Author: inavatiq

Categories
Blog Updates

Policy Advocacy for EU–India Business Is Charitable Activity u/s 2(15) | ITAT

Charitable activity under section 2(15)

Case Details: Federation of European Business in India vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 303 (Delhi-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member & Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Accountant Member
  • Amol Sinha & Ankit Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
  • Jitender Singh, CIT-DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, a non-profit company, registered under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, filed its Form No. 10AB for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) as it was engaged in ”Advancement of any other objects of general public utility”, which were charitable activities.

The CIT (Exemptions) rejected the request for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) and also cancelled the provisional registration granted for assessment years 2024-25 to 2026-27 on the ground that the assessee was not engaged in any charitable activity as defined under section 2(15).

ITAT Held

On appeal, the Delhi Tribunal held that as per the object of the assessee, it had to promote commerce in India with the European Union business community and to protect & facilitate the interest of the European Union business community in India by advocacy of policy between the European Union business community and the Indian public authorities regarding trade policy, ease of doing business, intellectual property right protection and European union investment protection in India.

It was evident from the assessee’s object that it had to build an overall environment that secures the interests and well-being of the European Union business community, so that they have ease of doing business in India. The issue here was only whether an entity that watches over the business interests of its members can be said to be engaged in charitable activities as defined under section 2(15).

In the given case, it was not the case of the CIT that the assessee was found engaged in any trade and commerce. The assessee was various European business entities, European trade associations, etc. Thus, the CIT was not justified in the eyes of the law by rejecting the registration under section 12A on the reason that the assessee was not doing any charitable activity within the ambit of section 2(15).

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post Policy Advocacy for EU–India Business Is Charitable Activity u/s 2(15) | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Minor Penalties Don’t Bar Voluntary Retirement Under Master Circular 35 | HC

Voluntary retirement under Master Circular 35

Case Details: Union of India vs. Dharmendra Kumar Sahu - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 281 (HC-Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Attau Rahman Masoodi & Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.
  • Ajit Kumar Dwivedi for the Petitioner.
  • Amit Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent, a railway servant, applied for voluntary retirement citing health issues. No order was passed on his application, leading him to file an original application seeking a direction to decide his voluntary retirement request. In the original application, he pleaded completion of more than 22 years of service.

Petitioners-employer admitted before the Tribunal that the respondent had completed more than 22 years of service, and stated that two minor punishments had been imposed on 19.02.2020. The Tribunal allowed the original application and directed the petitioners to grant the respondent’s request for voluntary retirement upon the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days and to pay him all his retirement dues.

Petitioners filed an instant writ challenging the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal.

It was noted that the Master Circular No. 35 issued by the Railway Board does not provide that the request for voluntary retirement of a person who has been awarded a minor punishment cannot be accepted.

Further, petitioners did not controvert the specific plea of the railway servant that he had completed more than 22 years of service; there was no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Tribunal by issuing a direction to petitioners to allow the railway servant’s request for voluntary retirement.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the respondent had already been punished for his unauthorised absence from duty and that punishment did not provide that periods during which the respondent remained absent shall not be counted in his service or that he shall not be paid salary for those periods. Thus, there was no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal allowing the original application filed by the respondent.

The post Minor Penalties Don’t Bar Voluntary Retirement Under Master Circular 35 | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

[Opinion] Charitable Trust – Registration Under MSME Act, 2006, Rights and Obligation and Applicability of 43B(h)

Section 43B(h) applicability to charitable trusts

CA Naresh Kumar Kabra & Rachit Gupta – [2025] 181 taxmann.com 522 (Article)

1. Introduction

As Section 43B(h) reshapes how businesses handle payments to MSEs, many charitable institutions are now asking a critical question—does this rule apply to them too? To understand the same let us first know what is section 43B(h) of the Income tax Act, 1961.

With effect from 1st April 2023 (Assessment Year 2024-25 onward), a new clause – clause (h)—has been added to Section 43B. Under this clause, amounts payable to a micro or small enterprise must be paid within the time-limit prescribed under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), if the payer wants to claim the deduction in the same year.

In simple words, if a business buys goods or services from a registered MSME and does not pay them on time, the expense will NOT be allowed as a deduction in the same financial year it will be allowed only in the year in which the payment is actually made.

