliance with the guidelines prescribed under Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, dated 18-11-2019. It was further submitted that upon rejection of the refund claim, the amount was re-credited through Form GST PMT-03 into the electronic credit ledger, following which another refund application was attempted to be filed, but the GST portal displayed an error indicating that an application for the same period had already been filed. Thereafter, a fresh refund application was filed under the category ‘Any Other,’ against which a deficiency memo was issued stating that the application was not in accordance with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules and that the refund amount had not been debited from the electronic credit ledger. Reliance was placed upon judicial precedents to contend that procedural limitations of the electronic system should not defeat a substantive refund claim. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that where substantive conditions are satisfied, a refund cannot be denied due to technical errors or lacunae in the electronic system. It was observed that the inability to upload shipping bills due to portal size constraints and non-acceptance of hard copies resulted in procedural difficulties that could not defeat a legitimate claim. The High Court referred to Section 54 of the Gujarat GST Act and Rule 89 of the Gujarat GST Rules and concluded that procedural requirements should not override substantive compliance. Relying on judicial precedents, it was held that benefits otherwise admissible cannot be denied on account of technical limitations of the portal, and the respondent authority was directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2023] 152 taxmann.com 550/100 GST 159/78 GSTL 324 (Gujarat) (para 2), followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2023] 152 taxmann.com 550/100 GST 159/78 GSTL 324 (Gujarat) (para 2).

The post GST Refund Not Denied for Portal Upload Limits | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Unitas Foods (P.) Ltd. vs. Gyanender [2025] 181 taxmann.com 444 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.
• Ms Naomi Chandra, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Pran Krishna Jana, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent was appointed as a Marketing Executive by the petitioner and later promoted to Purchase Manager. The services of the respondent were terminated and thereafter respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court claiming that the petitioner management was not providing the facilities like appointment letter, weekly and yearly leave, overtime, bonus and other allowances and when the same were demanded, the petitioner/management terminated the services without any notice and without payment of earned salary for the period.

Since the petitioner-management didn’t come forward to cross-examine the respondent-claimant, the respondent’s evidence remained uncontroverted and unrebutted and was thus accepted on face value.

The Labour Court concluded that the services of the respondent were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the petitioner and thus awarded the relief of reinstatement with full back wages, along with continuity of services and all other consequential benefits.

It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had engaged a counsel before the Labour Court and had also filed a reply to the claim of the respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner’s counsel stopped appearing in the matter and did not inform the petitioner of this. The petitioner further stated that on multiple occasions, the counsel did not appear and sought adjournments. Hence, the petitioner’s evidence was closed.

The petitioner also challenged the impugned award on another ground. The petitioner submitted that the impugned award was bereft of any reasons and that there was no finding with respect to the issues raised before the Labour Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the impugned award contained no findings or reasons, suffered from a material irregularity, and was accordingly set aside. Thus, the matter was remanded to the Labour Court, and the petitioner was directed to cross-examine the respondent on the next date of hearing.

List of Cases Referred to

• Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta (2009) 12 SCC 609 (para 16)
• Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 (para 17).

The post HC Sets Aside Reinstatement Order for Lack of Reasons appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner Goods and Services Tax [2026] 182 taxmann.com 587 (Orissa)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Harish Tandon, CJ. & Murahari Sri Raman, J.
• Jagabandhu Sahoo, Sr. Adv., Ronit Ghosh, Subhajeet Sahu, Urmila Sahoo, Romeet Panigrahi & Ms Kajal Sahoo, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Sujan Kumar Roy Choudhury, Senior Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, being a manufacturer of fertiliser, imported raw materials and discharged customs duty on the assessable value of such imports. It paid IGST under the reverse charge mechanism on ocean freight. The petitioner challenged the levy of IGST on ocean freight. However, the Department declined to grant interest on such a refund, contending that the refund was processed within the statutory time under Section 54 of the CGST Act and that the statute did not expressly provide for interest in such circumstances. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the IGST collected on ocean freight was without authority of law, as such a levy had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. The Court held that where a tax is collected pursuant to a levy that is subsequently found to be illegal and unconstitutional, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the refunded amount. The refund not arose from any misinterpretation by a quasi-judicial authority, and therefore, the Department’s denial of interest was unsustainable. It was further held that the interest was payable under Section 56 read with Section 54 of the CGST Act and the Odisha GST Act from the date of payment of IGST on ocean freight until the date of actual refund.

