Notification No. G.S.R. 890(E)., Dated 10.12.2025

1. Overview

The Central Government has notified amendments to the Banking Regulation (Companies) Rules, 1949, making changes to several provisions and statutory forms. The amendments streamline reporting requirements, remove obsolete references, and update terminology to reflect the present regulatory and institutional framework of the banking sector.

2. Omission of Provisions in Rule 2 and Rule 2A

2.1 Omitted Clauses in Rule 2

Certain provisions of Rule 2, which deals with definitions and interpretative elements for banking companies, have been omitted.

This removes outdated regulatory references and aligns the Rules with the amended Banking Regulation Act and modern supervisory practices.

2.2 Omission of Rule 2A

Rule 2A, which contained specific operational or reporting requirements, has also been omitted.

The omission reflects changes in statutory reporting models and simplifies compliance for banking companies by eliminating requirements that are no longer relevant under the updated regulatory framework.

3. Omission of Rule 15B

Rule 15B, which previously dealt with reporting or procedural obligations for banks, has been deleted entirely.

This removes antiquated provisions and reduces unnecessary administrative burden.

4. Amendments to Form VIII

Form VIII—used for reporting of certain statutory returns by banking companies—has been significantly revised.

4.1 Key Changes

Replaces references to “alternate Friday” with:

• “15th day of the month”, or
• “last day of the month”

This change aligns the form with modern accounting periods and the broader removal of fortnightly-based calculation systems.

Updates items relating to subsidiary banks and development financial institutions (DFIs)

These updates reflect structural changes in India’s financial sector, including:

• Merger or restructuring of subsidiary banks
• Transformation of DFIs into banks or other financial entities
• Removal of outdated institutional references

The revised Form VIII supports uniform and contemporary reporting formats for banking companies.

5. Amendments to Form X

Form X, which governs additional disclosures and reporting obligations, has also been updated.

5.1 Key Modifications

1. Omission of specified sub-items – Obsolete content and data fields that are no longer required under current RBI regulations have been removed.
2. Terminology updates

• • References to “Friday” are substituted with “day” or “last day of a month”
  • This change is consistent with the broader regulatory transition away from fortnightly reporting cycles.

These amendments ensure that reporting timelines in Form X are aligned with monthly or daily compliance frameworks, improving clarity and easing operational compliance.

6. Regulatory Intent

The amendments aim to:

• Modernise outdated statutory language
• Remove references that no longer match today’s supervisory environment
• Rationalise reporting timelines across banking legislation
• Align banking returns with standard monthly accounting practices
• Reduce administrative complexities for banks
• Support the transition away from legacy “alternate Friday” timelines after recent amendments to the Banking Regulation Act and RBI Act

7. Implications for Banking Companies

Banks must:

• Update internal reporting manuals and compliance workflows
• Revise automated reporting systems to reflect new dates (15th / last day of month)
• Ensure staff discontinuation of all “alternate Friday”-based computations
• Review and update documentation formats for Forms VIII and X
• Train compliance and finance teams on the revised procedures

Failure to update reporting processes could lead to incorrect filings or supervisory observations.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification

The post Govt. Amends Banking Regulation (Companies) Rules | Updates Forms VIII & X appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular No. HO/38/30/12(1)2025 MIRSD SEC FATF, Dated 10.12.2025

1. Background

SEBI has issued amendments to the Master Circular on Know Your Customer (KYC) to streamline the re-KYC process for Non-Resident Indians (NRIs). The revision responds to industry feedback regarding practical challenges faced by NRIs when undergoing re-KYC due to location-based restrictions in digital onboarding and verification.

2. Relaxation of Physical Location Requirement

Earlier, digital KYC procedures required clients to be physically located in India during certain verification steps. SEBI has now relaxed this requirement for existing NRI clients undergoing re-KYC through digital mode.

2.1 What Changes?

• Existing NRIs can complete re-KYC digitally from outside India.
• The earlier condition that a client must be physically within India at the time of re-KYC will not apply to NRI clients.

This significantly improves convenience and reduces compliance friction for NRIs who cannot travel to India merely for KYC renewal.

3. Revised Para 51 – Geo-Tagging and System Checks Continue

Although the physical-presence requirement is relaxed, risk-mitigation controls remain mandatory.