Now to understand the time limit prescribed let us read the Section 15 of the MSMED Act, 2006, the said section states that

“Where any supplier supplies any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the buyer shall make payment therefor on or before the date agreed upon in writing between the supplier and the buyer or, where there is no agreement in this behalf, before the appointed day”.

It further states that:

“In no case shall the period agreed upon in writing exceed forty-five days from the day of acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance.”

If payment is delayed beyond the statutory limit, the buyer is liable to pay interest as per Section 16 of the MSMED Act. This interest is charged at 3 times the bank rate notified by the RBI.

Here the Appointed day means 15th day from the date of acceptance of goods or services, it can be understood that where there is no written agreement between buyer and Supplier registered under MSMED act, 2006 the payment must be made within 15 days from the day of acceptance of goods or service and where there is an agreement then the maximum permissible limit for making the payment is 45 days and if the payment is not made within the time limit, the expense shall not be allowed as deduction while computing the income under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further interest on shall be charged for the delay made in the payment. This amendment signals a major shift – from an accrual-based deduction regime to a payment-based deduction regime for MSE-related payments thereby promoting prompt payments and supporting the liquidity of small enterprises.

2. Applicability of Section 43B(h) on Charitable Institutions

Now let us understand the applicability of Section 43B(h) on different categories of Assesses, for the regular assesses there is no confusion this section applies as discussed above. To get the clarity on the applicability of 43B(h) on charitable institutions let us go through the chapter wise bifurcation of the Income Tax Act, it can be said that the taxation of the Charitable institutions or Trusts is within the Scope of Chapter III of the Act which contains the sections from Section 11 to 13 and the applicability of 43B(h) is covered under Chapter IV of the Act, therefore it can be said that Section 43B(h) is not within the scope of Chapter III of the Act which governs the Trust Taxation.

Further under Sections 11 to 13, there are specific references to the provisions of ‘Profits & Gains of Business or Profession’ which have been made applicable to the computation of income under Section 11, such as the disallowances for cash payments above Rs. 10,000 under section 40A(3) or disallowances for non-deduction of tax on payments made to residents under section 40(a)(ia). However, there is no reference to disallowance under Section 43B(h) while computing income under Section 11. From the above references and facts it can be understood that 43B(h) does not applies to the Charitable Institution.

3. Trust Expenditure – The Actual Application Rule

The applicability of Section 43B(h) is effective from 1st April 2023, however, long before this amendment from The Finance Act 2022, the Income-tax Act set the line for treatment of expenditure of charitable and religious trusts, it is fundamentally governed by the concept of actual application, as reflected across Sections 11 and 12. Section 11(1)(a) allows exemption only for income “applied” during the year, a term consistently interpreted to mean actual spending rather than accrual.

This payment-linked approach is further reinforced by Sections 11(1)(b), 11(1)(c), and 11(2), all of which emphasise real utilisation of funds and not mere book entries. Section 12 subjects voluntary contributions to the same application requirements, while Section 13 examines the actual utilisation of funds to ensure they are not misapplied for the benefit of specified persons.

Taken together, these provisions create an inherently stringent framework under which trusts receive tax benefits only on actual payment, with no scope for recognition of accrued expenses. As a result, trusts already operate under a regime more restrictive than the timelines introduced for business entities under Section 43B(h), since trusts are never permitted to claim expenditure until the moment of actual outflow—irrespective of any statutory grace period applicable elsewhere.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] Charitable Trust – Registration Under MSME Act, 2006, Rights and Obligation and Applicability of 43B(h) appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Fraudulent ITC Demand Not Entertained in Writ – Appeal Directed | HC

fraudulent ITC demand

Case Details: Aman Sanitation vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST [2025] 181 taxmann.com 365 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
  • Shivender Kr. Sharma & Urooj Chaudhary, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Pranay Mohan Govil, SSC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged an order-in-original on the ground of alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC). The proceedings arose from an investigation into fake entities transferring ITC, with notices issued identifying the petitioner as a purported recipient of liability. The petitioner submitted that the demand violated the principles of natural justice due to the absence of a personal hearing and the failure to consider its reply. It was contended that the demand should be quashed. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that writ jurisdiction in fraudulent ITC matters is generally not exercised, given the complex facts and potential exchequer impact. The Court clarified that writ relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available only in limited circumstances, such as violations of fundamental rights, breaches of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenges to vires. Since the petitioner was aware of the notices and had responded, no exceptional ground arose. The Court did not interfere with the demand order. It directed the petitioner to pursue an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, subject to a pre-deposit.

