Author: inavatiq

Editorial Team, [2026] 182 taxmann.com 225 (Article)

Global IDT Insights provides a weekly snippet of tax news specifically related to Indirect Taxes from around the globe.

1. Canada announces tariff measures affecting steel and steel derivative imports

Canada has issued measures setting out changes to tariff rate quotas and the imposition of additional tariffs on certain steel and steel derivative imports. The measures address the treatment of tariff-free import volumes, over-quota surtaxes, and new customs duties applicable to specified products, with direct implications for importers and customs compliance.

The measures focus exclusively on tariff mechanisms, including reductions in existing tariff rate quotas, continuation of surtaxes on over-quota imports, and the introduction of a new tariff on identified steel derivative products.

Key aspects of these tariff measures include:

(a) Reduction of tariff rate quotas for steel imports from non-free trade agreement countries

Canada will reduce the volume of steel that may be imported tariff-free from countries that do not have a free trade agreement with Canada. Imports exceeding the revised quota levels will continue to be subject to surtaxes under the existing tariff framework.
Effective 26-12-2025, tariff rate quotas for non-free trade agreement countries will be reduced from 50% to 20% of 2024 levels. Steel imports in excess of these reduced quotas will continue to attract a 50% surtax.

(b) Reduction of tariff rate quotas for steel imports from free trade agreement countries
Canada will also reduce tariff-free import volumes for steel originating from countries that have a free trade agreement in force with Canada. This reduction applies without altering the applicable surtax on over-quota imports.
Effective 26-12-2025, tariff rate quotas for free trade agreement countries will be reduced from 100% to 75% of 2024 levels. Steel imports exceeding these quotas will continue to face a 50% surtax. The existing carve-out under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement will continue, with steel imports from the United States and Mexico remaining exempt from these quota reductions.

(c) Imposition of a tariff on specified steel derivative products
Canada will apply a customs tariff on the full value of listed steel derivative products imported from all countries. The measure targets products where steel content constitutes a significant portion of the overall product value.
Effective 26-12-2025, a 25% tariff will apply to specified steel derivative products, based on an initial list expected to cover imports exceeding $10 billion in value. The identified categories include certain shapes of iron or non-alloy steel, doors and windows, wire and related products, fasteners, structures, steel and iron cloth and netting, and specified metal furniture. The list may be updated periodically to reflect changes in market conditions.

Source – Official Source

Click Here To Read The Full Article 

The post [Global IDT Insights] Canada Imposes New Tariffs On Steel Imports appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Iqvia RDS (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 182 (Karnataka) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• S.R.Krishna Kumar, J.
• Prashanth Sabarish Shivadass, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Hemakumar K., AGA & Poojappa J., Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a data management and clinical trial services provider that is a subsidiary of a US Company, provided data management services to its US parent pursuant to a Master Service Agreement. The issue in the case was whether GST could be imposed on services where the recipient was located outside India, specifically whether the place of supply rule under Para 3.2 of Circular No. 209/1/2018-ST, dated 04-05-2018, exempted the petitioner from GST liability. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that Para 3.2 of Circular No. 209/1/2018-ST, dated 04-05-2018, specifies that the place of supply for software services, including testing, debugging, modification, customization, adaptation, upgrading, enhancement, or implementation, is the recipient’s location. It was found that the petitioner’s services fell within the definition of data management services under the Circular. Consequently, the impugned GST demand was quashed and held that no GST shall be payable on services rendered to the US parent, applying Section 9 of the CGST Act, Section 13 read with Section 16 of the IGST Act and the Karnataka GST Act.

The post GST Demand Quashed As Place Of Service Outside India | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohammad Arif - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 338 (HC - Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dharmesh Sharma, J.
• Ms. Veera Mathai  & Gaurav Nair, Advs. for the Appellant.
• R.K. Nain, Ms. Pratima N. Lakra & Chandan Prajapati, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent No.1 was employed as a driver by the respondent No.2/registered owner. On a fateful day, he was driving a truck when it met with an accident. Respondent No.1 suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent partial disability to the extent of 22% in the nature of physical impairment of his abdomen and lower jaw, besides his left knee.
It was an admitted fact that the ill-fated truck was insured by the appellant/insurance company. Respondent No.1 filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for compensation. The Commissioner allowed the claim filed by respondent No.1/injured employee and granted total compensation payable along with interest, besides penalty in terms of section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

The appellant/insurance company filed an instant appeal contending that claim filed by respondent No.1/injured employee was barred by limitation for having been filed more than two years after date of accident, contrary to section 10(1) and that no intimation with regard to alleged disability suffered by respondent No.1 was given by respondent No.2 in terms of section 10B of the Act.