Under the revised Para 51:

3.1 Geo-Tagging Remains Compulsory

• The system must capture GPS coordinates of the NRI client.
• These coordinates must match the Proof of Address (PoA) submitted.

3.2 Anti-Spoofing and IP-Verification Measures Required

• Regulated entities must ensure no spoofed, masked, or manipulated IP connections are used during re-KYC.
• Systems must be able to detect and prevent VPN masking or fake geo-location attempts.

3.3 Other KYC Validations Remain Unchanged

• Facial verification (where applicable)
• Document authentication
• System-driven checks mandated by SEBI and KRA

The intention is to allow flexibility without compromising security, authenticity, or anti-fraud safeguards.

4. Purpose and Regulatory Intent

SEBI’s modification aims to:

• Facilitate easier compliance for NRIs who face geographical constraints
• Maintain robust KYC integrity and fraud prevention controls
• Align regulatory practice with digital transformation trends
• Ensure that intermediaries can onboard and maintain NRI clients without disruption

This balances user convenience with risk management and supervisory oversight.

5. Implications for Market Intermediaries

REs (brokers, depositories, RTAs, RIAs, etc.) must:

• Update internal KYC workflows to remove the “must be in India” check for NRI re-KYC
• Continue geo-tagging and ensure GPS data matches PoA
• Implement tools to detect IP spoofing or VPN-based masking
• Train staff on revised requirements and update customer communication templates
• Modify backend KYC logic and reporting formats in line with changes to Para 51

6. Implications for NRI Clients

• Re-KYC can now be completed seamlessly from abroad
• No need for travel to India solely for verification
• Must ensure GPS-based address matches documentation during digital re-KYC
• Should avoid using VPNs during verification to prevent rejection

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post SEBI Eases Re-KYC for NRIs | Updates Geo-Tagging and KYC Controls appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Deepak Kakkar, Sushil Sharma & Ayush Rawat – [2025] 181 taxmann.com 276 (Article)

Real Estate or Equity—Same Asset, Different Tax Fate. Why Classification Matters?

1. Introduction

The world of finance is full of complex interpretations and debatable classifications, and few issues are as enduring and contentious as distinguishing a business asset from a capital asset. This classification has significant implications across taxation, accounting, financial reporting, and business valuations. A misclassification can result in incorrect tax treatment, disallowance of deductions, or unintended capital gains, making it both practically important and technically complex.

At its core, the challenge arises because many assets possess dual characteristics—an asset used in business may also appreciate in value, while a capital asset may occasionally be deployed for business purposes. This overlap creates room for interpretation, dispute, and litigation. An asset may be purchased for business purposes, held like an investment, and later sold for a profit, making classification far from straightforward.

The tax implications of classification are significant. Business assets allow the assessee to claim expenses such as depreciation, repairs, and maintenance, reducing taxable income, whereas capital assets do not permit such deductions, with only capital gains taxed upon sale. As a result, assessee may prefer to treat assets as business assets to maximise deductions and reduce immediate tax liability. However, such preferences often trigger disputes with tax authorities, as aggressive classification without clear justification on intention, usage, and transaction characteristics can lead to scrutiny, reassessment, and litigation.

This ambiguity is further compounded by the Income Tax Act, which defines capital assets under Section 2(14) but does not formally define business assets. Business assets, on the other hand, are generally understood as assets used for carrying on a business or profession, such as stock-in-trade, machinery, or other operational assets.

This is where legal principles intersect commercial realities. Before examining the broader guidelines and judicial tests that help resolve classification disputes, it is essential to ground the discussion in two foundational statutory concepts:

• What qualifies as a “capital asset”, and
• How the term “business” is defined under the Act.

These statutory definitions form the starting point for any analysis, as they help differentiate between assets held with an intention to earn long-term appreciation and activities carried out with a profit-making motive in the ordinary course of trade.

2. Legal Framework

2.1 Capital Asset

As per the Section 2(14) of Income Tax Act,1961,”capital asset” means—

(a) property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession.

(b) any securities held by a Foreign Institutional Investor which has invested in such securities in accordance with the regulations made under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992).