List of Cases Referred to

The post Fraudulent ITC Demand Not Entertained in Writ – Appeal Directed | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

GST Refund Rejection Quashed as CGST Rules Omitted Without Saving Clause | HC

CGST Rules omission

Case Details: JJ Plastalloy (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2025] 181 taxmann.com 386 (Gujarat)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
  • Anand Nainawati for the Petitioner.
  • Utkarsh R. Sharma for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the rejection or refusal of IGST export refund claims by the Department of Revenue. The petitioners had submitted applications for IGST refunds and had received show-cause notices regarding the claims, with some orders already passed before the issuance of the notification. It was contended that, due to the omission, the provisions were rendered redundant ab initio, applying to all pending proceedings and pre-notification orders that had not attained finality. They argued that as a result, the rejection or refusal of their refund claims lacked any statutory basis and should be quashed. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the omission of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) from the CGST Rules, by Notification No. 20/2024, dated 08-10-2024, without any saving clause, rendered those provisions redundant ab initio. The Court emphasised that this omission extended to all pending proceedings and pre-notification orders that had not been finalised due to appeals or other procedural delays. It noted that the Appellate Tribunal under the GST regime had not been constituted, meaning that no further statutory remedy was available. Therefore, orders-in-appeal could not attain finality. It was directed that the petitioners were entitled to IGST refunds under Section 54 of the CGST Act.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post GST Refund Rejection Quashed as CGST Rules Omitted Without Saving Clause | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Govt. Introduces the Securities Markets Code, 2025 in Lok Sabha

Securities Markets Code 2025

Bill No. 200 of 2025; Dated: 18.12.2025

1. Legislative Overview

The Government of India has introduced the Securities Markets Code, 2025 in the Lok Sabha, marking a major step towards consolidation and modernisation of India’s securities market laws.

The proposed Code seeks to replace and subsume three existing statutes into a single, comprehensive legislative framework:

  • SEBI Act, 1992
  • Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956
  • Depositories Act, 1996

This consolidation is intended to simplify the legal architecture governing securities markets and remove overlaps, inconsistencies, and legacy provisions.

2. Objectives of the Securities Markets Code

The Code aims to:

  • Rationalise and consolidate dispersed provisions across multiple statutes
  • Provide a modern, technology-aligned regulatory framework
  • Strengthen investor protection mechanisms
  • Facilitate efficient capital mobilisation for economic growth
  • Align securities regulation with the needs of a fast-growing Indian economy

The overarching vision is to support India’s financial self-reliance by enabling domestic capital markets to fund productive investment more effectively.

3. Impact on Financial Markets and Economy

The Code is expected to:

  • Deepen and broaden capital markets
  • Improve regulatory certainty and predictability
  • Encourage domestic and foreign investment
  • Enhance India’s position as a global financial and investment destination
  • Support long-term infrastructure and enterprise funding through robust securities markets

4. Governance and Conflict of Interest Safeguards

To strengthen regulatory governance, the Code introduces explicit conflict-of-interest controls:

  • Members of the Board are required to disclose any direct or indirect interest
  • Such disclosures are mandatory before participating in decision-making
  • This ensures objectivity, transparency, and integrity in regulatory actions

These provisions are designed to reinforce trust in the regulatory process.

5. Streamlined Adjudication Framework

The Code simplifies enforcement and adjudication by:

  • Streamlining adjudication procedures
  • Ensuring that all quasi-judicial actions follow a single, unified adjudication process
  • Mandating an appropriate fact-finding exercise before adjudication

This reduces fragmentation, procedural delays, and duplicative proceedings under different laws.

6. Introduction of an Ombudsperson for Investor Grievances

A key investor-centric reform under the Code is the introduction of an Ombudsperson mechanism:

  • Serves as a comprehensive platform for redressal of unresolved investor grievances
  • Provides speedy, accessible, and effective dispute resolution
  • Strengthens confidence of retail investors in the securities market ecosystem

This mechanism aims to make grievance redressal simpler, faster, and more responsive.

