Case Details: Keshavareddy Krishnareddy vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 773 (Bangalore-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Prashant Maharishi, Vice President & Soundararajan K., Judicial Member
• P.K. Prasad, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Balusamy N., JCIT for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Assessee was engaged in the business of running a bar and restaurant. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee sold 25 plots of land and claimed long-term capital gain. Assessee claimed exemption in respect of the sale of agricultural land and compensation for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, relying on section 10(37).

Upon scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated the sale of the plots as an adventure-like trade. He contended that the assessee had incurred development expenses and consequently treated profits from the sale of agricultural lands and acquisition compensation as business income. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A), wherein the appeal was dismissed. The matter then reached the Bangalore Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee had used its funds for purchasing the plots. The assessee had purchased 25 plots from a single seller and levelled them, incurring the expenditure. He subsequently sold them to 25 buyers using his funds and did not deal in the purchase and sale of plots. The assessee was not engaged in the real estate business, and dealing in real estate was wholly unaccounted for and not allied with the usual trade of the assessee.

The assessee entered into only one transaction of purchasing all these 25 plots and sold 25 plots to 25 different persons in one financial year, and does not show a rapid turnover of buying and selling. Although the assessee sold 25 plots, this was not decisive. The quantum number of items is one circumstance among many, but it is a cumulative effect that needs to be examined. The assessee did not use operating funds, did not make any advertisement for sale, did not engage anyone as a dealer, and the treatment in its books of account as an investment, not as stock-in-trade, clearly shows that the impugned transactions cannot be said to be an adventure-like trade.

Thus, the assessee cannot be said to be a developer in the trade sense. The assessee held plots for more than 6 years. The holding period was consistent with the investment objective. The levelling activity was not prima facie a character indicative of trade. There was no suggestion of records or systematic dealing. In the absence of any material to establish a contemporaneous intent of trade at the time of purchase, it clearly shows that the plot of land purchased by the assessee was for investment and not for business.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 242 (SC)
• Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC)
• Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 179 (SC) (para 17) followed
• G. Venkataswami Naidu and Company v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC) (para 19) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• R. Dalmia v. CIT [1981] 7 Taxman 284 (Delhi)/[1982] 137 ITR 665 (Delhi) (para 5)
• Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC) (para 5)
• G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC) (para 7)
• Dilip Battu Karanjule v. ITO [2016] 74 taxmann.com 12 (Pune – Trib.)/[2016] 161 ITD 172 (Pune – Trib.) (para 7)
• Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 242 (SC) (para 16)
• Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 179 (SC) (para 16).

The post Sale of Multiple Plots Not an Adventure in Trade Despite Basic Levelling | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Durgapur Steel Plant vs. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 393 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Alok Aradhe & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant, a public-sector steel plant, issued an advertisement in 2007 for the post of Plant Attendant. The Selection comprised a written examination conducted by an independent agency, followed by an interview and medical examination.

Roll numbers of 1,530 candidates who qualified in the written test were published; offers were issued to 150 candidates (139 joined), and subsequently 55 more were offered appointments, totalling 194 joinings.

Respondents filed a writ petition seeking production of written examination results and disclosure of their marks, and restraining appellants from issuing appointment orders to selected candidates.

Another writ petition challenged a 2010 advertisement for Junior Technician/Operator – Both writ petitions were transferred to the Tribunal.

It was recorded that a direction was sought to call for the results of 56 candidates who were subsequently selected, and no specific prayer for appointment for respondents was made. By order in 2018, Tribunal noted that marks of written test were not produced or disclosed; despite pendency of writ petitions, records were not preserved after finalisation of 194 appointments; and there was no documentary evidence establishing that respondents had failed – It directed appellants to offer appointments to respondents to post of Plant Attendant or an equivalent post, with suitable age relaxation, to place them at bottom of seniority list, and to grant only prospective benefits.

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement required the publication of marks obtained by all candidates who appeared in the written examination. Further, it was not the case that the respondents had passed the examination, and there was no material on record indicating that they had passed the written examination.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that merely because respondents were not shown to have failed, no inference could be drawn that they had passed written examination. Further, the written examination was conducted by an independent agency, and neither the rules nor the advertisement prescribed the duration for which records of the selection process were to be preserved.