However, some assets are excluded from the definition. These exceptions include: stock-in-trade, consumable stores, or raw materials held for business purposes; personal effects used by the taxpayer or their family for personal use (other than jewellery, archaeological collections, drawings, paintings, sculptures, or any work of art); agricultural land located in rural areas (i.e., land outside specified municipal limits or population criteria); and certain bonds issued by the Central Government, such as Gold Bonds or Special Bearer Bonds. These exclusions ensure that assets held for business trading, daily personal use, or located in non-urban agricultural regions are not subjected to capital gains taxation under the Act.

2.2 Business

As per the Section 2(14) of Income Tax Act,1961,”business” includes any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture.

Therefore, the definition of the term “capital asset” is very wide and any kind of property except those falling in the excluded category is a capital asset.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post Capital Asset vs Business Asset – Why Classification Matters in Taxation appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Working Paper No. P-24029/34/2025-IPR-VII, Dated: 08.12.2025

1. Background

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has constituted a Committee to examine the interface between Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and copyright law in India. Rapid adoption of AI models—particularly those trained using large datasets containing copyrighted material—has raised questions on legality, ownership, consent, liability, and compensation mechanisms.

Given the global debate on whether AI training constitutes fair use, infringement, or permitted data mining, the Committee has been tasked with reviewing the adequacy of India’s current copyright regime.

2. Scope of Examination

The Committee will assess:

• Whether the existing Copyright Act and related jurisprudence adequately address the use of copyrighted works in AI training
• The implications of:

1. 1. Text and data mining (TDM)
   2. Replicative output
   3. Derivative content generated by AI
   4. Attribution and authorship

• The need for new carve-outs, exceptions, or licensing mechanisms that can balance:

1. 1. Innovation incentives
   2. Copyright protection
   3. Commercial exploitation safeguards

The objective is to examine whether India’s legal framework provides sufficient clarity for creators, platform developers, dataset curators, and AI enterprises.

3. Need for Possible Legislative Amendments

The Committee has been asked to determine whether:

• Existing copyright exceptions, including those relating to research, transient storage, or fair dealing, are sufficient in the context of AI training
  or
• Legislative amendments, regulatory guidance, or model licensing frameworks are required to:

1. 1. Protect rights holders
   2. Enable lawful and scalable AI innovation
   3. Provide certainty to market participants

The review also covers ownership of AI-generated works, originality thresholds, and attribution responsibilities.

4. Working Paper Released for Consultation

As part of its consultative process, Part I of the Working Paper has been released for public and stakeholder feedback.

Stakeholders such as:

• Technology companies
• AI developers and research institutions
• Publishers, authors, and content creators
• IP lawyers, civil society bodies, and policy experts

are invited to submit comments to help shape the future regulatory and legislative position around generative AI and copyright compliance.

5. Policy Significance

The initiative aims to:

• Reduce uncertainty surrounding use of copyrighted material in large-scale dataset training
• Provide predictable legal norms for AI development and monetisation
• Strengthen creator rights and attribution safeguards
• Enable a balanced ecosystem that protects innovation without undermining original copyright

India’s approach may influence market models, licensing practices, and global data-sharing norms, given the increasing scale of AI development and cross-border technology operations.

Click Here To Read The Full Update

The post DPIIT Reviews Copyright Rules for Generative AI Training appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Pristine Industries Ltd., In re [2022] 142 taxmann.com 583 (AAR–RAJASTHAN)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.P. Meena, Member (Central Tax) & M. S. Kavia, Member (State Tax)
• Rohit Jain, CA for the Applicant.

Facts of the Case

The applicant, a registered manufacturer of PP/HDPE woven sacks, initiated installation of a rooftop solar power generating plant of more than 620 kW on the roof of its factory for captive consumption through a work order covering design, supply, storage, civil work, erection, testing, and commissioning. It procured solar panels, transformers, meters, wiring, and related items, and treated the plant as plant and machinery to be capitalised. The matter was accordingly placed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).

AAR Held

The AAR held that the rooftop solar power generating plant, though immovable as it is fastened to structures attached to the earth, falls within ‘plant and machinery’ as defined in the explanation to Section 17(5) of the CGST Act/Rajasthan GST Act, which includes apparatus, equipment, and machinery fixed to earth by foundation or structural support while excluding land, building, telecom towers, and pipelines outside the factory premises. The authority held that Section 16 of the CGST Act/Rajasthan GST Act permits input tax credit subject to prescribed conditions and that the restriction in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act/Rajasthan GST Act concerning construction of immovable property on own account does not apply to plant and machinery. It further held that the solar plant was used for captive generation in the manufacturing process and therefore the bar on blocked credit was not attracted. The authority concluded that input tax credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services used for setting up the plant is admissible subject to compliance with Section 16 and capitalisation requirements.

The post ITC Allowed on Rooftop Solar Plant Used for Captive Consumption | AAR appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

PR no. 2025-2026/1666; Dated: 09.12.2025

1. Regulatory Context

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has released a draft circular proposing enhanced disclosure requirements on transaction costs associated with foreign exchange (FX) transactions undertaken by retail users. The proposal is part of RBI’s ongoing efforts to improve transparency, pricing clarity and consumer protection in India’s retail FX market.

2. Previous Disclosure Framework (January 2024)

In January 2024, RBI mandated that Authorised Dealers (ADs) must:

• Provide mid-market mark/bid and ask price for:

1. 1. Foreign exchange derivative contracts, and
   2. Foreign currency interest rate derivative contracts

• Communicate this information to retail users before execution, and
• Include the same in the deal confirmation or term sheet

This ensured that retail market participants were able to view reference pricing benchmarks, helping them understand spreads and pricing outcomes more transparently.

3. Proposed Disclosure of Transaction Cost Components

Taking the transparency initiative further, the draft circular proposes that Authorised Dealers must mandatorily disclose all transaction cost elements for:

• Foreign exchange cash transactions, and
• Foreign exchange spot contracts,

offered to retail users

Transaction cost elements may include:

• Remittance fees
• Currency conversion charges
• Foreign exchange rate applied
• Margin or spread components
• Any additional charges or deductions embedded in the exchange rate or settlement amount

The requirement is aimed at enabling retail users to understand the true cost of transacting, rather than relying solely on headline conversion rates.

4. Scope and Target Users

The disclosure framework applies to retail market participants, including individuals and small enterprises, who often lack visibility into embedded spreads or cross-border remittance charges.

The obligation is placed on Authorised Dealers, i.e., banks and other RBI-permitted entities dealing in FX.

5. Market Consultation

RBI has sought public and industry feedback on the draft proposal.

• Comments are invited from banks and market participants
• Last date for submission – January 9, 2026

Stakeholder feedback will assist RBI in refining the disclosure design, operational format and system readiness expectations.

6. Regulatory Intent

The proposal aims to:

• Improve pricing transparency and fairness for retail FX customers
• Increase competitive market pricing and informed decision-making
• Reduce disputes and misunderstandings associated with hidden fees or spreads
• Strengthen trust in market conduct and supervisory oversight

The initiative also aligns with global regulatory practices that emphasise clear disclosure of FX transaction costs to non-institutional consumers.

7. Compliance Considerations for Authorised Dealers

ADs would be required to:

• Build system logic and display standards for transaction cost disclosures
• Provide pre-execution visibility of all fees and embedded charges
• Incorporate cost details into confirmations or payment summaries
• Train client-facing staff on communication protocols and disclosure norms
• Update documentation, product notes and platform interfaces

Failure to comply could lead to supervisory findings, customer disputes or disclosure breach penalties once implemented.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post RBI Proposes Mandatory FX Transaction Cost Disclosure for Retail Users appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Pravin Valya Malavkar vs. Srini Link [2025] 181 taxmann.com 142 (HC-Gujarat)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Mrs M.K. Thakker, J.
• Thakkar & Pahwa, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Dipak R. Dave for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner-workman was terminated from service. The Labour Court passed an award directing the employer to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 100 per cent back wages. On the employer’s challenge, the High Court modified the award to the extent of 50 per cent back wages.

The employer reinstated the petitioner and paid 50 per cent back wages calculated on the last drawn wages, which the petitioner accepted. The petitioner filed an application under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking computation and recovery of back wages at Minimum Wages Act rates.

The Labour Court rejected the application on the ground that back wages had been paid as per the last drawn wages and, in the absence of any specific direction in the award to pay at Minimum Wages Act rates, such relief could not be granted under Section 33C of the Act.

It was noted that while granting relief of reinstatement, the Labour Court had not directed to give consequential benefits, nor had it specified that back wages were to be paid as per the Minimum Wages Act, the Labour Court was justified in declining the claim of the petitioner for minimum wages.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the leave encashment as well as bonus, even if said relief was to be given, would be granted at the time of retirement, but not by interpreting the award in terms of continuity of service, as the Reference Court granted no relief of consequential benefit.

Thus, the Labour Court was justified in denying relief, which the petitioner prayed for in the application under section 33C(2), and, therefore, the petition was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Dena Bank v. Kiritkumar T. Patel 1998 AIR SC 511 (para 7).

The post No Minimum Wages or Bonus When Reinstatement Order Gives No Consequential Benefits | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation vs. Clifford Chance Pte Ltd [2025] 181 taxmann.com 254 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• V. Kameswar Rao & Vinod Kumar, JJ.
• Puneet Rai, SSC, Ashvini Kr., Rishabh Nangia & Gibran, JSC for the Appellant.
• Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Kunal Pandey, Tanmay & Adityya Vohra, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee was a non-resident company incorporated in Singapore. It engaged in legal advisory services. It provided legal advisory to Indian clients, partly rendered remotely from outside India and partly by two of its employees who visited India to render such services.

The Assessing Officer (AO) passed draft assessment orders proposing additions, as the assessee constituted a permanent service establishment in India due to the physical presence of its employees in India for 120 days. AO also contended that the assessee constituted a virtual service permanent establishment in India. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dismissed the assessee’s objections. AO passed final assessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13), and the assessee filed an appeal to the Delhi Tribunal.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO, holding that a service PE requires actual performance of services in India by employees physically present there. Since the assessee rendered services for only 44 days after excluding vacation, business development, and standard days the 90-day threshold for a service PE in AY 2020-21 was not satisfied.

High Court Held

The matter reached the Delhi High Court. The High Court held that Article 5(6) of the DTAA contemplates that an enterprise shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the contracting state through its employees or other personnel only if the activities within the contracting state continue for a period aggregating to 90 days in any fiscal year. The words “within a Contracting State” and “through employees or other personnel” contemplate rendition of services in India by the employees of the non-resident enterprise, while mandating a fixed nexus, a physical footprint within India.

The term ‘within’ has a specific territorial connotation, and in the absence of personnel physically performing services in India, there can be no furnishing of services ‘within’ India. It is such a rendition of services by employees present within the country that would constitute a service permanent establishment. AO’s view that, as a result of rapid digitalisation, services, including consultancy services, can be provided virtually without the physical presence of employees in the contracting state, cannot be accepted. It is found that the DTAA contemplates no such eventuality. The concept of a virtual service permanent establishment is not mentioned anywhere in the DTAA.

In the absence of any such provision, the revenue’s argument would be at variance with the express provisions of the DTAA, as interpreted above. It is not for courts to read in concepts which are not expressly provided for by the treaty. The guiding principle here is that language which is not explicitly included in treaty provisions cannot be artificially read into such provisions by way of judicial fiction.