7. Decriminalisation of Minor Contraventions

To promote ease of doing business, the Code proposes:

  • Decriminalisation of minor, procedural, and technical contraventions
  • Replacement of criminal liability with civil penalties in appropriate cases

This reduces compliance burden, litigation risk, and fear of criminal prosecution for routine or technical lapses, while retaining deterrence for serious violations.

8. Regulatory Intent and Significance

The Securities Markets Code, 2025 seeks to:

  • Modernise securities regulation in line with global best practices
  • Reduce regulatory complexity and compliance friction
  • Enhance investor confidence and market integrity
  • Enable faster dispute resolution and enforcement
  • Support sustainable growth of India’s financial sector

9. Next Steps

The Bill will be taken up for Parliamentary scrutiny, debate, and possible amendment. Once enacted and notified, it will replace the existing three laws, ushering in a single, unified securities law regime in India.

Click Here To Read The Full Update

The post Govt. Introduces the Securities Markets Code, 2025 in Lok Sabha appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

ITAT Rectification Limitation Runs From Order Receipt Date | HC

limitation for rectification under section 254(2)

Case Details: Accost Media LLP vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 181 taxmann.com 298 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • B. P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ.
  • P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Counsel & Gunjan Kakkad, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Arjun Gupta, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, Accost Media LLP, filed a rectification application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10-12-2024. The said order was received by the assessee on 24-3-2025, and the rectification application was filed on 16-7-2025.

The Registry of the Tribunal issued a notice stating that the rectification application was barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the Tribunal’s order was passed. The assessee explained that the application could not have been filed before the order was received and was therefore within the prescribed time limit. However, the Tribunal rejected the rectification application as time-barred by order dated 13-10-2025.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of the rectification application. The High Court examined section 254(2), read with rule 34A and rule 9 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and observed that a rectification application cannot be filed without being served with a copy of the order sought to be rectified.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the period of limitation for filing a rectification application under section 254(2) commences from the date of communication of the Tribunal’s order and not from the date on which the order is passed. Since the assessee had filed the rectification application within six months from the date of receipt of the order, the Tribunal had misdirected itself in treating the application as time-barred.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the rectification application was filed within time and quashed the Tribunal’s order rejecting the application as barred by limitation, while permitting the assessee to raise all contentions on merits in the appeal filed against the original Tribunal order.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post ITAT Rectification Limitation Runs From Order Receipt Date | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

[Global Financial Insights] ISSB Issues Amendments to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Disclosure Requirements in IFRS S2

ISSB amendments to greenhouse gas

Editorial Team – [2025] 181 taxmann.com 586 (Article)

Global Financial Insights is a weekly feature for the Accounts and Audit Module subscribers of Taxmann.com. It provides you with the latest updates on financial reporting and auditing practices from across the globe. Here is this week’s financial update:

1. ISSB Issues Amendments to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Disclosure Requirements in IFRS S2

The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has issued targeted amendments to the greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments relates to the disclosure requirements in IFRS S2, Climate-related Disclosures to address application challenges identified during initial implementation. Based on stakeholder feedback, the amendments provide practical reliefs and clarifications to support companies in while applying the standard. Further, it also focuses on maintaining investor information needs and minimising disruption for jurisdictions adopting ISSB Standards. Following are the targeted amendments issued by ISSB:

(a) An entity is permitted to restrict the measurement and disclosure of “Scope 3 Category 15” greenhouse gas emissions to financed emissions, as defined in IFRS S2.

(b) Allow the use of alternative classification systems.

(c) Further, it introduces a jurisdictional relief from using global warming potential values from the latest “IPCC Assessment Report” for converting greenhouse gas emissions

Source – International Financial Reporting Standard

2. Financial Reporting Council Initiates Investigation on Audit Firm Over Non-Compliance Relating to Partner’s Rotation

Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has initiated an investigation against an audit firm in relation to the statutory audit of the consolidated financial statements of a company for the financial year ended 31st December 2024. The investigation follows an announcement made by the company to the London Stock Exchange on 2nd July 2025, in which the audit firm reported non-compliance with audit partner rotation requirements, including breaches of the prescribed time limits under the “UK FRC’s Revised Ethical Standard”.

