Author: inavatiq

Editorial Team – [2026] 183 taxmann.com 652 (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. IASB Issues Consultation on Clarifying the Fair Value Option under IAS 28

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has issued a consultation proposing targeted amendments to clarify which investments are eligible to be measured using the fair value option under IAS 28 Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures. The proposal responds to stakeholder feedback highlighting diversity in the application of the fair value option and its consequential impact on the classification of income and expenses in the statement of profit or loss under IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements. The issue has gained prominence as entities evaluate the election of the fair value option while implementing IFRS 18. The IASB’s narrow-scope amendments aim to enhance consistency in practice and provide timely clarity before the effective date of IFRS 18. A shortened comment period has been set to facilitate finalisation of amendments in time for implementation. The consultation is open until 20 April 2026, and the IASB intends to finalise any amendments by mid-2026 to enable jurisdictions to incorporate the changes into national legislation. Stakeholders may access the Exposure Draft titled Amendments to the Fair Value Option for Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures and submit their comment letters by 20 April 2026.

Source – International Financial Reporting Standard

2. IFRS Accounting Taxonomy 2025 to Continue for the 2026 Reporting Period

The IFRS Foundation has clarified that the IFRS Accounting Taxonomy 2025 will continue to remain applicable for the 2026 reporting period, as there have been no changes to its content or underlying technology for 2026. Accordingly, entities preparing IFRS-compliant financial statements should continue using the 2025 Taxonomy for tagging financial information, in accordance with applicable local jurisdictional filing requirements. The next annual IFRS Accounting Taxonomy update is scheduled to be published in the first quarter of 2027.

The IFRS Foundation has also made available supporting resources to assist stakeholders, including the Guidance on the use of the 2025 IFRS Accounting Taxonomy for 2026 reporting periods (PDF), the Guidance on IFRS Accounting Taxonomy elements with reference notes (Excel), and the complete IFRS Accounting Taxonomy 2025 package.

Source – International Financial Reporting Standard

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Global Financial Insights] IASB Issues Consultation on Clarifying the Fair Value Option Under IAS 28 and More appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Raji Nathani & Gopal Nathani – [2026] 183 taxmann.com 651 (Article)

Section 390 provides for methods for collection and recovery of tax either by way of deduction of tax at source, collection at source, or by way of advance payment. Such taxes are definitely payable or recoverable irrespective of the fact that the assessment in respect of such income is to be made in a later tax year.

Section 437(1) further provides that where a refund is due to the assessee under this Act, he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to receive, in addition to the refund, simple interest thereon calculated at the rate of 0.5% for every month or part of a month where the refund is out of tax collected at source under Section 394 or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under Section 390(5), during the financial year. Further, this sub-section provides that such interest shall be payable only from the first day of April of the year following the tax year to the date on which the refund is granted, where the return of income has been furnished on or before the due date as specified in Section 263(1), or from the date of furnishing the return of income to the date on which the refund is granted, in any other case. There are thus deferments and conditions in the grant of interest on refund to the taxpayer.

One fails to understand the rationale for computing interest under Section 437 from April 1 following the tax year even when the actual payment of taxes precedes such date, and especially so when, for any failure in the matter of payment of taxes in the tax year, the revenue would recover interest from the earliest date under various provisions of the Act, such as interest for deferment of advance tax under Section 425 for the defined months in the tax year, and consequential interest upon failure to deduct or pay, or collect or pay, under Section 398, imposing such interest from the date on which such tax was deductible or collectible to the date on which such tax is deducted or collected. Also, interest on excess refund under Section 426 is chargeable from the date of grant of refund. Fairness dictates that the same principle should apply to the taxpayer, and interest should be payable to the taxpayer for excess payment from the date of payment of tax instead of April 1 following the tax year.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] Discrepancy in Interest Calculations – A Case for Reforming Section 437 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: AECOM Intercontinental Holdings UK Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2026] 183 taxmann.com 692 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dinesh Mehta & Vinod Kumar, JJ.
• Manuj Sabharwal, Devvrat Tiwari & Drona Negi, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Anurag Ojha, SSC, Ms Hemlata Rawat & V.K. Saksana, JSC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee-company provided corporate and management support services to its AE under an agreement. For the immediately preceding year, in respect of the same AE and identical services, the High Court, by order dated 20-05-2025 in the assessee’s own case, had directed the issuance of a nil-rate tax withholding certificate. The assessee filed an application dated 12-03-2025 under section 197 seeking issuance of a certificate at nil rate, which, as observed by the Court, ought to have been decided by 12-04-2025.