It was noted that since respondent No.1 was under prolonged medical treatment and was discharged from the hospital and then re-admitted, wherein he remained up to 12.10.2015 and eventually was granted a permanent disability certificate, it must be assumed that the delay in filing the claim petition stood condoned.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that since information regarding the accident was given immediately to the appellant/insurance company, so much so that even compensation towards own damage to the insured truck was awarded by the appellant/insurance company, objection of appellant/insurance company as regards non-intimation of the accident resulting in serious bodily injuries to respondent No.1, also did not cut any ice.

Further, the High Court observed that, if an additional premium has been paid by the employer/insurer to cover compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the liability to pay penalty under section 4A(3)(b) of the Act shall also be borne by the insurer.

The High Court held that, since the insured paid an additional premium towards legal liability for the driver, conductor, and cleaner employed in the operation, the appellant/insurance company could not escape its financial liability to pay compensation, including the penalty amount. Therefore, the instant appeal was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Shantabhai Ananda Jagtap v. Jayram Ganpati Jagtap [2023] 7 taxmann.com 2127 (SC)/(2023) 8 SCC 171 (para 13)
• Urmila Rani v. Manjit Kaur 2014 SCC Online Del 1217 (para 21)
• Mohd. Adbullah v. Manager, Trumboo Cement Industry Ltd. [2024] 7 taxmann.com 2014 (Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh) /Manu/JK/0675/2023 (para 22) distinguished
• Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Dev 1997 taxmann.com 2061 (SC) (para 19) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Urmila Rani v. Manjit Kaur 2014 SCC Online Del 1217 (para 6)
• New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya 2006 taxmann.com 2369 (SC) (para 6)
• L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir Mahto (2002) 9 SCC 450 (para 6)
• Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Dev 1997 taxmann.com 2061 (SC) (para 6)
• Mohd. Adbullah v. Manager, Trumboo Cement Industry Ltd. [2024] 7 taxmann.com 2014 (Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh) (para 6)
• Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289 (para 6)
• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan (2006) 2 SCC 641 (para 7)
• Kamlesh v. Gian Chand 2015 SCC Online P&H 9131 (para 7)
• Mohammad Arif v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. [FAO No. 127 of 2018, dated 28-5-2018] (para 12)
• Abdul Gaffur @ AGR. Gafur v. Sachit Bhagat [FAO No. 128 of 2018, dated 8-5-2018] (para 12)
• Shantabhai Ananda Jagtap v. Jayram Ganpati Jagtap [2023] 7 taxmann.com 2127 (SC) (para 13)
• United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar 2006(2) TAC 973 (para 19).

The post Additional Premium Makes Insurer Liable For Compensation | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

 

Case Details: Yerram Vijay Kumar vs. State of Telangana - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 218 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.K. Maheshwari & K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
• Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv., Awanish Kumar, D Raghvendra Rao & Ms. Garima, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Kumar Vaibhaw, Dhananjay Yadav, Yatharth Kansal, Advs., Ms. Devina Sehgal, Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AORs & Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Special Court for Economic Offences at Hyderabad took cognisance of a private complaint of offences under sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act, 2013 (arising out of alleged fabrication of corporate records, unauthorised EOGM, and uploading of false filings on the MCA portal) along with allied IPC offences.

The High Court, in proceedings under section 482 of the CrPC, refused to quash such cognizance. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that where the Special Court under Companies Act is taking cognizance of an offence under a section in Companies Act which, if proved, would make person(s) ‘liable under section 447’ or ‘liable for action under section 447’, it must also invoke section 447 with corresponding section and in such a case, it must comply with bar against taking cognizance as specified in second proviso to section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Further, the offence under section 448 of the Act is an offence ‘covered under section 447’ since the offence under section 448 is inextricably linked to the punishment for ‘fraud’ as mentioned in section 447, and as such, the second proviso to section 212(6) is attracted.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that, where the Special Court is taking cognisance of an offence under section 448, it must also invoke section 447 with the corresponding section and, in such a case, it must comply with the bar against taking cognisance as specified in the second proviso to section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Further, the Supreme Court observed that, where the Special Court is taking cognisance of an offence under section 448, without invoking the punishment section, i.e. section 447, cognisance could not be countenanced. Therefore, cognisance cannot be taken merely by the filing of a private complaint by the complainant.

However, it is not to say that the complainant is left absolutely remediless, and the right recourse for a person who makes an allegation of fraud in the affairs of a company is to file an application under section 213 before the NCLT.
The Supreme Court held that where the Special Court has taken cognisance of an offence under sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act, 2013, the complaint case and all consequential proceedings to the extent of sections 448 and 451 of the Act shall stand quashed. However, there was no reason or ground to quash offences under the IPC of which cognisance had been taken by the Special Court.

List of Cases Referred to

• Sumana Paruchuri v. Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy [CRIMINAL PETITION No.3575 OF 2022, dated 21-10-2022] (para 36)
• Sivananda Rajaram v. New Shipping Kaisha Ship Management Pvt. Ltd. [Criminal Petition (OP) No. 19154 of 2021, dated 3-7-2023] (para 39)
• M. Gopal v. Ganga Reddy 2022: KHC:35824 (para 39)
• Yogesh Chander Goyal v. State 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3197 (para 40)
• S. Satyanarayana v. Energo Masch Power Engg. & Consulting (P) Ltd. (2015) 13 SCC 1 (para 51)
• Sunil Mandwani v. State of M.P. 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1248 (para 52).

The post Cognizance Under Section 448 Requires Section 447 | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

1. Introduction

The Going Concern concept is just accounting’s way of putting the everyday hope into words. It assumes the businesses will run tomorrow, next month, and at least long enough to finish another audit cycle. Under the going concern basis of accounting the financial statements are prepared on the assumption that the entity is a going concern and will continue its operation for the foreseeable future. Thus,

“Going Concern means the show will continue even if the actors are tired, the script is confusing, and the lights are blinking”.

Auditors check if the company can continue for 12 months meanwhile the company is checking if auditors will continue for 12 months.

1.1 Now let’s start with what Going Concern is as per SA 570?

The Going Concern principle assumes that an organization will continue to operate its business for the foreseeable future. The principal purports that every decision in a Company is taken with the objective in mind of running the business rather than that of liquidating it.

1.2 Is twelve months enough to assess Going Concern?

(a) While Ind AS 1 prescribes a minimum assessment period of twelve months, judicial interpretation and practical experience indicate that this period is often insufficient to assess the true financial viability of an entity. Significant risks such as long-term debt obligations, restructuring plans, regulatory actions, or revival measures usually extend beyond twelve months and cannot be properly evaluated within such a limited timeframe.
(b) It has been observed that Going Concern relates to the foreseeable future, not merely survival for the next year. Therefore, twelve months is only a starting point, and the assessment must extend further wherever facts and circumstances so require to reflect economic reality rather than mere technical compliance.

 1.3 When a business makes us Wonder: “Is this still a going concern?”

Let us understand the concept of going concern with the help of some examples:

Case 1
A Company named “Amigo” was incorporated in March of 2015, it thought it would start its business and become a unicorn, but as it turns out, it had no sales, no purchases but incurs some maintenance expenses. The company took loans for business and had some FDRs and some other loans advanced which made them earn income, but their main business never really started. It’s been more than 10 years now, nothing was going on for them, it made the auditors confused if the company is actually a Going Concern or not, which leads us to our doubt

“What if we just made a Company and did nothing? Will it still be considered a Going Concern?

2. Conclusion

Well, the answer is not a simple one, as if we try to answer the above doubt with the help of Ind AS 1 or SA 570. Amigo will be considered a Going Concern if it has future projections of cash flows, sufficient funding, and is paying off their liabilities properly but what if they can’t, well in that case they will have material uncertainty over their existence and Going Concern will not be assumed.

To give a final answer, Amigo will be simply considered a Going Concern in reference to ICAI’s guidance note on SA 570, as stated, “A Company can still be considered a Going Concern even if it has no business activity if there are no negative indicators”

Click Here To Read The Full Story 

The post Going Concern Concept Under Ind AS 1 and SA 570 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

CA Paras K Savla – [2026] 182 taxmann.com 224 (Article)

1. Introduction

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore has delivered a judgment in the case of Binny Bansal1- that revisits fundamental principles governing residential status determination under the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly in the context of individuals relocating abroad. In Binny Bansal (supra), the Tribunal was required to adjudicate upon the residential status of the co-founder of Flipkart for Assessment Year 2020-21, involving capital gains exceeding Rs. 1,626 crores on the sale of shares in Flipkart Private Limited, a Singapore-incorporated entity. The case presents a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between domestic law provisions under Section 6 of the Act and the tie-breaker provisions under Article 4(2) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

The appellant, Binny Bansal, filed his return of income for AY 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs. 83,319,930 and claiming residential status as “non-resident.” The assessee’s case was that having relocated to Singapore for employment purposes in February 2019 and having stayed in India for only 141 days during the previous year 2019-20, he qualified as a non-resident under the provisions of Section 6(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 thereto. Consequently, capital gains arising from the sale of shares in a Singapore company to various entities including Tiger Global Eight Holdings, Internet Fund III Pte Ltd, and FIT Holdings SARL were claimed as exempt from Indian taxation under Article 13(5) of the India-Singapore DTAA. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim and held the assessee to be a resident and ordinarily resident of India, bringing to tax long-term capital gains of Rs. 162,54,19,504. The Dispute Resolution Panel confirmed this view, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Factual Matrix

The undisputed facts reveal that the assessee resigned from his position as Chairman and Group Chief Executive Officer of Flipkart Group on November 13, 2018, following the Walmart acquisition. On February 17, 2019, he obtained an employment letter from BTB Consulting Pte Ltd (later known as X to 10X Technologies Pte Ltd) and commenced employment in Singapore on February 22, 2019 after receiving an employment pass from the Singapore Ministry of Manpower on February 11, 2019. His family, comprising his spouse and two minor children, relocated to Singapore in March 2019. Subsequently, on September 12, 2019, the assessee assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer with Three State Capital Advisors Pte Ltd, Singapore, having resigned from X to 10X Technologies on September 4, 2019 while in India.

During the financial year 2019-20, the assessee executed three tranches of share sales in Flipkart Private Limited. On August 28, 2019, he sold 54,596 shares to Tiger Global Eight Holdings and 47,759 shares to Internet Fund III Pte Ltd. On November 27, 2019, he sold 539,912 shares to FIT Holdings SARL. The assessee acquired these shares on October 19, 2011, holding them for more than 24 months, thereby qualifying as long-term capital assets under Section 2(29AA) of the Act. The assessee’s shareholding represented less than 5% of the total share capital and voting power, and he did not possess rights to appoint a majority of directors or control management or policy decisions of Flipkart Private Limited, either on the date of transfer or during the 12-month period preceding the transfers.

The passport records submitted by the assessee revealed that he stayed in India for 318 days in FY 2015-16, 326 days in FY 2016-17, 325 days in FY 2017-18, and 268 days in FY 2018-19, totaling 1,237 days in the four years preceding FY 2019-20. For the relevant previous year 2019-20, the assessee stayed in India for 141 days. The assessee contended that 38 of these days represented a period during which he was stranded in India due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore, the effective stay should be considered as only 103 days.

Click Here To Read The Full Article 

The post Residential Status Under Scrutiny After Founder Exits appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CIT - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 219 (SC) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• R. Mahadevan & J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
• Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Advs., Aniket Deepak Agrawal, AOR, Vaibhav Kulkarni & Ms. Aabgina Chishti, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Raghavendra P Shankar, A.S.G., Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Udai Khanna, Karan Lahiri, Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Ms. Seema Bengani, Preeti Rani & Digvijay Dam, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the receipt of shares of the amalgamated company in lieu of shares of the amalgamating company, when the original shares were held as stock-in-trade, gives rise to taxable business income under section 28, or whether no income can be said to accrue until such substituted shares are actually sold.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held as under:

The Supreme Court first examined the statutory scheme of the Income-tax Act and drew a clear distinction between the fields occupied by Sections 45 (capital gains) and 28 (business income). It observed that while Section 45 is triggered only upon a “transfer” of a capital asset, Section 28 is much wider in scope and taxes “profits and gains of business or profession” irrespective of the mode in which such profits arise, whether in cash or in kind, and without requiring any transfer in the strict legal sense. Therefore, the definition of “transfer” in section 2(47) is not determinative for the purposes of section 28.

The Court then analysed the legal nature of amalgamation and held that although in company law it operates as a statutory substitution whereby the amalgamating company ceases to exist, and its shareholders receive shares of the amalgamated company, this does not conclude the tax enquiry.
Relying on earlier precedents including Grace Collis [2001] 115 Taxman 326 (SC), the Court reiterated that amalgamation does involve a transfer in the tax sense, but more importantly, for the purposes of section 28, the real question is whether the assessee has, in the commercial sense, realised its trading asset and obtained something of determinable value in its place.

The Supreme Court emphasised that income under section 28 can arise even without a sale or exchange in the conventional sense. It noted that business profits may be realised in kind, and what is relevant is commercial realisability. If stock-in-trade ceases to exist and is replaced by another asset of ascertainable value, and the assessee is in a position to commercially exploit or realise that asset, then a real business profit can be said to have arisen.

Applying these principles to amalgamation, the Court observed that shares held as stock-in-trade constitute trading assets. Upon amalgamation, those shares are extinguished, and the assessee receives in substitution shares of the amalgamated company with a definite and determinable value. This substitution, in substance, amounts to the realisation of the trading asset, even though the consideration is shares rather than cash.
The Court rejected the assessees’ argument that taxation must wait until the actual sale of the substituted shares. It held that this approach confuses timing of sale with accrual of business income. Once the trading asset is converted into another asset of ascertainable value through a statutory process and the assessee acquires a vested and realisable right in it, the profit has already accrued in the commercial sense, even if the assessee chooses to hold the asset further.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Delhi Order in ITA Nos. 935, 822, 853, and 961 of 2005 dated 07.08.2020 (para 33) affirmed
• Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 871 (SC)/[2020] 272 Taxman 391 (SC)/[2020] 425 ITR 420 (SC) (para 9.4) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) [1989] 43 Taxman 259 (SC)/[1989] 177 ITR 198 (SC) (para 3.4)
• CIT v. Grace Collis [2001] 115 Taxman 326 (SC)/[2001] 248 ITR 323 (SC) (para 3.6)
• Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 90 Taxman 535/224 ITR 371 (SC) (para 3.6)
•  Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 871 (SC)/[2020] 272 Taxman 391 (SC)/[2020] 425 ITR 420 (SC) (para 4)
• Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 59 Taxman 3 (SC)/[1991] 191 ITR 647 (SC) (para 4.2)
• E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) (para 4.4)
• CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) (para 4.4)
• State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 24 Taxman 337 (SC)/[1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) (para 4.4)
• Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 351 (SC)/[1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC) (para 4.4)
• CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 100 (SC)/[2013] 219 Taxman 379 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC) (para 4.4)
• R. Nagaraj v. Rajamani 2025 Livelaw SC 416 (para 9.2)
• Mansarovar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 178/293 Taxman 312/453 ITR 661 (SC) (para 9.5)
• Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT and Excess Profits Tax AIR 1958 SC 861 (para 15.1)
• Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dilip Kumar and Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 (para 15.1)
• Ujagar Prints Etc. v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 488 (para 15.1)
• CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. [1996] 88 Taxman 429 (SC)/[1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC) (para 15.2)
• Religare Finvest Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi [2023] 154 taxmann.com 263 (SC) (para 16)
• Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 92 (SC)/[1990] 186 ITR 278 (SC) (para 16)
• CIT v. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. [2022] 137 taxmann.com 91 (SC)/[2022] 287 Taxman 566 (SC)/[2022] 443 ITR 194 (SC) (para 16.2)
• Kanchanganga Sea Foods Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 192 Taxman 187 (SC)/[2010] 325 ITR 540 (SC) (para 18)
• Californian Copper Syndicate Ltd v. Inland Revenue (1904) 5 TC 159 (para 19)
• Raja Raghunandan Prasad Singh v. CIT (1933) 1 ITR 113 (para 20)
• Raja Mohan Raja Bahadur v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 378 (SC) (para 21)
• CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC) (para 22)
• CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. [2009] 179 Taxman 326 (SC)/[2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC) (para 24.1)
• CIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 250 (SC) (para 27.1).