The scope of the investigation includes consideration of whether relevant ethical and regulatory requirements relating to audit partner rotation have been breached. The investigation will be carried out by the FRC’s Enforcement Division in accordance with the Audit Enforcement Procedure (AEP).

Source – Financial Reporting Council

3. Financial Accounting Standard Board issues taxonomies for 2026

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has announced the release of its 2026 taxonomies. The said taxonomy includes the GAAP Financial Reporting Taxonomy (GRT), SEC Reporting Taxonomy (SRT), and GAAP Employee Benefit Plan Taxonomy (EBPT). Further, the release also includes the 2026 DQC Rules Taxonomy (DQCRT) and the GAAP Meta Model Relationships Taxonomy (MMT). These taxonomies are collectively referred to as the “FASB Taxonomies”. The development in the taxonomies are discussed herewith:

(a) The 2026 GRT incorporates updates reflecting FASB accounting standards issued in 2025 prior to 1st December 2025, along with other recommended improvements.

(b) The 2026 SRT includes enhancements for commonly used reporting elements not explicitly specified under GAAP.

(c) The DQCRT provides a selected set of data validation rules developed by the “XBRL US Data Quality Committee”, primarily for regulatory use.

(d) The MMT is designed to support preparers in identifying the proper elements for tagging their filings, assist data users in data usability and assist rule developers by the development of business rules through additional relationship information.

Source – Financial Accounting Standard Board

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Global Financial Insights] ISSB Issues Amendments to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Disclosure Requirements in IFRS S2 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

SEBI Board Approves Wide-Ranging Reforms for Brokers | Mutual Funds | IPOs | Debt Markets

SEBI Board regulatory reforms

PR No. 84/2025, Dated: 17.12.2025

The SEBI Board, at its 212th meeting, approved a series of regulatory proposals. These include replacing the SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992, with the SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 2025 and a comprehensive review of the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations. Amendments were approved to the ICDR, LODR, and NCS Regulations, along with measures for credit rating agencies, relaxation for HVDLEs, and alignment of timelines for the transfer of unclaimed amounts.

Some of the Key highlights of the Board Meeting in detail are as follows:

1. Replacement of SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992 with SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 2025

The Board has approved of a proposal to replace the SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992, with the SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 2025, with the objective of:

(a) Streamlining the regulations to ensure simple and clear language

(b) Omission of repetitive and redundant provisions

(c) Updating regulations with contemporary changes

(d) Modification/inclusion of certain provisions to provide more clarity and to ensure ease of compliance

Some of the features of the new Regulations approved by the Board are as follows:

(a) Reorganisation of the Regulations

(b) Amendments of certain key definitions, such as clearing member, professional clearing member, proprietary trading member, proprietary trading, designated director, etc. to provide clarity

(c) Modifications or inclusion of certain provisions to provide for ease of compliance and ease of doing business by enabling provision for joint inspection and maintenance of books of accounts

(d) Removal of obsolete and non-applicable historical provisions, such as provisions relating to physical delivery of shares, Forward Market Commission sub-brokers, etc.

2. Comprehensive Review of Mutual Funds Regulations, 1996 to Ensure Transparency and Strengthen Investor Protection

Almost, for nearly three decades, the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, have served as the foundational regulatory architecture for the Indian mutual fund industry. Over time, multiple amendments were incorporated to address evolving market practices, resulting in an extensive and layered regulatory structure.

The Board has now approved a comprehensive review of the Mutual Funds Regulations. The new SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 2026, are designed to offer stakeholders greater clarity, improved readability, and enhanced structural coherence.

While simplifying compliance, the revised framework retains the core principles, safeguards, and regulatory intent built over the years and further strengthens investor protection, transparency, and governance standards within the mutual fund ecosystem.

3. Streamlining Public Issue Requirements to Enhance Ease of Doing Business and Retail Investor Participation

As per ICDR Regulations, the entire pre-issue capital held by persons other than the promoters, except for shares held by certain specified categories of shareholders, must be locked in for a period of 6 months from the date of allotment in the IPO.

Certain issuers face challenges in complying with such lock-in requirements, particularly in cases where pledges have been created by non-promoters before the IPO.

In this regard, the Board has approved an amendment to ICDR to prescribe that, in case lock-in of the specified securities cannot be created, the depositories must record such securities as “non-transferable” for the duration of the applicable lock-in period.