However, by order and certificate dated 19-08-2025, the Competent Authority issued a withholding certificate at 13.76 per cent plus applicable surcharge and cess (aggregating to about 15 per cent), rejecting the nil-rate request. The authority neither disputed the nature of the transactions nor recorded any finding on their taxability and disregarded the earlier High Court direction on the ground that the Department had decided to file an SLP.

The matter was taken to the Delhi High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the Competent Authority (CA) had neither disputed the nature of the transaction nor recorded any finding on its taxability, which the petitioner had undertaken with its AE. Even the petitioner’s assertion that his earlier writ petition was allowed by the Court and a direction was issued to grant the certificate at nil rate was side-tracked on the flimsy ground that the Department had decided to file an SLP.

The High Court’s judgment binds all the Authorities. When it comes to the dispute between the parties whose case has been adjudicated by the High Court, unless the Competent Authority can point to factual differences or new information affecting the transaction’s nature and taxability, it cannot take a view other than that of the High Court. Even the charade of the principle that each assessment year is separate and is to be treated separately cannot shield the illegal refusal to apply the law already settled.

Such an approach and denial of the certificate at a nil rate of tax result in irreversible adverse consequences to the assessee. The Competent Authority practically rendered the mandate and provisions of section 197 a waste piece of paper. Provisions of section 197 were enacted to ensure that, in case a particular transaction is not exigible to tax, no tax or tax with a lower rate is deducted.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned order and certificate were set aside, and CA was directed to issue a certificate at a nil rate within a period of 15 days.

List of Cases Referred to

• AECOM Intercontinental Holdings UK Ltd. v. ITO [2025] 175 taxmann.com 351 (Delhi) (para 3)
• Branch Metrics Inc v. Dy. CIT, International Tax [2026] 183 taxmann.com 466 (Delhi) (para 16).

The post HC Directs Issue of Nil-Rate TDS Certificate Under Section 197 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Pramod Kumar – [2026] 183 taxmann.com 617 (Article)

In the weeks since the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Tiger Global, much of the legal debate has centred on its implications for the interpretation of tax treaties in India and the broader international tax order. While, as underscored in Justice Mahadevan’s lead opinion, the era of treaty shopping is indeed a relic of the past—out of step with the prevailing value system of international taxation—and while Justice Pardiwala, in his forward looking concurring note, rightly stresses the need for tax sovereignty to be reflected in policy design, those are broader themes of tax policy. The crux of this dispute is narrower – the grandfathering protection, crafted through delegated and executive action as the vehicle for conveying the tax administration’s assurance, and therefore expected to carry that assurance with clarity and without equivocation. The legal debate in this case must, therefore, remain clinically confined to that question – whether this grandfathering commitment is honoured not merely in its letter, but in its spirit. To my mind, more than a question of treaty interpretation, the real issue at the heart of this appeal—and in similar cases that will follow—is the interpretation of the grandfathering provisions. In other words, the case tests how faithfully the Indian tax administration is prepared to honour a consciously made promise of temporal protection when anti avoidance concerns later become pressing.

1. Why Grandfathering, Not Treaty Interpretation, Is the Real Issue

This perspective is important for a simple reason. In Tiger Global, treaty benefits were denied by invoking the overriding nature of GAAR, as embedded in section 90(2A). If, on the facts of this case, the grandfathering provisions in Rule 10U(1)(d) were held to apply, there would have been no occasion to fall back on GAAR at all. Everything, therefore, ultimately hinges on how we understand and interpret the grandfathering provisions. As I say this, I am fully conscious of the Supreme Court’s observation that “GAAR, and in the alternative JAAR, are invoked to pierce the structure and deny treaty benefits where treaty transactions lack genuine commercial substance.” I will return to these observations a little later. For the moment, let me only say that, when read in their proper perspective, they do not, in my respectful view, detract from the centrality of the grandfathering issue or undermine the proposition I am advancing.