The Supreme Court held that the explanation of the appellants for non-production of the record that the same were unavailable or had been destroyed appeared to be bona fide. Further, mere non-production of such records did not justify drawing an inference that respondents had cleared the written test.

The Supreme Court also held, for an additional reason, that a direction for the appointment of respondents to the post of Plant Attendant could not be granted, as the qualifications for the post were revised in the year 2008. Therefore, the appellants could not be directed to appoint respondents.

For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Tribunal directing the appointment of respondents to the post of Plant Attendant, as well as the judgment of the High Court, could not be sustained.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Orders of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, Dated 19.07.2019 in WPCT-41-2019 and WPCT-41-2019, Dated 27.09.2019 (para 16) set aside

List of Cases Referred to

• Poonam Rani v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 596 (para 11)
• Union of India v. O. Chakradhar 2002 taxmann.com 3757 (SC) (para 11)
• Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) (2021) 4 SCC 631 (para 11)
• Kerala Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission (2016) 3 SCC 417 (para 11)
• Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat (2020) 2 SCC 582 (para 13)
• State of Manipur v. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei (2019) 3 SCC 331 (para 13)
• Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh (1993) 1 SCC 154 (para 13).

The post SC Quashes Appointment Order as Missing Selection Records Did Not Prove Candidates Cleared Exam appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: KS Electronics (P.) Ltd. vs. Registrar of Companies - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 422 (NCLT-Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Praveen Gupta, Judicial Member & Ashish Verma, Technical Member
• Anil Kumar, Liquidator for the Applicant.
• Krishna Dev Vyas, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Applicant was appointed as the Liquidator of the company. During the voluntary liquidation process, no claims were received from any creditors or workmen, and no assets of the company were sold or distributed. Subsequently, the Board of Directors and the members of the company unanimously resolved to withdraw the voluntary liquidation proceedings and continue the company as a going concern.

Accordingly, the Liquidator filed an application under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 read with section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking withdrawal of the voluntary liquidation process and restoration of the company as a going concern.

NCLT Held

The NCLT observed that where voluntary liquidation had been initiated with the consent of the stakeholders and the same stakeholders subsequently sought its withdrawal, and where no third-party rights had been affected, the inherent powers of the Tribunal under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 could be invoked to secure the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the NCLT allowed the withdrawal of the voluntary liquidation process and directed the Liquidator to hand over the assets and management of the company to the Board of Directors, subject to settlement of his legitimate fees and dues.

The NCLT further held that, upon restoration of the company to its normal status, the Liquidator would stand discharged from all duties and responsibilities in relation to the voluntary liquidation process of the company.

List of Cases Referred to

• Biocad India (P). Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [C.P. (IB) No. 47/BB/2023, dated 20-7-2023] (para 2)
• Enel Green Power India (P) Ltd v. Suman Kumar Verma [CP (IB) No. 3 (CH) 2024, dated 1-7-2025] (para 2).

The post NCLT Allows Withdrawal of Voluntary Liquidation | Company Restored as Going Concern appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

1. Introduction

The development of a robust assurance framework assumes critical importance to ensure credibility, transparency, and comparability of sustainability disclosures. In line with these developments, the Sustainability Reporting Standards Board (SRSB) of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has issued an Exposure Draft on “Standard on Sustainability Assurance (SSA 5000), General Requirements for Sustainability Assurance Engagements. Public comments and suggestions on the Exposure Draft are invited by 19th June 2026.

The proposed SSA 5000 seeks to establish general principles and requirements applicable to sustainability assurance engagements and represents a significant step towards strengthening India’s sustainability assurance ecosystem.

2. Objective of SSA 5000

The proposed SSA 5000 addresses assurance engagements related to sustainability information. The Exposure Draft explains that sustainability information refers to information concerning sustainability matters, which may include diverse topics such as climate change, biodiversity, labour practices, environmental impact, social responsibility, governance-related matters, and associated risks and opportunities.

The Exposure Draft recognises that sustainability-related disclosures may cover different aspects of these topics, including metrics, targets, key performance indicators, and risk-related information. It further acknowledges that laws, regulations, and sustainability reporting frameworks may describe sustainability matters differently and may prescribe specific guidance for identifying and reporting sustainability information.

The proposed Standard also clarifies that sustainability information is prepared and reported in accordance with specified criteria. In this regard, SSA 5000 requires the assurance practitioner to evaluate whether the criteria expected to be applied in preparing sustainability information are suitable under the circumstances of the engagement.

The Exposure Draft further provides that criteria embodied in law or regulation or established by recognised organisations following transparent due process would ordinarily be presumed to be suitable criteria for the purpose of sustainability assurance engagements.

3. Entity’s Process for Identifying Sustainability Information

An important feature of the proposed SSA 5000 is its focus on the process adopted by entities for identifying sustainability matters to be reported. The Exposure Draft explains that criteria may specify a process through which the entity identifies sustainability matters, determines materiality, and establishes the reporting boundary for sustainability information.

In this context, the Standard refers to the “entity’s process to identify sustainability information to be reported” as the process followed by the entity to determine the sustainability matters that require reporting and the extent of reporting coverage.

This aspect assumes significance because sustainability reporting often involves management judgment, evolving reporting practices, and assessment of material sustainability-related risks and opportunities affecting the entity.

4. Scope of Sustainability Assurance Engagements

The proposed SSA 5000 also clarifies that the scope of a sustainability assurance engagement may either extend to the entire sustainability information reported by an entity or only a specific portion of such information.

Accordingly, the Standard requires the practitioner to clearly identify or describe the information that is subject to assurance. This requirement is particularly important in sustainability reporting engagements because entities may obtain assurance only on selected sustainability metrics, disclosures, or subject matters during the initial stages of sustainability reporting implementation.

The clarification regarding engagement scope is expected to improve transparency and avoid ambiguity for intended users of assurance reports.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post ICAI Issues Exposure Draft of SSA 5000 on Sustainability Assurance Engagements appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

GSTN Advisory, Dated 21-05-2026

The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has issued an advisory introducing important enhancements to the e-Way Bill (EWB) system under Rule 138 of the CGST Rules.

The enhancements are aimed at improving data integrity, traceability of goods movement and compliance efficiency through system-based validations and new operational features.

1. Mandatory Capture of ‘Ship-To GSTIN’ in Bill-To Ship-To Transactions

A major change introduced under the advisory is the mandatory reporting of ‘Ship-To GSTIN’ in Bill-To Ship-To transactions while generating an e-Way Bill.

The requirement is intended to improve visibility and traceability of the actual destination of goods and strengthen data accuracy within the EWB ecosystem.

2. Reporting of ‘URP’ for Unregistered Consignees

GSTN has clarified that where the consignee is an unregistered person, taxpayers shall report:

‘URP’ (Unregistered Person)

in the Ship-To GSTIN field during e-Way Bill generation.

This standardised reporting requirement seeks to reduce inconsistencies and improve transaction-level data validation.

3. Introduction of Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility

The advisory also introduces a voluntary e-Way Bill closure mechanism, enabling closure of an e-Way Bill after delivery of goods is completed.

The facility may be exercised by:

• Supplier
• Recipient
• Transporter
• Authorised person

The mechanism is intended to improve tracking of completed consignments and provide better closure visibility in the EWB system.

4. Multiple Modes of e-Way Bill Closure

GSTN has enabled flexibility in closure of e-Way Bills through multiple options.

The closure facility may be exercised:

• EWB-wise (individual e-Way Bill level)
• Date-wise (bulk closure based on delivery date)
• Through a mobile number-based closure mechanism linked to the transaction

These options are intended to simplify operational compliance and facilitate easier management of completed transactions.

5. Timeline for Closure of e-Way Bill

GSTN has clarified that voluntary closure may be undertaken:

• On the day of delivery; or
• On the immediately succeeding day

This prescribed timeline is intended to ensure timely reporting of completed movement of goods.

6. API Enhancements Released in Sandbox Environment

The advisory further states that required API changes have already been released in the sandbox environment to facilitate advance testing and system integration.

This enables technology stakeholders to prepare systems before live deployment.

7. Production Deployment From 15-06-2026

The updated EWB functionalities are scheduled for deployment in the production environment from 15-06-2026.

Accordingly, the following stakeholders are required to complete testing, system changes and configuration updates beforehand:

• ERP vendors
• GST Suvidha Providers (GSPs)
• Application Service Providers (ASPs)
• System integrators and technology partners

The advance preparation is intended to ensure a seamless transition to the revised framework.

8. Objective of the Enhancements

The GSTN advisory aims to strengthen authenticity and traceability of goods movement, improve quality of e-Way Bill data and streamline compliance through technology-enabled controls.

The introduction of mandatory Ship-To GSTIN reporting and voluntary closure functionality is expected to improve operational transparency, reduce mismatches and enhance overall efficiency of the e-Way Bill ecosystem under GST.

Click Here To Read The Full Update 

The post GSTN Proposes Mandatory Ship-To GSTIN Capture in E-Way Bill System appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Click Here To Read The Full Notification

The post Govt. Permits Specified Reporting Entities to Undertake Aadhaar Authentication appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

1. Introduction

With sustainability and ESG reporting gaining increasing prominence in corporate governance and stakeholder decision-making, the need for credible assurance over sustainability-related disclosures has become equally important. Globally, regulators, investors, and businesses are placing greater emphasis on the reliability and transparency of sustainability information disclosed by entities. In line with these developments, the Sustainability Reporting Standards Board (SRSB) of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has issued an Exposure Draft on the “Framework for Sustainability Assurance Engagements” and invited public comments and suggestions on the proposed framework till 19th June 2026.

The proposed Framework aims to provide conceptual guidance regarding sustainability assurance engagements and to establish a foundation for the future development of Standards on Sustainability Assurance (SSA). The initiative is expected to play a significant role in strengthening India’s sustainability assurance ecosystem and aligning domestic practices with evolving global expectations.

2. Objective of the Proposed Framework

The proposed Framework has been issued to facilitate understanding of the elements and objectives of sustainability assurance engagements and the engagements to which the proposed “Standards on Sustainability Assurance” would apply.

The Exposure Draft specifically clarifies that the Framework itself does not constitute a Standard and therefore does not prescribe mandatory requirements, essential procedures, or basic principles for conducting assurance engagements. Accordingly, an assurance report cannot state that an engagement has been conducted in accordance with the Framework. Instead, such engagements would be required to comply with the relevant Standards on Sustainability Assurance, once notified.

The proposed Assurance Standards are expected to contain detailed objectives, requirements, explanatory guidance, and definitions that would operate consistently with the principles laid down in the Framework.

3. Role of the Framework

The Framework is intended to act as a foundational reference document for multiple stakeholders involved in sustainability assurance engagements. This includes assurance practitioners, intended users of assurance reports, engaging parties, and the SRSB itself, all of whom will be involved in developing future assurance standards, practice notes, and guidance documents.

Through the issuance of the Exposure Draft, the SRSB seeks to promote conceptual clarity, consistency, and uniform understanding in the evolving field of sustainability assurance engagements.

4. Key Areas Covered in the Exposure Draft

The proposed Framework provides a detailed overview of the nature and scope of sustainability assurance engagements. It explains the distinction between reasonable and limited assurance engagements, helping users understand the varying levels of assurance that may be provided in sustainability reporting engagements.

The document also distinguishes assurance engagements from other professional services, such as consulting engagements, thereby clearly defining the scope of sustainability assurance practice.

Further, the Framework outlines the preconditions that must be met before an assurance practitioner accepts a sustainability assurance engagement. It also identifies and explains the five essential elements of an assurance engagement, namely:

(a) a three-party relationship

(b) an underlying subject matter

(c) suitable criteria

(d) sufficient appropriate evidence and

(e) an assurance report.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post ICAI Issues Exposure Draft on Sustainability Assurance Framework appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Editorial Team – [2026] 186 taxmann.com 867 (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. Taiwan’s Ministry of Finance Clarifies How to Compute Residency Days for Foreign taxpayers

The Beidou Office of the Central Area National Taxation Bureau, Ministry of Finance, reminds foreign taxpayers that the number of days of residence in Taiwan shall be determined on the basis of the entry and exit stamps affixed in their passports or the “Certificate of Entry and Exit Dates” issued by the National Immigration Agency, Ministry of the Interior.

The computation shall be made in accordance with the prescribed rule that the date of arrival (commencement date) shall be excluded, whereas the date of departure (termination date) shall be included. Where an individual enters and exits Taiwan multiple times during the same taxable year, the number of days of stay for each period shall be aggregated.

For instance, Mr A entered Taiwan on January 10, 2025 (Tax Year 2025 / ROC Year 114), and departed on March 20, 2025. Accordingly, the period of stay in Taiwan for such visit amounted to 69 days, computed by excluding the date of arrival and including the date of departure.

Subsequently, Mr A re-entered Taiwan on May 1, 2025, and departed on June 30, 2025. The duration of stay for this second visit amounted to 60 days, computed on the same basis, i.e., excluding the date of arrival and including the date of departure.

Therefore, since Mr A entered and exited Taiwan twice during the same taxable year, the aggregate number of days stayed in Taiwan during the year amounted to 129 days.

For any further clarification, taxpayers may contact the toll-free service number 0800-000321 during office hours, where assistance will be provided by the concerned staff.

Contact Person – Ms Sung, Individual Income Tax Section, Beidou Office
Telephone – (04) 8871204 ext. 211

Source – Notice

2. Pakistan FCC Strikes Down Tax on Deemed Income from Immovable Property

The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has declared Section 7E of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, unconstitutional and void ab initio, holding that the provision unlawfully permitted the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to tax “deemed income” from immovable property even where no actual income had accrued or been received.

Introduced through the Finance Act, 2022, for Tax Year 2023, Section 7E imposed tax on immovable properties exceeding Rs. 25 million by deeming income at 5% of the FBR-determined fair market value and taxing the same at 20%, effectively resulting in a 1% annual tax on the capital value of non-rented or undeveloped properties, subject to specified exemptions.

The FCC further declared all actions, proceedings and notices initiated by the FBR under Section 7E to be without lawful authority and set aside the same. The Court allowed taxpayers’ petitions against the judgements of the Sindh High Court (SHC) and Lahore High Court (LHC), while dismissing the petitions filed by the FBR and Commissioner Inland Revenue (CIR) against the decisions of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and Balochistan High Court (BHC).

The provision was challenged on the ground that it imposed a tax on artificial or unrealised income and, in substance, amounted to a property tax disguised as income tax, thereby exceeding Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 77, read with Entry 47 of the Federal Legislative List, and violating Article 25 of the Constitution.

Source – Dawn.com

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [World Tax News] Taiwan’s MoF Clarifies How to Compute Residency Days for Foreign Taxpayers and More appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Tvl. Sri Balajee Udyog vs. Assistant Commissioner(ST) - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 218 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• G. Jayachandran & Shamim Ahmed, JJ.
• G. Natarajan & A.M. Venkata Krishnan for the Appellant.
• Ms Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, GA for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant challenged the cancellation of its GST registration, contending that it had submitted detailed replies and participated in the personal hearing pursuant to a show cause notice (SCN) seeking proof of actual movement of goods corresponding to Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. The Department, however, found during inspection that the premises were inadequate and that no transport documents evidencing the movement of goods were furnished, while records indicated the use of fake invoices and fabricated documents to avail ITC. Despite producing print-outs of e-way bills, the appellant failed to substantiate the genuineness of transactions or the actual movement of goods, leading to the cancellation of registration, which was affirmed by the appellate authority. The appellant preferred an intra-court appeal against the said orders. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the cancellation of GST registration was justified due to fraudulent availment of ITC in violation of Section 16 read with Section 29 of the CGST Act and Tamil Nadu GST Act, supported by fake invoices and absence of proof of actual movement of goods. It was observed that mere production of e-way bill print-outs, without supporting transport documents, was insufficient to establish genuine supply transactions under the GST framework. The Court further held that an adequate opportunity had been granted to the appellant to produce evidence of the movement of goods, which was not discharged satisfactorily. Accordingly, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the authorities. It dismissed the intra-court appeal and affirmed the cancellation of registration.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Tvl. Sri Balajee Udyog v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai [2026] 183 taxmann.com 240 (Madras) (Para 4), affirmed

The post GST Registration Cancellation Upheld for Fake Invoices and No Proof of Goods Movement | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular F. No. 496/IFSCA/FC/SLF/2022-23/001, Dated: 20.05.2026

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post IFSC Authority Updates Consolidated Framework for Ship Leasing in IFSCs appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source