The depositories must ensure that, subsequent to the invocation or release of a pledge, the shares in the account of the beneficiary (pledger or pledgee) must automatically be locked-in for the balance period, as required under the ICDR Regulations.

Further, the Board has also approved that a focused, concise and standardised summary of offer documents in the form of a draft abridged prospectus must be available at the DRHP stage as well, in addition to the current requirement of filing of an abridged prospectus at the RHP stage. Also, the Board has approved the proposal to rationalise the disclosures in the abridged prospectus.

4. Permitting Debt Issuers to Offer Incentives in Public Issues to Certain Category of Investors

Currently, issuers of debt securities are not able to offer incentives to any persons for making an application in the issue, except for fees or commissions for services rendered in relation to the issue.

With a view to enhancing the participation of retail investors in the corporate debt market and also to encourage public issuances in the debt market, the Board considered and approved a proposal for amending the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Securities) Regulations, 2021, to permit debt issuers to offer incentives to specific categories of investors.

Pursuant to this amendment, issuers of debt securities will be able to offer incentives in the form of additional interest or a discount to the issue price to specific categories of allottees, viz. senior citizens, women, armed forces personnel namely, serving and retired defense personnel and widows and widowers of such personnel, retail individual investors or any other category of investors as may be specified by the Board.

5. Aligning the Timeline for Transfer of Unclaimed Amount By An Entity Having Listed Non-Convertible Securities with Companies Act

Presently, unclaimed amounts are transferred to IEPF/IPEF after 7 years of remaining unclaimed. To enable ease of doing business, the Board has now approved a proposal for amending the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015, on aligning the timeline for transfer of unclaimed interest/dividend/redemption payment entities having listed non-convertible securities to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF)/ Investor Protection and Education Fund (IPEF) with the Companies Act.

Accordingly, issuers of non-convertible securities will now need to transfer the unclaimed amounts only once after completion of 7 years from the date of maturity of the security, instead of multiple transfers when interest/dividend/redemption payment becomes due.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post SEBI Board Approves Wide-Ranging Reforms for Brokers | Mutual Funds | IPOs | Debt Markets appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Ex Parte Labour Award Set Aside Due to Bereavement | HC

bereavement industrial dispute

Case Details: Karaikal Co-op Milk Supply Society vs. V. Ramakrishnan [2025] 181 taxmann.com 203 (HC-Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Dr A.D. Maria Clete, J.
  • Ms S. Janani, T. Sai Krishnan & L. Poovendra Perumal, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Xavier Felix & Ms A. Kamachi, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute against the petitioner management seeking proper accounts of the gratuity, subsistence allowance from 11.05.2001 till retirement, and the retirement benefits.

The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court registered the dispute and issued the notice. When a case was listed for filing the counter, the petitioner’s counsel did not appear due to the bereavement of a close relative.

Thereafter, the Tribunal set the management ex parte and recorded the workman’s evidence. An ex parte award partly allowed the claim by directing the management to give a proper accounts regarding the gratuity and to pay the outstanding gratuity, subsistence allowance from 11.05.2001 till retirement, and retirement benefits.

Then, the management filed an application to set aside the ex parte award. The Tribunal dismissed the said application on the ground that the management had failed to appear on three earlier hearings and also on 03.05.2018 when the matter was posted for the ex parte evidence. That application to set aside the ex parte award had been filed after a delay of about one year and six months without a satisfactory explanation.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that, where, in the main industrial dispute, the management’s counsel was absent due to the bereavement of a close relative, and the Tribunal proceeded to set the management ex parte, the Tribunal could have granted the management one more opportunity.

The High Court held that the order of the Tribunal dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte award was to be set aside and the matter was to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.

List of Cases Referred to

The post Ex Parte Labour Award Set Aside Due to Bereavement | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Get Free Report

Receive a detailed financial overview and expert insights—absolutely free—to help you make informed business decisions.
Download Report

Info@simplifitax.com

+91-8328580943

Our Services

Support & Help

Quick Links

Service links

Countries served

Legal & compliance

Intuit_QuickBooks_logo.svg
odo
zoho-logo-web
Xero_software_logo.svg
Previous
Next

Copyright © 2025 Simplifitax. All Rights Reserved.

Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube