Author: inavatiq

Case Details: Sqn. Ldr. Nitu Thapliyal vs. Union of India - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 608 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Surya Kant, CJI | Ujjal Bhuyan & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, Applicants, SSCWOs inducted between 1993 and 1998, were released from service under policies that did not consider SSCWOs for Permanent Commission (PC). In a PIL, the High Court struck down such policies and confined relief to officers then in service or those with pending independent petitions; applicants who did not fall within those categories had their writ petitions declined, and they filed Civil Appeals.

A three-Judge Bench in AU Tayyaba (16.11.2022) allowed appeals, holding that the applicants were eligible for consideration under HRP 04/10 and, if found eligible for PC, would be entitled to pensionary benefits based on deemed completion of the minimum qualifying service for pension.

Pursuant thereto, Respondent-Authorities considered cases. Appellant Nos. 9, 13, and 15 were found ineligible for PC under HRP 04/10 for failing to meet the minimum benchmark of an average ACR grade of 6.5 over the preceding three years; their averages were 5.7, 6.24, and 6.49, respectively.

The Air Force declined pensionary benefits solely on that ground. The applicants then filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking sympathetic consideration and extension of the deemed fiction of completion of minimum pensionable service despite not meeting the ACR benchmark.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court noted that there was no infirmity in the decision of the Air Force to deny pensionary benefits to SSCWOs who did not meet the minimum qualifying benchmark for the grant of PC.

The Supreme Court held that since applicants had not been able to demonstrate any specific mitigating circumstances explaining their inability to meet the prescribed threshold, the prayers made by applicants were to be rejected.

List of Cases Reviewed

• A.U. Tayyaba v. Union of India (2024) 15 SCC 338 (para 24) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• AU Tayyaba v. Union of India (2023) 5 SCC 688 (para 2)
• Babita Puniya v. Secretary 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116 (para 4)
• Wg. Cdr. Sucheta EDN v. Union of India [Civil Appeal Diary No. 28412 of 2024, dated 24-3-2026] (para 18)
• A.U. Tayyaba v. Union of India (2024) 15 SCC 338 (para 21)
• Pooja Pal v. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 584 (SC) (para 30)
• Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 582 (SC) (para 30).

The post SSCWOs Not Eligible for Pension Without ACR Benchmark | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Editorial Team – [2026] 184 taxmann.com 686 (Article)

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

1. UAE Issues Public Clarification on Treatment of Natural Shortage of Excise Goods Within Designated Zones

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has issued a public clarification regarding the treatment of natural shortages in excise goods within a designated zone (DZ). The clarification explains when excise goods shall not be considered ‘released for consumption’ in the event of a natural shortage, provided the relevant conditions are met. It also outlines standards, controls, and procedures in line with the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) Decision No. 6 of 2025.

This clarification focuses on shortages arising during production, storage, or transportation of excise goods within a DZ due to the natural characteristics of such goods. It also defines the process for determining the percentage of natural shortage, reporting obligations, and conditions for its treatment.

The following are the key aspects of the clarification issued by UAE:

(a) Natural shortage not treated as ‘release for consumption’

Excise goods are generally treated as released from a DZ and entered into free circulation when there is a shortage or deficiency during transfer between DZ or under a suspension arrangement. However, a natural shortage within a DZ is not considered a release for consumption in certain situations.

A shortage qualifies as natural if it occurs during production, storage, or transportation within a DZ, is beyond the control of the relevant person due to the nature of the goods, and makes it impossible to release the goods for consumption. Losses caused by negligence, theft, or operational inefficiencies are not considered natural shortages.

(b) Examples of circumstances where natural shortage may occur

Natural shortage may result from the characteristics of excise goods and normal operating conditions. Examples include:

• Reasonable levels of moisture loss or evaporation not due to negligence.
• Irretrievable residues in containers or distribution equipment.
• Losses within production machinery under normal operating conditions.

(c) Requirement to obtain a report from an independent competent entity

The warehouse keeper or taxable person producing/storing excise goods within a DZ may request an ‘Independent Competent Entity’ (ICE) approved by the FTA to determine the percentage of natural shortage along with the required documents.

The ICE reviews the request in accordance with prescribed standards and controls and issues a report based on inspection and actual data. The report specifies details of the excise goods and the permissible, expected, or actual percentage of natural shortage. This report remains valid for one year from the date of issuance.

(d) Determination process and inspection

The ICE may conduct visits to the relevant person’s warehouses or factories. The percentage of natural shortage is determined based on inspection and actual data covering at least the six previous months.

If historical data is unavailable (e.g., new factories, production lines, or products), the percentage is determined based on inspection and available data. The FTA will publish a list of approved ICEs.

(e) Declaration and notification requirements

Upon obtaining the report, the relevant person is required to notify the FTA of the actual natural shortage by submitting a declaration on the EmaraTax platform. The declared percentage must not exceed the percentage specified in the report. The declaration may cover multiple tax periods, provided it does not exceed six months. While prior approval from the FTA is not required, all supporting documents must be retained for record-keeping purposes.

(f) Treatment when declared shortage exceeds report

Where the declared natural shortage exceeds the percentage specified in the report, such excess is treated as release for consumption, and the relevant person is liable to pay excise tax on the amount exceeding the report. Any shortage not classified as natural must follow the standard procedure by following the normal process (i.e., by way of submitting a lost and damaged goods declaration).

(g) Record keeping requirements

The relevant person must retain documents proving natural shortage and provide them to the FTA upon filing the declaration. Examples of such documents includes:

• Manufacturing process details and stages where shortage may occur
• Production formula and expected shortage percentage normally incurred accompanied with supporting documents for previous periods
• Manufacturing equipment details and operating manuals
• Report issued by ICE and actual data for a period of no less than 6 previous months (if applicable).

(h) Applicability limited to DZs

This process is applicable only to persons operating within a DZ. Taxpayers operating outside DZ are not eligible to claim relief or request a refund of excise tax on any shortage. Additionally, submission of a declaration for natural shortage requires a valid report issued by an approved ICE.

(i) Validity of the Report and renewal procedure

Reports issued by the ICE are valid for up to one year from the date of issuance of such report, provided there are no material changes affecting the natural shortage percentage. In case of such changes, the relevant person is required to inform the ICE within 20 business days and request a new report.

Upon expiry, a fresh report must cover the actual shortage for the preceding twelve months as well as the expected or permissible shortage percentage for the next twelve months. The FTA and the ICE may conduct verification visits to ensure the accuracy of the reported figures.

(j) Transitional provisions

Reports issued within six months from 01-07-2025 (up to 31-12-2025) are deemed valid from 01-07-2025 until 30-06-2026.

Source – Official Public Clarification

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Global IDT Insights] UAE Clarifies Excise Treatment of Natural Shortages appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Introduction

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) has notified the IRDAI (Actuarial, Finance and Investment Functions of Insurers) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026, marking a significant step towards aligning the financial reporting framework of insurance companies with Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS). These amendments aim to ensure that the financial statements of insurance companies reflect a true and fair view of their financial position, while also strengthening transparency, consistency, and alignment with global reporting practices, particularly in light of Ind AS 117 on Insurance Contracts.

1. Applicability and Effective Date

The regulations are applicable to all insurers, including life, general, health insurers and reinsurers. They shall come into force from 1st April 2026. This broad applicability ensures uniform adoption of Ind AS across the insurance sector.

2. Insertion of Schedule IIA in IRDAI Regulations 2024

A key structural change introduced through this amendment is the insertion of Schedule IIA – Ind AS Finance Functions. This schedule provides a comprehensive framework governing the preparation, presentation, and disclosure of Ind AS-compliant financial statements, including prescribed formats and detailed reporting requirements tailored specifically for Insurance Companies.

3. Forbearance Mechanism for Transition to Ind AS

Recognising the complexity involved in transitioning to an Ind AS framework, IRDAI has introduced a forbearance mechanism. Insurers that are not adequately prepared may seek a one-time relaxation for a period of one year, subject to submission of a Board-approved action plan outlining a detailed transition roadmap with defined milestones. The application for such forbearance must be made by 30th April 2026, and insurers are required to submit quarterly Ind AS-based financial information along with monthly progress reports during the transition period. Full compliance with Ind AS is mandated within the stipulated timeframe.

4. Preparation of Ind AS Financial Statements

Under the amended framework, insurers are required to prepare a complete set of Ind AS financial statements, comprising the Balance Sheet, Statement of Changes in Equity, Statement of Profit and Loss (including Other Comprehensive Income), Receipts and Payments Account (cash flow statement), and a separate Revenue Account for policyholders, along with detailed notes to accounts. These financial statements must reflect a true and fair view and adhere to prescribed formats and disclosure norms.

5. Segregation of Policyholder and Shareholder Funds

The regulations continue to emphasise the distinction between policyholder and shareholder funds. While financial statements are prepared at the entity level in accordance with Ind AS, insurers are required to maintain separate accounts and disclosures for these funds, including a distinct Revenue Account for policyholders, in line with the Insurance Act, 1938.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post IRDAI Amendment 2026 | Ind AS Reporting for Insurers appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Hamsaanandini Nanduri vs. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 355 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
• Ms Bani Dikshit, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Kishan Kumar, Uddhav Khanna, Dhruva Vig, Narendra Kumar Goyal, Santanu Jugtawat, Kadam Hans, Komal Singh, Subodh, Ikshit Singhal & Harsh Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Shailesh Madiyal, Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Vatsal Joshi, Praneet Pranav, Advs. & Amrish Kumar, Aor for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, an adoptive mother of two children, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, which entitled only a woman who legally adopted a child below three months to 12 weeks’ maternity benefit from the date the child was handed over.

The petitioner contended that the age limit of three months imposed for adoptive mothers was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it created an unreasonable classification among adoptive mothers.

It was noted that Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, to the extent that it prescribed an age limit of three months, was discriminatory because, first, it did not disclose a reasonable distinction between women who adopted a child below the age of three months and those who adopted a child aged three months or above.

Further, it was noted that the particular differentiation, which was sought to be made, had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

The Supreme Court observed that classification suffered from under-inclusiveness. Further, Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, in effect, operated unequally upon adoptive mothers who were similarly situated, resulting in discrimination without reasonable justification.

Further, the Supreme Court observed that, as a necessary consequence, Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, violated the mandate of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 was to be read as ‘A woman who legally adopts a child or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or commissioning mother, as the case may be.

List of Cases Reviewed

• State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. (1974) 4 SCC 656 (para 66) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1977) 4 SCC 384 (para 42)
• Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) 2000 taxmann.com 3094 (SC) (para 43)
• Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal [2022] 8 taxmann.com 1467 (SC) (para 44)
• K. Umadevi v. State of T.N. (2025) 8 SCC 263 (para 45)
• Rama Pandey v. Union of India 2015 SCC Online Del 10484 (para 46)
• Dev Shree Bandhe v. C.G. State Power Holding Co. Ltd. 2017 SCC Online Chh 1763 (para 47)
• Chanda Keswani v. State of Rajasthan [2024] 11 taxmann.com 1307 (Rajasthan) (para 47)
• Pratiba Himral v. State of H.P. 2021 SCC Online HP 9295 (para 48)
• State v. Ravina Yadav 2024 SCC Online Del 4987 (para 49)
• Lata Goyal v. Union of India 2025 SCC Online Chh 5572 (para 50)
• Susan K. John v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences 2026 SCC Online Ker 1333 (para 51)
• State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) 1 SCC 1 (para 65)
• State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. (1974) 4 SCC 656 (para 66)
• Pravinsinh Indrasinh Mahida v. State of Gujarat 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 1293 (para 68)
• Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6-A, In re (2024) 16 SCC 105 (para 70)
• State of T.N. v. National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Assn. (2021) 15 SCC 534 (para 72)
• Werner Van Wyk v. Minister of Employment and Labour [2025] ZACC 20 (para 98)
• Topcic-Rosenberg v. Croatia [Application no. 1939/11] (para 103)
• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. (2009) 9 SCC 1 (para 109)
• K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (para 110)
• X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 9 SCC 433 (para 111)
• Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244 (para 118)
• Dasari Anil Kumar v. Child Welfare Project Director 2025 SCC Online SC 1689 (para 124)
• MIA v. State Information Technology Agency (Pty) Ltd. [2015] ZALCD 20 (para 125)
• In re P [2008] UKHL 38 (para 126)
• Suzanne Du Toit and Vos v. Minister for Welfare and Population Development (2002) 13 BHRC 187 (para 127)
• State of Kerala v. Unni (2007) 2 SCC 365 (para 140)
• Temple of Healing v. Union of India [W. P. (C) No. 1003 of 2021] (para 142).