Let me now turn to the idea of grandfathering itself. The nature of grandfathering provisions is inherently peculiar and embeds a conflict of fundamental judicial values. They are built on a tension between legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, on the one hand, and the judicial commitment to curb abusive arrangements and protect the tax base, on the other. In Tiger Global, that dichotomy seems, in my respectful reading, to have influenced—perhaps at a subliminal level—the judicial thought process, and may well have nudged the outcome away from what a purely treaty textual analysis might otherwise have yielded. To understand this conflict, it is essential to take a closer look at the concept of grandfathering and what we think it is meant to protect.

2. Grandfathering – Inglorious Origin, Enduring Function

The expression “grandfathering”, now invoked as a device of fairness and protection of reliance interests, has a far more disquieting origin. Its roots lie in the voting laws of the American South at the turn of the twentieth century. After the American Civil War, and particularly following the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote could no longer be denied on the grounds of race, yet that promise was methodically undermined. States like Louisiana, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma introduced literacy tests and poll taxes that disproportionately affected newly enfranchised Black voters, while creating a carefully crafted exception for those whose fathers or grandfathers could vote before 1 January 1867—a date chosen precisely because it preceded effective Black political empowerment. Effectively, if a citizen’s grandfather did not have the right to vote (which most blacks did not have), he was not allowed voting rights without additional literacy tests and poll taxes. That is how the term “grandfather clause” acquired its name—from these provisions that exempted those whose grandfathers could vote from the new tests and taxes—and it is this history that now underlies our use of “grandfathering” to describe protecting existing rights when the law changes. The law complied with equality in form while subverting it in substance, until the United States Supreme Court in Guinn v. United States recognised that a constitutional guarantee cannot be nullified by drafting artifice.

Although the historical origins of the term lie in a very different and deeply troubling context, the metaphor illuminates the conceptual paradox embedded in modern legal grandfathering. The doctrine of grandfathering presents a subtle yet profound paradox in the architecture of legal values. It is conceived in fairness, for it shields those who had once acted in accordance with the law as it then stood, thereby preserving the sanctity of settled expectations. Yet, in its very design, it engenders a disquieting asymmetry—for it permits identical acts, separated only by the accident of time, to yield diametrically opposite consequences. Thus, it reconciles continuity with inequality, stability with disparity, and fairness to the past with unevenness in the present. Still, the constitutional order does not measure the legitimacy of such doctrines by the uniformity of their outcomes but by the validity of their source. Once a grandfathering provision finds sanction in the Constitution, or is duly enacted by a competent legislative or executive authority, its implementation becomes a matter of constitutional fidelity rather than moral preference. The judicial conscience may acknowledge the tension it embodies, but the rule of law demands that what is constitutionally ordained must prevail, however uneasy its equilibrium between principle and pragmatism. On a practical note, thus, as long as grandfathering is constitutionally valid and is embedded in the policy, it is to be honoured in letter and in spirit.

There is an irony here that should not be lost on us. A term born in the service of exclusion now describes a doctrine aimed at protecting vested rights and ensuring fairness in transitions. Its history is a reminder that the architecture of law can either preserve constitutional purpose—or quietly dismantle it. That, I would suggest, is also the lens through which we should view modern tax grandfathering promises. Used well, grandfathering is a way of managing change rather than avoiding it. It minimises the disruptive impact of legal and policy shifts, reduces resistance by assuring existing stakeholders that their settled positions will not be disturbed, and often makes politically difficult but socially beneficial reforms possible. Policymakers reach for grandfathering when they want to move to a cleaner or stricter regime—whether in tax, regulation, or subsidies—without causing sudden economic dislocation or perceived unfairness to those who acted in reliance on the old framework. In that sense, it can serve larger causes—reform, stability, and trust in the legal system—even though, in a narrow equality sense, it does treat similarly placed persons differently purely by reference to time.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] When GAAR Meets Grandfathering | The Real Issue in Tiger Global appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Corporation Bank vs. Radhey Shyam [2026] 183 taxmann.com 525 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• C. Hari Shankar & Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.
• Rajat Arora, Niraj Kumar & Sourabh Mahela, Advs. for the Appellant.
• A.P. Verma, Adv. & Ms Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent was appointed as a probationary clerk in the appellant Bank with effect from 5-4-2010. The appointment letter specifically stated that the respondent would be governed by the defined Contributory Retirement Benefit Scheme following the MoU dated 27-11-2009. The respondent joined the services of the Bank on 5-4-2010.

The MoU envisaged that persons appointed after 1st April 2010 would be covered by the contributory scheme, not the 1995 Pension Regulations. After about two years of service, the respondent filed a petition seeking a mandamus to extend the pension under the 1995 Regulations rather than the contributory scheme.

The Single Judge rejected the Bank’s submissions and allowed the respondent’s writ petition on the ground that estoppel would not stand in the way of enforcement of fundamental rights and that the respondent had been discriminated vis-a-vis one Sumit Panchal who had been granted pension in accordance with the 1995 Pension Regulations.

It was noted that the appointment letter made it perfectly clear that the respondent would be governed by the benefits of the CPF Scheme. Even if the MoU is ignored, the appointment letter would bind the respondent.

It is settled law, enunciated in Vidyavardaka Sangha v Y.D. Deshpande (2006) 12 SCC 482, that an employee is governed by the terms and conditions of his offer of appointment.

Moreover, Clause 5(c) of the appointment letter left no room for doubt, as it clearly stated that the respondent would be bound by the terms of the CPF scheme. The respondent accepted the said stipulation without demur.

The High Court observed that the view adopted by the Single Judge cannot be sustained as Mr Sumit Panchal, vis-à-vis whom the Single Judge has found the respondent to have been discriminated, was differentially situated. Mr. Panchal had joined the services of the Bank before 5-4-2010 and was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the 1995 Pension Regulations.

The Single Judge, therefore, clearly erred in proceeding on the ground that there was discrimination between the respondent and Mr Sumit Panchal.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the respondent had not chosen to challenge provisions of the MoU or the appointment letter issued to him, he could not even have maintained a petition before the High Court, as the prayer in the writ petition was in the teeth of Clause 5(c) of the appointment letter as well as the terms of the MoU. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the single judge allowing the writ petition was to be quashed and set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Vidyavardaka Sangha v. Y.D. Deshpande (2006) 12 SCC 482 (para 18) followed
• Inspector Rajendra Singh v. UOI 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7879 (para 28) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Radhey Shyam v. Union of India [WP (C) No. 6003 of 2012] (para 8)
• Corporation Bank v. Radhey Shyam [Civil Appeal No. 5161 of 2017, dated 9-11-2023] (para 12)
• Vidyavardaka Sangha v. Y.D. Deshpande (2006) 12 SCC 482 (para 18)
• Inspector Rajendra Singh v. UOI 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7879 (para 26).

The post CPF Appointee After Cut-Off Not Eligible for Old Pension | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Bharathidasan University vs. Joint Commissioner of GST (ST-Intelligence) [2026] 183 taxmann.com 565 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dr. G. Jayachandran & K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ.
• V.R. Shanmuganathan for the Petitioner.
• R.Sureshkumar, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the applicability of GST on affiliation fees received from affiliated colleges. It was submitted that the fees were exempt under Notification No. 12/2017, as services relating to student admission or conduct of examinations. The respondents, including the Joint Commissioner of GST contended that affiliation fees were not services provided to students for admission or for conducting examinations, and accordingly issued intimations of liability with interest and penalty. The petitioner relied on its claim that affiliation was essential for colleges to admit students. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the affiliation fees collected by the university did not constitute services relating to the admission of students or the conduct of examinations, and were therefore not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017, dated 28-6-2017. The Court observed that while affiliation was a prerequisite for colleges to admit students, it fell outside the definition of services directly relating to admission or examination conduct, which formed the limited scope of the exemption. Relying on Section 11, read with Section 9, of the CGST Act and Tamil Nadu GST Act. The Court dismissed the petition, and upheld the university’s liability to pay GST on affiliation fees.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Pondicherry University v. Joint Commissioner of GST, Central Excise [2024] 158 taxmann.com 390 (Madras) (Para 9)

List of Cases Referred to

• Manonmaniam Sundaranar University v. Union of India [W.P. (MD) No.19587 of 2021, dated 10-6-2024] (para 3)
• Madurai Kamaraj University v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise [2021] 130 taxmann.com 165/54 GSTL 385 (Madras) (para 3)
• Bharathidasan University v. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise [W.P. (MD) No. 8353 of 2019, dated 21-9-2021] (para 3)
• Pondicherry University v. Joint Commissioner of GST, Central Excise [2024] 158 taxmann.com 390 (Madras) (para 4.2)
• Sree Ramu College of Arts and Science v. Authority for clarification and Advance Ruling [2024] 158 taxmann.com 417/83 GSTL 411 (Madras) (para 4.2)
• Goa University v. Joint Commissioner of Central GST [2025] 173 taxmann.com 562 (Bombay)/[2025] 96 GSTL 513 (Bombay) (para 6)
• Goa University v. Joint Commissioner of Central GST [2025] 173 taxmann.com 562/96 GSTL 513 (Bombay) (para 6)
• University in Care College of Nursing v. Kaloji Narayana Rao University [2023] 156 taxmann.com 450/[2024] 86 GSTL 244 (Telangana) (para 7).

The post GST Exemption Not Available on University Affiliation Fees | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

1. Introduction to Combination of Contracts under Ind AS 115

Revenue recognition under Ind AS 115 is guided by the economic substance of arrangements rather than merely their legal form. Although entities may execute separate agreements for operational, administrative, or legal convenience, such documentation does not, by itself, determine the accounting outcome. Where multiple contracts with the same customer are economically linked, they must be assessed together to ensure that revenue recognition faithfully represents the underlying commercial intent.

To address this, Ind AS 115 prescribes specific guidance on the combination of contracts. The Standard requires two or more contracts entered into at or near the same time with the same customer to be accounted for as a single contract when they are negotiated as a package with a single commercial objective, when consideration in one contract depends on another, or when the promised goods or services together form a single performance obligation. This requirement prevents artificial separation of arrangements that are, in substance, components of one integrated transaction.

Accordingly, while the portfolio approach under Ind AS 115 aggregates similar contracts for operational practicality, the combination of contracts guidance ensures that interconnected agreements are not accounted for in isolation where doing so would distort the economic reality. The following discussion examines the statutory framework, key criteria, and practical illustrations relevant to the combination of contracts provisions.

Also See – Applying the Portfolio Approach under Ind AS 115—Practical Guidance with Illustrations and Collectability Insights

2. Statutory Provision related to Combination of Contracts under Ind AS

Paragraph 17 of Ind AS 115 discusses about the combination of contracts. The para states the following:

“An entity shall combine two or more contracts entered into at or near the same time with the same customer (or related parties of the customer) and account for the contracts as a single contract if one or more of the following criteria are met:

(a) the contracts are negotiated as a package with a single commercial objective;

(b) the amount of consideration to be paid in one contract depends on the price or performance of the other contract; or

(c) the goods or services promised in the contracts are a single performance obligation.”

Let us understand each of these criteria in detail.

1.1. Single Commercial Objective

Contracts negotiated together to achieve one integrated commercial outcome must be accounted for as a single contract. In such situations, the individual agreements do not have independent commercial substance when viewed in isolation; rather, they collectively fulfil a broader business purpose agreed between the parties.

Illustration

A company enters into two agreements with a manufacturing customer, one for the installation of automated production equipment and another for configuring specialised operating software required to run the equipment efficiently. Although documented separately for operational or legal reasons, both contracts were negotiated together as part of a single project to establish a fully functional production system.

The customer’s objective is not merely to acquire equipment or software individually but to obtain an operational manufacturing solution. Since both arrangements collectively achieve one integrated commercial outcome, the contracts must be combined and accounted for as a single contract under Ind AS 115.

1.2. Interdependent Pricing or Consideration

Contracts must also be combined when the amount of consideration payable under one contract depends on the pricing or performance of another contract. This indicates that the agreements were structured together economically, even if documented separately. Such interdependence may arise due to following reasons:

(a) Discounts or pricing incentives are conditional upon entering multiple contracts,

(b) Profit margins in one contract are intentionally reduced and recovered through another arrangement,

(c) Payments vary depending on fulfilment or continuation of a related contract.

Illustration

A supplier sells industrial machinery to a customer at a significantly discounted price. At the same time, the customer enters into a separate agreement committing to purchase consumables exclusively from the supplier for five years. The reduced price of the machinery is economically justified by expected profits from future consumable sales.

Although legally separate, the pricing of the equipment contract cannot be understood independently of the consumables agreement. Because consideration in one contract depends on the other, both contracts must be combined to ensure revenue and margins reflect the true economics of the overall arrangement

1.3. Single Performance Obligation

Contracts must also be combined when the goods or services promised across multiple contracts together constitute a single performance obligation in accordance with paragraphs 22–30 of Ind AS 115. This occurs when promised goods or services are not distinct because they are highly interrelated or significantly integrated.

Illustration

An engineering entity signs two contracts with a customer, one for designing a specialised industrial facility and another for constructing the facility based on that design. While the contracts are executed separately, the entity is responsible for delivering a fully operational facility and provides significant integration between design and construction activities.

The customer does not benefit separately from the design without construction, nor from construction without the customised design. Because the combined promises represent a single integrated deliverable, they form one performance obligation, requiring both contracts to be combined and accounted for together.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post Combination of Contracts as a Single Contract | Ind AS 115 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

General Circular No. 01/2026; dated: 24.02.2026

The MCA has launched the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 (CCFS-2026), granting companies a one-time opportunity to regularise their long-pending statutory filings at substantially reduced additional fees. The scheme is not merely a fee concession measure. The scheme aims to improve compliance levels and ensure that the corporate registry reflects accurate, up-to-date information. Additionally, it aims to facilitate inactive or defunct entities in opting for dormancy/closure by charging lower fees.

1. Background – Why CCFS Matters?

The Companies Act, 2013, requires all companies to file their annual returns and financial statements. Fees for filing such statements, documents, returns, etc., are governed by section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014. With effect from July 1, 2018, delays in filing annual returns and financial statements attract an additional fee of Rs 100 per day, without any upper limit, often resulting in substantial financial liability for companies with long-pending defaults.

The Ministry has undertaken several initiatives to promote ease of doing business for corporates. However, the number of inactive companies has crossed the 20-lakh mark and the Ministry has received representations from various stakeholders, including such companies, requesting a waiver of additional fees through a scheme.

To provide a one-time opportunity for companies to file their documents related to annual return and financial statements in the MCA-21 registry or to file for dormancy/closure, the Central Government, in exercise of powers under section 460 read with section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013, has decided to condone the delay in filing documents with the Registrar through a Scheme, namely the “Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026”.

2. Options Available to Companies Under CCFS

Under the Scheme, companies/inactive companies have the option to:

(a) get their pending annual filings completed by paying only 10% of the total additional fees payable on account of delays or

(b) get their companies declared as ‘dormant company’ under section 455 of the Act by filing e-form MSC-1 and paying half of the normal fee payable under the rules.

(c) get their companies struck off by filing an application in e-form STK-2 during the currency of the scheme by paying 25% of the filing fees.

3. Period of Operation of CCFS

The scheme shall be operational from 15.04.2026 to 15.07.2026.

4. Applicability of the Scheme

All companies are permitted to file relevant e-forms that were due for filing on any given date in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026, except for the following:

(a) Companies against which final notice for strike-off under section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 (previously section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956) has already been initiated.

(b) Companies that have themselves filed a strike-off application.

(c) Companies that have applied for obtaining dormant status under section 455 of the Act prior to the scheme.

(d) Companies that have been dissolved pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation

(e) Vanishing companies

5. What Forms are covered under the Scheme?

The Scheme applies to “relevant e-forms” relating to:

(a) Companies Act, 2013 Forms

• MGT-7 – Annual Return
• MGT-7A – Annual Return (OPC and Small Company)
• AOC-4 – Financial Statements
• AOC-4 CFS – Consolidated Financial Statements
• AOC-4 NBFC (Ind AS) – Financial Statements
• AOC-4 CFS NBFC (Ind AS) – CFS
• AOC -4 (XBRL) – Financial Statements in XBRL
• ADT-1 – Appointment of Auditor
• FC – 3 – Annual Accounts (Foreign Company)
• FC – 4 – Annual Return (Foreign Company)

(b) Legacy Forms under Companies Act, 1956

• Form 20B – Annual Return
• Form 21A – Annual Return (Small Company)
• Form 23AC – Balance Sheet
• Form 23ACA – Profit & Loss Account
• Form 23AC-XBRL – Balance Sheet (XBRL)
• Form 23ACA-XBRL – Profit & Loss Account (XBRL)
• Form 66 – Compliance Certificate
• Form 23B – Intimation of appointment of auditor

6. Manner of Payment of normal fees and additional fees under the Scheme

Every company must be required to pay the fees on the filing on the filing of each relevant e-form as per the following:

(a) Normal Fees – As prescribed under the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014

(b) Additional Fees – Only 10% of the additional fees as prescribed under the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014

Further, every company that files an application for obtaining the status of a ‘dormant company” under section 455 in e-form MSC-1 must pay a fee of one-half of the normal filing fees applicable in this regard.

Also, every company that applies for striking off by filing e-form STK-2 must be required to pay only 25% of the applicable filing fees under Companies (Removal of Name of Companies from the Registrar of Companies) Rules, 2016.

7. Immunity from Penalty Proceedings

The most valuable aspect of the scheme is the conditional immunity framework.

(a) Where no adjudication order is passed – If filings are made before issuance of notice by adjudicating authority or within 30 days of issuance of notice, then proceedings under section 92 or 137 shall be concluded and no penalty shall be levied.

(b) Where adjudication order is already passed – If the period of 30 days after issuance of notice for adjudication has expired or where the adjudication order imposing penalty for defaults under section 92 or 137 has already been passed, then liability to pay penalties remains unaffected.

Further, for forms such as ADT-1, FC-3, FC-4 and legacy forms, immunity against prospective penal action is available provided no prosecution has been initiated prior to filing under the Scheme.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post MCA Launches CCFS-2026 for Delayed Filings with 10% Additional Fees appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

GSTN Advisory, Dated 19-02-2026

The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has issued an advisory clarifying the utilisation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for payment of IGST liability in Form GSTR-3B. The clarification aims to provide operational guidance to taxpayers regarding the sequence and flexibility in using available ITC balances.

1. Order of Utilisation of ITC for IGST Liability

As per the advisory, taxpayers are permitted to utilise CGST or SGST ITC in any order for discharging IGST liability, subject to the condition that:

• IGST ITC must be fully exhausted first before using CGST or SGST ITC.

Once the IGST credit balance is completely utilised, taxpayers may apply CGST and SGST credits in any preferred sequence to pay the remaining IGST liability.

2. Reference to Earlier Advisory

The clarification refers to Point 3 of the earlier advisory dated 30-01-2026, which addressed the utilisation of ITC balances. The present advisory has been issued to provide further operational clarity and facilitate smoother compliance.

3. Applicability and Effective Date

GSTN has specified that the revised functionality and clarification will be effective from the February 2026 return period.

Taxpayers filing GSTR-3B from this period onwards can accordingly utilise CGST and SGST ITC in any order for payment of IGST liability after fully exhausting available IGST ITC.

Click Here To Read The Full Update 

The post GSTN Allows Flexible ITC Utilisation for IGST from Feb 2026 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has introduced an online facility enabling taxpayers registered under Rule 14A of the CGST Rules to apply for withdrawal from the simplified registration scheme through the GST Portal.

1. Filing of Form GST REG-32

Taxpayers seeking withdrawal from the simplified registration scheme must submit an application in Form GST REG-32 on the GST Portal.

Key procedural requirements include:

• Draft applications must be submitted within 15 days of initiation.
• Aadhaar authentication or biometric authentication is mandatory for:

1. 1. The Primary Authorised Signatory, and
   2. At least one Promoter/Partner (where applicable).

These requirements are intended to ensure authenticity and regulatory verification during the withdrawal process.

2. Restrictions During Application Processing

During the processing of Form GST REG-32, certain restrictions will apply. Taxpayers will not be permitted to:

• File applications for core amendments
• File applications for non-core amendments
• Submit self-cancellation applications

These restrictions will remain in place until the withdrawal application is processed and approved.

3. Post-Approval Compliance Requirements

Upon approval of the withdrawal application through Form GST REG-33, taxpayers must comply with revised reporting requirements.

Specifically, taxpayers will be required to report output tax liability exceeding ₹2.5 lakh on supplies made to registered persons from the first day of the succeeding month following approval.

4. Purpose of the Facility

The introduction of this online facility streamlines the process for taxpayers opting to exit the simplified registration scheme while ensuring appropriate authentication, regulatory checks, and compliance monitoring within the GST framework.

Click Here To Read The Full Update

The post GSTN Enables Withdrawal from Rule 14A Simplified Registration appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source