Categories
Blog Updates

[World Tax News] OECD Releases Pillar Two Global Minimum Tax Package

OECD Pillar Two

Editorial Team – [2026] 182 taxmann.com 214 (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. OECD publishes Side-by-Side package on Pillar Two Global Minimum Tax

The OECD has announced that members of the BEPS Inclusive Framework have agreed on the core elements of a Side-by-Side (SbS) arrangement under Pillar Two. The arrangement introduces, inter alia, two safe harbours applicable to multinational enterprise (MNE) Groups headquartered in jurisdictions recognised by the Inclusive Framework as having an eligible tax regime.

Under the SbS Safe Harbour, qualifying MNE Groups are exempt from the application of the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) and the Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR) in jurisdictions other than the jurisdiction of the ultimate parent entity (UPE). In contrast, the UPE Safe Harbour provides a narrower exemption, shielding only the UPE jurisdiction from the application of the UTPR.

The SbS Safe Harbour is available exclusively to MNE Groups whose UPE is located in a jurisdiction that satisfies both the eligible domestic tax regime and the eligible worldwide tax regime criteria. These regimes will be considered eligible only where they effectively ensure a minimum level of taxation on both domestic and foreign operations of the MNE Group.
The UPE Safe Harbour applies to jurisdictions that meet only the domestic component of the eligibility criteria. In such cases, the safe harbour applies solely to the domestic profits of MNE Groups headquartered in the qualifying jurisdiction.

Importantly, the SbS arrangement does not affect the operation of Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Taxes (QDMTTs), which remain fully applicable.
It may be noted that the SbS arrangement originates from the exemption sought by the United States, which is currently the only jurisdiction recognised as having a qualified SbS regime. The safe harbour is applicable for fiscal years commencing on or after 1 January 2026, as reflected in the OECD’s Central Record for Global Minimum Tax purposes.

International Consensus on the Way Forward for the Global Minimum Tax Framework

The 147 countries and jurisdictions participating in the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS have reached agreement on a comprehensive package that establishes a coordinated path forward for the operation of the global minimum tax in a digitalised and globalised economy.

Following extensive negotiations, the agreed package for the Side-by-Side arrangement represents a significant political and technical milestone. It is intended to enhance stability and certainty in the international tax system, preserve progress achieved under the global minimum tax framework, and safeguard the ability of all jurisdictions particularly developing economies to exercise primary taxing rights over income generated within their territories.
The package comprises five key components:

  •  Simplification measures aimed at reducing compliance and administrative burdens for both MNEs and tax authorities in applying the global minimum tax rules.
  • Further alignment of tax incentive treatment through the introduction of a targeted substance-based tax incentive safe harbour.
  •  New safe harbours for MNE Groups whose UPEs are located in jurisdictions that meet minimum taxation standards.
  •  An evidence-based stocktake mechanism to ensure that a level playing field is maintained across all Inclusive Framework members.
  • Reinforcement of the principle that QDMTTs remain a cornerstone of the global minimum tax architecture, particularly for protecting domestic tax bases in developing countries.

OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann described the agreement as a landmark achievement in international tax cooperation, noting that the package strengthens tax certainty, reduces complexity, and enhances the protection of tax bases. He further emphasised the importance of effective implementation and continued work on future simplification initiatives.
To support implementation, the OECD will release additional tools and fact sheets in the coming weeks and will host a dedicated webinar on 13 January 2026. The organisation will also continue to provide capacity-building assistance to ensure effective and efficient adoption of the rules across jurisdictions.

Source – Press Release

2. Russian Tax Reforms for 2026: Key Changes Introduced Under Federal Law

Russia has enacted a series of tax reform measures applicable from 2026 pursuant to Federal Law No. 425-FZ dated 28 November 2025. The principal amendments are summarised below.

  •  The standard VAT rate has been increased from 20% to 22%. The reduced VAT rate of 10% continues to apply to essential goods, including food products, medicines, and children’s items, while the VAT exemption for software remains unchanged.
  • The VAT registration threshold for small taxpayers applying the simplified tax regime is being progressively reduced: from RUB 60 million to RUB 20 million in 2026, further to RUB 15 million in 2027, and to RUB 10 million from 2028 onwards.
  •  The reduced social security contribution rate applicable to IT companies has been increased from 7.6% to 15% on income up to the maximum contribution base. Income exceeding the base will continue to be subject to the 7.6% rate.
  •  The existing restriction limiting the offset of carried-forward tax losses to 50% of taxable income per tax year has been extended until 31 December 2030.
  •  A 15% minimum (top-up) tax has been introduced for Russian constituent entities that are members of multinational enterprise (MNE) groups with consolidated annual revenue of at least EUR 750 million. The tax applies where the effective tax rate of the Russian constituent entity falls below 15%.
  •  The conditions for controlled foreign company (CFC) exemption applicable to holding companies have been revised to require that the CFC be subject to an income tax rate of at least 15% in its jurisdiction of residence.
  •  Transfer pricing rules have been amended to classify transactions with residents of jurisdictions imposing an income tax rate of 15% or lower as controlled transactions.
  •  The special regime for calculating interest penalties has been extended through 2026. Under this regime:

○ for payment delays of up to 30 calendar days, interest is calculated at 1/300 of the key rate per day;
○ for delays exceeding 30 days, interest accrues at 1/150 of the key rate from the 31st to the 90th day; and
○ from the 91st day onwards, the rate reverts to 1/300 of the key rate per day.

These measures generally entered into force on 1 January 2026.

In addition, a new technological levy will be introduced for importers and manufacturers of electronic components and electronic products. The levy is scheduled to apply from 1 September 2026, with the applicable rates and the list of covered goods to be determined by the government.

Source – Federal Law No. 425-FZ

Click Here To Read The Full Article 

The post [World Tax News] OECD Releases Pillar Two Global Minimum Tax Package appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

No Penalty For Inadvertent Excess Section 54F/54B Claim | ITAT

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty

Case Details: Amol Vasant Deshmukh vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Pune - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 763 (Pune - Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Vinay Bhamore, Judicial Member
  • Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member
  • Sarang Gudhate, CA for the Appellant.
  • Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Assessee-individual filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, and a notice under section 143(2) was issued to the assessee. During the assessment, it was noticed that the assessee claimed excess deduction under sections 54B and 54F.

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.AO contended that the assessee claimed an excess deduction in the return of income. However, the assessee rectified the mistake immediately upon the issuance of the notice under section 143(2). The return was revised, and the assessee paid the due taxes.

Unsatisfied with the explanation, the AO levied the penalty, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The matter then reached the Pune Tribunal.

Tribunal Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee furnished all the particulars of income properly in the income tax return and correctly reported the Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG). It is also not the case of the Revenue that the claim of deduction was not as per the provisions of the Act, and that any of the conditions provided under section 54F/54B of the Act has not been fulfilled.

The only mistake pointed out by the AO was the incorrect claim of a higher deduction under sections 54F/54B of the Act. It is further an admitted fact that the assessee revised the computation of income during the assessment proceedings itself.

All these facts clearly demonstrate that the assessee committed an inadvertent mistake by making a wrong claim for deduction. However, it is not a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post No Penalty For Inadvertent Excess Section 54F/54B Claim | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Accumulated ITC Refund Allowed As Assessee Not Intermediary | HC

Refund Of Accumulated ITC

Case Details: Bluefish Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2026] 182 taxmann.com 92 (Karnataka) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • S.R.Krishna Kumar, J.
  • Bharat Raichandani, Raaghul Piraanesh & Chandrakiran. K, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Nishan Unni.P, CGC & Smt. Jyothi. M. Maradi, HCGP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was engaged in providing research and development (R&D) services and challenged the rejection of its refund claim. During the relevant period, the petitioner issued export invoices for the services provided to its parent company abroad under a Letter of Undertaking (LUT) with the endorsement ‘Export of Services without payment of IGST’ and claimed a refund of accumulated and unutilized input tax credit (ITC) available in its electronic credit ledger. The petitioner contended that it was not an ‘intermediary’ and, therefore, was entitled to claim the refund. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the petitioner was not an ‘intermediary’ within the meaning of the CGST provisions and was directly providing R&D services to its parent company abroad. The Court observed that the claim for refund of accumulated ITC on export of services without payment of IGST was valid. It was noted that the impugned orders of the jurisdictional officer and the appellate authority were contrary to the statutory entitlement under Section 54 of the CGST Act and the Karnataka GST Act. Therefore, the Court quashed the rejection orders.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post Accumulated ITC Refund Allowed As Assessee Not Intermediary | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

SEBI Revises Compliance Reporting For SIFs

Specialised Investment Funds

Circular no. HO/24/13/12(4)2025-IMD-POD-1/I/2062/2026; Dated: 08.01.2026

1. Introduction

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has issued compliance reporting formats for Specialised Investment Funds (SIFs) through Circular No. HO/24/13/12(4)2025-IMD-POD-1/I/2062/2026 dated 8 January 2026. This move marks an important step in strengthening the regulatory framework governing SIFs and ensuring enhanced compliance and transparency.

2. Alignment With Existing MF Framework

SEBI has released the reporting formats by modifying the existing Compliance Test Report (CTR) and Half-Yearly Trustee Report (HYTR), which are currently applicable to mutual funds. By extending these established reporting mechanisms to SIFs, SEBI aims to bring regulatory consistency while addressing the unique characteristics of specialised investment products.

3. Key Changes In CTR Format

The revised CTR format now includes a new Part IV specifically dedicated to SIFs. This section covers critical compliance aspects such as minimum investment thresholds, certification requirements for SIF fund managers, and adherence to prescribed investment restrictions. These additions are designed to ensure robust monitoring of SIF operations.

4. Modifications To HYTR Requirements

The HYTR format has also been amended to include a new Clause 72A. Under this clause, trustees are required to certify compliance with SIF-specific regulatory requirements, thereby strengthening oversight and accountability at the trustee level.

5.  Conclusion

Through these revised compliance reporting formats, SEBI seeks to enhance governance standards and regulatory supervision of Specialised Investment Funds. The initiative reinforces investor protection while supporting the orderly development of the SIF segment within India’s capital markets.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular 

The post SEBI Revises Compliance Reporting For SIFs appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Accounting Of Underground Space Under Ind AS 116

Ind AS 116 Lease Accounting

Facts

Radiant Pipeline Limited, hereinafter referred to as “the company,” is engaged in the business of transportation of crude oil. The company enters into a long-term agreement with a private landowner for the purpose of laying and operating an oil pipeline. Under the agreement, the company is granted the right to use a specifically identified underground space beneath land for a period of 20 years. The contract clearly defines the exact geographical alignment, depth, length, width and technical dimensions of the underground space in which the pipeline is to be installed. The operator is required to pay fixed and periodic consideration to the landowner for the duration of the contract.

The agreement restricts the use of the identified underground space exclusively for the use of installation of pipeline. During the entire contractual period, the landowner does not have the right to access, excavate, substitute, relocate or otherwise modify the specified underground space. Thus, the landowner is contractually prohibited from undertaking any activity that may interfere with the presence, operation or safety of the pipeline.

While the underground space is contractually earmarked for the company, the landowner retains full rights over the surface of the land above the pipeline. The landowner may continue to use the surface land for agricultural, commercial, or other lawful purposes, provided such use does not affect the underground pipeline or breach the restrictions specified in the agreement.

Further, the company has the contractual right to enter the land at any time during the contract period to carry out inspection, monitoring, repairs, maintenance, replacement and safety-related activities in relation to the pipeline. These rights may be exercised at the company’s discretion and without requiring separate consent from the landowner for each instance of access. The agreement does not provide the landowner with any alternative underground space or substitution rights in lieu of the identified underground corridor. The underground space remains reserved for the company for the entire 20 year period, irrespective of the intensity or frequency of usage.

The contract is silent on any transfer of ownership of the land or underground space, and legal title to the land continues to remain with the landowner throughout the tenure of the arrangement. The management of the company while finalizing the account is in dilemma as to whether the right to use underground space shall be treated as lease and shall be accounted as per Ind AS 116.

Relevant Provision

Ind AS 116: Leases

Para B9 of Ind AS 116

To assess whether a contract conveys the right to control the use of anidentified asset for a period of time, an entity shall assess whether, throughout the period of use, the customer has both of the following:

(a) the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the identified asset

(b) the right to direct the use of the identified asset

Para B20 of Ind AS 116

A capacity portion of an asset is an identified asset if it is physically distinct (for example, a floor of a building). A capacity or other portion of an asset that is not physically distinct (for example, a capacity portion of a fibre optic cable) is not an identified asset, unless it represents substantially all of the capacity of the asset and thereby provides the customer with the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the asset.

Para B24 of Ind AS 116

A customer has the right to direct the use of an identified asset throughout the period of use only if either the relevant decisions about how and for what purpose the asset is used are predetermined andthe customer has the right to operate the asset (or to direct others to operate the asset in a manner that it determines) throughout the period of use, without the supplier having the right to change those operating instructions…….

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post Accounting Of Underground Space Under Ind AS 116 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

SEBI Forms Working Group For MII Technology Roadmap

SEBI Working Group

PR No. 02/2026; Dated: 08.01.2026

1. Introduction

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has constituted a dedicated Working Group to frame a comprehensive technology roadmap for Market Infrastructure Institutions (MIIs). Announced through PR No. 02/2026 dated 8 January 2026, the initiative reflects SEBI’s proactive approach in responding to the rapid pace of technological change reshaping the Indian securities market.

 2. Purpose and Timeline

The Working Group has been tasked with developing both a short-term (five-year) and a long-term (ten-year) technology roadmap for MIIs. This roadmap will guide exchanges, clearing corporations, and depositories in strengthening market operations, enhancing risk management frameworks, improving investor protection mechanisms, and supporting effective regulatory oversight through advanced digital systems.

Paragraph 3 – Focus on Emerging Technologies
Adopting a holistic and forward-looking approach, the Working Group will examine the use of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, distributed ledger technology, cloud computing, RegTech and SupTech solutions, tokenisation, and quantum-safe systems. The objective is to ensure that MIIs are well-equipped to leverage innovation while maintaining resilience, security, and compliance.

4. Composition of the Working Group

The Working Group is chaired by Dr. D. B. Phatak, Professor Emeritus at IIT Bombay. Its members include Chairpersons of the Standing Committee on Technology (SCOT) of MIIs, senior officials from stock brokers and Registrars and Transfer Agents (RTAs), as well as experts in technology and the securities market. This diverse composition is intended to bring practical insights and technical expertise into policy formulation.

5. Conclusion

Through this initiative, SEBI aims to ensure that the Indian securities market remains future-ready, globally competitive, and aligned with India’s long-term vision of a digitally empowered and developed economy. The proposed technology roadmap is expected to play a critical role in strengthening market infrastructure and fostering sustainable growth in the capital markets ecosystem.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release 

The post SEBI Forms Working Group For MII Technology Roadmap appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

ECIL Directed to Regularise Service from 1989 | HC

ECIL Service Regularisation HC

Case Details: P. Ramu vs. Chairman and Managing Director [2025] 181 taxmann.com 204 (HC - TELANGANA)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
  • R Dheeraj Singh, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • K Srinivasa Murthy, SC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioners were engaged by respondent-ECIL and worked for more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months from 28-9-1989 to 15-6-1990. The petitioners were illegally retrenched in 1990. The petitioners approached the Court by filing a writ petition seeking the regularisation of their services. The Writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioners to approach the Industrial Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed reinstatement of the petitioners; however, it passed a Nil Award. On a writ filed by the respondent-ECIL against the interim order of reinstatement, this Court ultimately disposed of the writ petitions by directing the Tribunal to dispose of the Industrial Disputes within six months, apart from directing the respondent to continue the petitioners in service in the meanwhile.

The Tribunal recorded that the petitioners were engaged by ECIL and had worked for more than 250 days from 28.09.1989 to 15.06.1990. However, the Industrial Disputes were dismissed.

On a writ filed by the petitioners, the Court directed the reinstatement of the petitioners, with continuity of service and attendant benefits.
On appeal filed by the respondent-ECIL, the Division Bench allowed the Appeal by Judgment dated 2-6-2014, however, on a Review Petition filed by the petitioners, the Division Bench reviewed the earlier judgment and dismissed the Writ Appeal, with an observation that the grievance should have been of the petitioners as regards the denial of back wages.

High Court Held

The High Court held that when removal of petitioners from service was set aside by the Court, and directed their reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, it was deemed that they were in continuous service, as if no retrenchment had happened, so to speak.

Therefore, reinstating petitioners with effect from 2015 was a flawed and misconceived implementation of orders passed by the Court. Thus, the respondent-ECIL was to be directed to regularise the services of the petitioners with effect from 28-9-1989, with continuity of service and attendant benefits.

List of Cases Referred to

  • K. Lakshminarayana v. Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. [W. P. No. 14352 of 2003, dated 21-11-2013] (para 2)
  • Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. K. Laksminarayana [SLP to Appeal (C) No. 7036 of 2015, dated 27-3-2015] (para 4).

The post ECIL Directed to Regularise Service from 1989 | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

NFRA Circular Highlights Audit Communication Lapses

NFRA Circular on Auditor Communication

1. Introduction

The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA), vide its circular dated 7th January 2026, has emphasised the need to strengthen effective, robust and documented two-way communication between “Statutory Auditors” and “Those Charged with Governance” (TCWG). The circular highlights the statutory responsibilities of the “Board of Directors”, “Independent Directors”, “Audit Committees” and “Auditors” in ensuring high-quality financial reporting and audit oversight. NFRA reiterates that the auditors must appropriately determine TCWG at the commencement of the audit and maintain continuous, meaningful communication throughout the audit cycle, covering audit planning, significant risks, materiality, key judgments, internal control deficiencies, fraud risks, going concern issues and auditor independence.The circular also notes several common non-compliances observed during NFRA investigations, including incorrect identification of TCWG, inadequate or last-minute communications, poor documentation, failure to communicate significant unusual transactions, internal control weaknesses and regulatory non-compliances.

2. Commonly observed non-compliances by NFRA with regard to SA 260 and SA 265

NFRA, based on its investigations into cases of professional misconduct, has identified several recurring and serious non-compliances by statutory auditors in relation to the requirements of SA 260, Communication with Those Charged with Governance and SA 265,Communicating Deficiencies in Internal Control to Those Charged with Governance and Management indicating ineffective communication with Those Charged with Governance (TCWG). Some of these non-compliances discussed in the circular are explained below:

1. Incorrect identification of TCWG

The NFRA observed that the auditor have identified management executives or executive director as TCWG in many cases, which is fundamentally inconsistent with the definition under the SA 260 and thereby resulted in critical audit matters not being escalated to the full Board.

2. Incomplete and inadequately documented communication

NFRA observed that communications with TCWG were often fragmented and inadequately documented. Auditors improperly relied on the audit engagement letter as evidence of compliance with SA 260, without demonstrating ongoing, two-way communication. Critical matters such as planned audit scope and timing, materiality, key audit matters, significant risks (including going concern and valuation issues) were either not communicated or insufficiently recorded.

3. Failure to establish two-way communication

Auditors failed to document the form, timing and reciprocal nature of communication with TCWG. NFRA identified that in many cases there was no evidence that auditors sought or obtained TCWG’s inputs on strategic decisions, fraud risks, management integrity or governance concerns. The expected communications as required under SA 260 such as information on suspected fraud, significant strategic actions or regulatory concerns were not documented.

4. Last minute communication

NFRA also observed that the communication with the “Audit Committee” was limited to a presentation made shortly before approval of the financial statements, effectively converting the interaction into a compliance ritual rather than meaningful oversight.

5. Failure to communicate significant unusual transactions

Auditors failed to communicate significant and unusual transactionssuch as large advances to suppliers, land advances, borrowing and lending arrangements to TCWG. These transactions are often outside the normal course of business and hence requires high governance scrutiny but were not escalated as required.

6. Inadequate communication on related party transactions

Auditors often did not communicate deficiencies in related party transactions (RPTs) policies or concerns such as sudden increases in RPT volumes, doubts over arm’s length pricing, or whether transactions were in the ordinary course of business.

7. Non-communication of internal control deficiencies

Despite explicit requirements under SA 265 and the Companies Act, auditors in certain cases failed to communicate identified weaknesses or even the absence of internal controls to TCWG. NFRA highlighted serious lapses such as deficiencies in credit policies and prolonged non-functioning of the “Risk Management Committee”, were not escalated to governance bodies.

Click Here To Read The Full Story 

The post NFRA Circular Highlights Audit Communication Lapses appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

No Tax on Unexplained Cash Where Withdrawals Exceed Deposits | ITAT

Unexplained Cash Withdrawals Exceed Deposits ITAT

Case Details: Madhusudan Reddy Pasham vs. ACIT [2025] 181 taxmann.com 537 (Hyderabad - Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Ravish Sood, Judicial Member
  •  Manjunatha G., Accountant Member
  • P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA for the Appellant.
  • A.P. Babu, Sr. A.R. & Ms U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

During search proceedings under section 132, the Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits in certain bank accounts of the assessee. In the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A, on the ground that the deposits were not properly explained in the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee contended that the cash deposits were made out of earlier cash withdrawals from the same bank accounts and furnished bank statements to demonstrate that total cash withdrawals during the relevant assessment years were substantially higher than the cash deposits. It was further submitted that no evidence had been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to show that the withdrawn cash had been utilised for any other purpose. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly upheld the addition.

The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal examined the bank statements and cash flow furnished and observed that the Assessing Officer had failed to take into account that cash withdrawals exceeded cash deposits. It was noted that the Revenue had failed to establish any alternate use of the cash withdrawn by the assessee. In the absence of such evidence, the explanation that the deposits were made out of earlier withdrawals could not be rejected.

Tribunal Held

The Tribunal held that, merely because cash deposits appeared in the bank account, they could not be treated as unexplained when corresponding withdrawals were available, and no contrary material was brought on record. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the addition made under section 69A in respect of such cash deposits was unsustainable and directed its deletion.
However, the Tribunal observed that, in respect of a separate bank account, the issues of ownership and the nature of certain credits required verification. To that limited extent, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer’s file for fresh examination.

List of Cases Referred to

  • ACIT v. P. Madhusudan Reddy [IT Appeal No. 1373(Hyd) of 2012, dated 21-4-2017] (para 15).

The post No Tax on Unexplained Cash Where Withdrawals Exceed Deposits | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

GSTR-1 Error Rectification Allowed, SCN Set Aside | HC

GSTR-1 Rectification SCN Quashed

Case Details: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs. Union of India [2025] 181 taxmann.com 700 (Karnataka)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • S.R.Krishna Kumar, J.
  • Bharat B. Raichandani, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Prathibha, CGC and K. Hema Kumar, AGA for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged a show cause notice (SCN) issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act. It was submitted that B2C supplies were inadvertently reported as B2B in GSTR-1. It was contended that the error had been identified and rectified, and that there was no loss of revenue as a result of the correction. The issuance of the SCN solely on the premise that such rectifications were impermissible was unjustified. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the mistakes were bona fide and inadvertent, and corrections made in GSTR-1 did not result in any loss to the revenue. The Court observed that the right to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes flows from the right to conduct business, and that limitations in the GST software cannot curtail that right. Since the sole basis of the SCN was the impermissibility of rectifying such returns, the initiation of proceedings was unjustified. Consequently, the SCN and any subsequent proceedings were quashed, and it was directed to accept the corrected returns.

List of Cases Referred to

The post GSTR-1 Error Rectification Allowed, SCN Set Aside | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source