The post Substitution Of Shares On Amalgamation Taxable U/S 28 | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

PR No. 04/2026; dated: 09.01.2026

1. Introduction

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has revised its technical glitch framework with the objective of easing compliance requirements and improving the ease of doing business for stock brokers.

2. Background of the Revision

The revised framework has been issued vide PR No. 04/2026 dated 09 January 2026. It updates the existing guidelines governing the reporting and handling of technical glitches faced by stock brokers during trading operations.

3. Extension of Reporting Timeline

One of the key changes is the extension of the reporting timeline for technical glitches from 1 hour to 2 hours, providing stock brokers with additional time to assess and report incidents accurately.

4. Streamlined and Simplified Reporting

The revised framework also takes into account trading holidays and introduces a single reporting platform instead of separate reporting to multiple stock exchanges, thereby reducing duplication and operational burden.

5. Conclusion

The updated technical glitch framework now applies to stock brokers with more than 10,000 registered clients and reflects SEBI’s continued efforts to simplify regulatory compliance while ensuring market integrity and operational efficiency.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release 

The post SEBI Revises Technical Glitch Framework for Stock Brokers appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Notification F. No. IFSCA/GN/2026/002, Dated 05.01.2026

1. Introduction

International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) has removed the minimum office space requirement for Book-keeping, Accounting, Taxation and Financial Crime Compliance (BATF) service providers operating in International Financial Services Centres.

2. Regulatory Background

The change has been notified vide Notification No. F. No. IFSCA/GN/2026/002 dated 05 January 2026, through the IFSCA (Book-keeping, Accounting, Taxation and Financial Crime Compliance Services) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026.

3. Removal of Minimum Office Space Requirement

The amendment omits Regulation 12 of the principal regulations, which earlier mandated a minimum office space of 60 sq. ft. carpet area per employee for BATF service providers in IFSC.

4. Consequential Amendments

Consequential changes have also been made to the Second Schedule of the regulations, aligning the framework with the removal of physical infrastructure norms for such service providers.

5. Conclusion

The amendment, effective from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, is aimed at easing compliance and promoting operational flexibility for BATF service providers, further strengthening IFSCs as a competitive global financial hub.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification 

The post IFSCA Removes Office Space Requirement for BATF Providers appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Notification no. F. No. IFSCA/GN/2026/003; Dated: 05.01.2026

1. Introduction

International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) has notified the IFSCA (Registration of Insurance Business) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026, introducing changes to the regulatory framework governing insurance business in IFSCs.

2. Regulatory Background

The amendment regulations have been issued vide Notification No. F. No. IFSCA/GN/2026/003 dated 05 January 2026 and amend the principal regulations relating to the registration and operation of insurance entities in International Financial Services Centres.

3. Revision in Definition of Service Companies

A key amendment relates to the substitution of the definition of “Service Companies of Lloyd’s IFSC” as provided in the Second Schedule to the regulations, bringing greater clarity to eligible entities.

4. Expanded Scope of Eligible Entities

Under the revised definition, Service Companies of Lloyd’s IFSC now include service companies registered in India and promoted by managing agents of Lloyd’s, group entities of managing agents or members of Lloyd’s as permitted by Lloyd’s, as well as Indian companies meeting the prescribed regulatory criteria.

5. Conclusion

The amendment regulations aim to broaden participation and enhance regulatory clarity for Lloyd’s-related insurance entities operating in IFSCs, supporting the growth of India’s international insurance ecosystem while maintaining robust oversight.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification 

The post IFSCA Notifies Insurance Business Amendment Regulations, 2026 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source