List of Cases Referred to

• Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2020] 113 taxmann.com 436 (Gujarat)/[2020] 78 GST 519 (Gujarat)/[2020] 33 GSTL 321 (Gujarat) (para 2.3)
• Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 331 (SC)/[2022] 61 GSTL 257 (SC)/[2022] 92 GST 101 (SC) (para 2.4)
• Commissioner, Commercial and Sales Taxes v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. (2004) 2 SCR 451 (para 6.10)
• Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) 1 SCR 778 (para 6.12)
• Union of India v. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories [2016] 67 taxmann.com 125 (SC)/[2016] 54 GST 341 (SC)/[2016] 333 ELT 193 (SC)/[2016] 37 GSTR 413 (SC) (para 6.15)
• West India Continental Oils Fats (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2025] 179 taxmann.com 603 (Bombay)/[2026] 104 GSTL 208 (Bombay) (para 6.15)
• ADI Enterprises v. Union of India [2022] 143 taxmann.com 47 (Gujarat)/[2022] 94 GST 866 (Gujarat)/[2022] 64 GSTL 392 (Gujarat) (para 6.16)
• ETC Agro Processing (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2023] 150 taxmann.com 376 (Gujarat)/[2023] 98 GST 531 (Gujarat)/[2023] 75 GSTL 32 (Gujarat) (para 6.16)
• Jupiter Comtex (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 160 taxmann.com 116 (Gujarat)/[2024] 104 GST 167 (Gujarat)/[2024] 86 GSTL 95 (Gujarat) (para 6.17)
• Mohd. Ekram Khan & Sons v. CTT 2004 taxmann.com 1806 (SC) (para 6.20)
• Vijaya Vasava Motors v. Asstt. Commissioner (2009) 19 VST 322 (AP) (para 6.20)
• Himmatlal Harilal Metha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1954) 1 SCC 405 (para 6.21)
• South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. (2003) 8 SCC 648 (para 6.5)
• Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/[2024] 301 Taxman 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) (para 6.6)
• Sandhu Overseas v. State of Haryana (2011) 45 VST 244 (P&H) (para 6.7)
• Dr Poornima Advani v. Government of NCT (2025) 2 SCR 1178 (para 6.8).

The post IGST on Ocean Freight Refund – Interest Payable | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

The Finance Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman presented the Economic Survey 2025-26 in Parliament on January 29, 2026. The Survey reviews the performance of the Indian economy in the backdrop of a challenging global environment marked by geopolitical tensions, trade fragmentation and financial market volatility. It notes that despite these headwinds, India remains one of the fastest-growing major economies, supported by strong macroeconomic fundamentals, policy reforms, and sustained public investment.

The Survey provides a comprehensive assessment of developments in growth, inflation, fiscal position, monetary conditions, the external sector, and financial stability, along with a detailed review of sectoral performance across agriculture, industry, and services. It also analyses emerging issues such as manufacturing competitiveness, cost of capital, export performance, climate transition, employment and skill development, and the role of technology, including artificial intelligence, in shaping the economy.

The Economic Survey 2025-26 underlines the need to strengthen domestic growth drivers while building resilience against external shocks. It emphasises the importance of improving state capacity, enhancing productivity, promoting competitive manufacturing and exports, and maintaining policy credibility to sustain growth over the medium term.