The post SC Strikes Down 3-Month Adoption Limit for Maternity Benefit appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Bill No. 107-C of 2025, Dated: 30.03.2026

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026, as passed by the Lok Sabha, introduces key reforms aimed at enhancing efficiency, strengthening creditor rights, and maximising value under the insolvency framework.

1. Introduction of Creditor-Initiated Resolution Process

The Bill provides for a creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process, enabling creditors to take a more proactive role in triggering and steering insolvency proceedings.

This is expected to improve timeliness and effectiveness in addressing stressed assets.

2. Strengthening of Timelines

The amendments focus on enforcing stricter timelines across various stages, including:

• Admission of insolvency applications
• Approval of resolution plans
• Liquidation proceedings

This aims to reduce delays and ensure time-bound resolution.

3. Enhanced Role of Committee of Creditors (CoC)

The Bill strengthens the powers and responsibilities of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) by:

• Expanding its role during the resolution phase
• Extending its influence into the liquidation stage

This ensures that creditors have greater control over key decisions impacting recoveries.

4. Clarifications on Key Aspects

To improve clarity and reduce litigation, the Bill provides specific guidance on:

• Treatment of claims
• Handling of guarantor assets
• Avoidance transactions (such as preferential, undervalued, or fraudulent transactions)

These clarifications aim to streamline proceedings and minimise interpretational disputes.

5. Focus on Efficiency and Value Maximisation

Overall, the amendments are designed to:

• Improve process efficiency
• Reduce legal uncertainties
• Maximise value realisation for stakeholders

6. Conclusion

The Bill represents a significant step towards strengthening India’s insolvency regime, making it more creditor-driven, time-bound, and outcome-focused, while enhancing confidence among investors and financial institutions.

Click Here To Read The Full Update

The post Lok Sabha Passes IBC Amendment Bill 2026 for Faster Resolutions appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti- Profiteering, DGAP vs. Realgem Buildtech (P.) Ltd. [2026] 184 taxmann.com 551 (GSTAT-NEW DELHI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

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

Facts of the Case

The applicant alleged that the assessee, engaged in development of the project, had not passed on the benefit of additional ITC arising post-GST implementation. Upon the Committee’s reference, the matter was investigated by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP). It was contended that the entire benefit had been passed on to the buyers. The DGAP verified that the respondent had passed on amounts exceeding the determined liability to the concerned buyers, and in subsequent proceedings, the respondent paid the remaining balance, along with applicable interest, to the remaining buyers. The matter was accordingly placed before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Authority (GSTAT).

GSTAT Held

The GSTAT held that the respondent had duly complied with the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act by passing on the entire benefit of additional ITC to the eligible buyers. It accepted the DGAP’s findings that the profiteering amount, including interest, had been fully disbursed to all concerned recipients. It was observed that the verification conducted established complete compliance with the statutory requirement of passing on commensurate benefit, and no shortfall remained outstanding. It was held that in light of such compliance, no contravention of anti-profiteering provisions subsisted against the respondent. Accordingly, the DGAP report was accepted and the proceedings were disposed of.

The post GSTAT Dismisses Profiteering Case After Full ITC Benefit Passed appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular No. 4/2026, dated 31-03-2026

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post CBDT Mandates Computer-Generated DIN for Tax Communications appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Tuesonpower International (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 631 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
• Abhishek A. Rastogi, Pooja Rastogi, Advs., Meenal Songire & Aarya for the Petitioner.
• Ram Ochani & Sangeeta Yadav for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was subjected to summons proceedings in connection with an enquiry on ITC availed on purchases claimed to have been made bona fide from certain suppliers. Another petitioner, to whom summons were issued, was undergoing cancer treatment and, in view of the same, filed a writ petition seeking limited relief that another petitioner be permitted to have an advocate present during the recording of his statement at a visible but not audible distance and that the proceedings be video recorded at his own cost. It was submitted that such requests were necessitated by medical condition and were made while expressing full willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that, considering the nature of the enquiry initiated pursuant to a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act and Maharashtra GST Act, and in light of the willingness expressed to cooperate, the limited requests deserved acceptance. It was observed that permitting the petitioner to record the statement at the petitioner’s cost would not prejudice the investigation and would ensure procedural transparency in the given facts. The Court held that allowing the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the summons proceedings was justified. Accordingly, the authorities were directed to permit video recording and allow the advocate’s presence as requested.

List of Cases Referred to

• Suumaya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2023) 69 G.S.T.L. 351/(2023) 3 Centax 130 (Bom.) (para 6).

The post HC Allows Video Recording & Lawyer Presence in GST Summons Inquiry appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Order F. No. ADG(S)-1/PAN/M/3699/2026, dated 01-04-2026

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), exercising powers under Rule 158(12), has notified the procedure for furnishing applications for correction of PAN data, along with prescribed forms and guidelines.

1. Introduction of New PAN Correction Forms

The CBDT has specified separate forms for different categories of applicants:

• Form PAN CR-01 – Request for Changes or Correction in PAN Data (For Individuals)
• Form PAN CR-02 – Request for Changes or Correction in PAN Data (For Non-Individuals)

This bifurcation ensures a more structured and category-specific approach to PAN correction requests.

2. Modes of Submission

The application for PAN correction can be submitted through the following modes:

• Physical submission at PAN service centres of:

1. 1. M/s UTIITSL
   2. M/s Protean eGov Technologies Ltd.

• Online submission through the respective official websites of these service providers

This provides flexibility and ease of access for applicants.

3. Procedure and Guidelines

The notified procedure lays down:

• Standardised formats for correction requests
• Documentation requirements
• Processing guidelines to ensure accuracy and consistency in PAN data

4. Effective Date

The notification shall come into force from 1st April 2026.

5. Conclusion

This move streamlines the PAN correction process, enhances clarity through dedicated forms, and supports efficient data management and taxpayer services under the income-tax framework.

Click Here To Read The Full Update

The post CBDT Specifies New Forms for Changes or Corrections in PAN Data appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular No. DOR.STR.REC.No.455, Dated: 31.03.2026

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued the ‘Trade Relief Measures Directions, 2026’ in public interest to mitigate debt servicing burdens arising from geopolitical tensions and to ensure the continuity of viable businesses engaged in international trade.

1. Objective of the Directions

The Directions aim to:

• Provide temporary relief to exporters facing external disruptions
• Support liquidity and working capital management
• Ensure smooth functioning of export financing mechanisms

2. Extension of Export Credit Tenor

The RBI has permitted an extension of the export credit tenor up to 450 days for eligible entities.

This extended period provides exporters with additional time to realise export proceeds and manage repayment obligations.

3. Flexibility in Liquidation of Packing Credit

The Directions allow greater flexibility in the liquidation of packing credit, including:

• Adjustment through domestic sale proceeds
• Substitution with other export orders

This helps businesses manage situations where original export orders are delayed, cancelled, or disrupted.

4. Applicability of the Directions

These Directions apply to the following Regulated Entities (REs) engaged in export financing:

• Commercial Banks
• Primary (Urban) Co-operative Banks, State Co-operative Banks, and Central Co-operative Banks
• Non-Banking Financial Companies – Factors (NBFC-Factors)
• All-India Financial Institutions

5. Conclusion

The Trade Relief Measures Directions, 2026, provide targeted regulatory flexibility to support exporters during periods of global uncertainty, ensuring business continuity, liquidity support, and stability in trade finance operations.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post RBI Trade Relief Measures 2026 Ease Export Credit Burden appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source