The Survey serves as an important reference document for policymakers, businesses, and other stakeholders to understand the economy’s current position and future direction. The following are the key points related to direct taxes:

1. India’s potential growth rate has been revised upward to 7%, indicating a stronger medium-term growth outlook supported by reforms and infrastructure investment.
2. The Survey underscores the Government’s continued commitment to fiscal consolidation, with the fiscal deficit for FY25 contained at 4.8% of GDP and a target of 4.4% for FY26.
3. Direct tax collections continue to show strong buoyancy, reflecting improved compliance, formalisation of the economy and widening of the tax base.
4. Greater emphasis has been placed on tax certainty, stability and predictability as key factors for improving investor confidence and capital formation.
5. Manufacturing and exports are identified as strategic priorities, with tax and policy frameworks expected to play a supportive role in enhancing competitiveness.
6. The Survey reiterates the importance of rationalising subsidies and improving the quality of public expenditure to create fiscal space for growth-oriented spending.
7. High cost of capital and structural current account deficit are flagged as macro challenges, reinforcing the need for policy and tax reforms that support investment and savings.
8. Nudge-based interventions have enhanced tax collection efficiency by shifting the focus from post-facto enforcement to preventive, technology-enabled compliance, thereby reducing litigation and compliance costs while improving voluntary tax compliance.
9. As of November 2025, major direct taxes accounted for nearly 53 per cent of Budget Estimates, down from 56.6 per cent in the corresponding period of the previous year, while personal income tax and corporate tax recorded year-on-year growth despite tax concessions.
10. The improvement in tax collections was supported by tax base expansion, with income-tax returns filed increasing from 6.9 crore in FY22 to 9.2 crore in FY25, reflecting improved compliance, technology-driven administration, and rising incomes.

Click Here To Read The Full Update

The post Economic Survey 2025-26 | India’s Potential Growth Raised to 7% appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Press Release; Dated: 29.01.2026

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), through the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (IEPFA), has invited public comments on the proposed amendments to the IEPFA (Accounting, Audit, Transfer and Refund) Rules, 2016. The proposed changes are aimed at improving the efficiency, transparency, and investor-friendliness of the IEPF refund framework.

1. Objective of the Proposed Amendments

The key objective of the amendments is to simplify existing procedures, reduce documentation burdens, and significantly expedite the processing of refund claims. The focus is particularly on low-value claims, which currently face delays despite their relatively straightforward nature.

2. Faster Disposal Timeline for Refund Claims

A major reform proposed under the amendments is the introduction of a defined timeline for claim disposal. Refund claims—especially low-value ones—are proposed to be processed and disposed of within 30 days, subject to verification by the concerned company. This is expected to bring predictability and accountability into the refund process.

3. Definition of Low-Value Claims

For the purpose of fast-track processing, the amendments define “low-value claims” as follows:

• Physical shares with a market value of up to ₹5 lakh
• Dematerialised shares with a market value of up to ₹15 lakh
• Dividend claims of up to ₹10,000

These categories are intended to cover the majority of small investors seeking refunds from the IEPF.

4. Simplification and Rationalisation of Procedures

The proposed amendments also seek to bring enhanced procedural clarity by:

• Rationalising documentation requirements
• Eliminating repetitive and unnecessary compliance steps
• Clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of companies involved in verification and processing

This is expected to reduce friction for both investors and companies.

5. Introduction of a Formal Appeal Mechanism

To further strengthen investor protection, the amendments propose the introduction of a formal appeal mechanism. This will allow claimants to challenge the rejection of refund claims through a structured process, ensuring greater transparency, accountability, and fairness in decision-making.

6. Towards a More Investor-Friendly Refund Framework

Overall, the proposed amendments reflect MCA’s intent to make the IEPF refund process faster, more transparent, and aligned with investor-centric governance. By streamlining procedures and introducing clear timelines and safeguards, the changes aim to restore investor confidence and improve ease of compliance.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post MCA Proposes IEPFA Rule Amendments for Faster Investor Refunds appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source