Accordingly, the AO’s contention that a virtual service permanent establishment existed for the relevant assessment years was rejected.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Clifford Chance PTE Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 160 taxmann.com 424 (Delhi – Trib.) [Para 1] Affirmed
• ABB FZ-LLC v. Dy. CIT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 86 (Bengaluru – Trib.)/[2017] 166 ITD 329 (Bengaluru – Trib) [Para 53]
• Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO [2013] 39 taxmann.com 70 (Madras)/[2014] 224 Taxman 237/[2013] 361 ITR 575 (Madras) (para 55)
• Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd. v. Additional Director of Income-tax [2025] 176 taxmann.com 783/478 ITR 238/306 Taxman 241 (SC)/2025 SCC OnLine SC 1506 (para 57)
• AB LLC and BD Holdings LLC v. The Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services Tax Court Johannesburg, Case No. 13276, decided on 15.05.2015 (para 58)
• Spain v. Dell Tribunal Supremo, STS 2861/2016; Case No. 1475/2016, dated 20-06-2016 (para 59) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd. v. ADIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 783/478 ITR 238/306 Taxman 241 (SC) (para 9)
• Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO [2013] 39 taxmann.com 70 (Madras)/[2014] 224 Taxman 237 (Madras)/[2013] 361 ITR 575 (Madras) (para 11)
• ABB FZ-LLC v. Dy. CIT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 86 (Bengaluru – Trib.)/[2017] 166 ITD 329 (Bengaluru – Trib.) (para 12)
• DIT v. E-Funds IT Solution [2014] 42 taxmann.com 50 (Delhi)/[2014] 226 Taxman 44 (Delhi)/[2014] 364 ITR 256 (Delhi) (para 18)
• Asstt. DIT v. E-Funds IT Solution Inc. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 240 (SC)/[2017] 251 Taxman 280 (SC)/[2017] 399 ITR 34 (SC) (para 19)
• DIT (International Taxation) v. Morgan Stanley & Co. [2007] 162 Taxman 165 (SC)/[2007] 292 ITR 416 (SC) (para 19)
• Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC)/[2021] 281 Taxman 19 (SC)/[2021] 432 ITR 471 (SC) (para 25)
• DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV [2016] 68 taxmann.com 8 (Delhi)/[2016] 238 Taxman 577 (Delhi)/[2016] 382 ITR 114 (Delhi) (para 25)
• CIT v. Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd., [2024] 467 ITR 302 (Del)/[2024] 467 ITR 302 (Del) (para 25)
• Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/[2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) (para 25)
• AB LLC and BD Holdings LLC and The Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services [Case No. 13276, dated 15-05-2015] (para 58)
• Spain v. Dell, Tribunal Supremo, [Case No. 1475/2016, dated 20-06-2016] (para 59).

The post No Virtual Service PE Under India–Singapore DTAA | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

PR No. 81/2025; Dated: 09.12.2025

1. Objective of the Initiative

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (IEPFA) jointly conducted the fourth “Niveshak Shivir” in Jaipur. The programme is part of a nationwide outreach initiative aimed at:

• Reducing the stock of unclaimed assets, unpaid dividends, and unclaimed shares, and
• Facilitating timely resolution of pending investor claims

The event underscores SEBI’s and IEPFA’s commitment to improving investor protection, financial inclusion, and grievance redressal efficiency.

2. Facilitation for Long-Pending Claims

The Shivir specifically catered to:

• Unpaid dividend claims
• Unclaimed shares and securities
• Claims that have been pending for six to seven years or more, due to incomplete documentation or procedural delays

A dedicated facilitation setup allowed participants to directly submit documentation, clarify procedural requirements, and obtain on-site support to expedite processing.

3. On-the-Spot KYC and Nomination Updates

To minimise future investor grievance and settlement hurdles, the programme also provided:

• Instant KYC updation
• Nomination updates for demat and folio accounts
• Support for correction of personal details or record discrepancies

These on-the-spot services helped investors regularise account information, a key prerequisite for settlement of unclaimed dividends and shares.

4. Resolution of IEPFA Claim Issues

Investor participants received assistance with:

• IEPFA Form submission
• Reconciliation of multiple claim filings
• Clarification of documentation sufficiency
• Support for signature, affidavit or indemnity requirements
• Process guidance for dematerialisation or transmission-related claims

This structured support addressed systemic bottlenecks and improved claim turnaround time.

5. Participation and Outreach Impact

The day-long Shivir witnessed strong investor engagement, with more than 301 investors and claimants participating from Jaipur and nearby regions. The scale of participation reflects:

• High demand for simplified claim resolution
• Awareness of investor grievance mechanisms
• Greater confidence in collaborative facilitation between SEBI, IEPFA, RTAs and market intermediaries

6. Broader Policy Significance

The Niveshak Shivir initiative is expected to:

• Help reduce the growing pool of unclaimed financial assets
• Strengthen investor education and documentation discipline
• Encourage timely KYC updates and nomination filings
• Build digital and procedural access to financial entitlements
• Improve the efficiency of IEPFA claim processing and record validation

Together, these efforts enhance investor protection and capital market trust, especially among retail investors and heirs pursuing legacy claims.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post SEBI–IEPFA Hold Niveshak Shivir to Resolve Unclaimed Dividend and Share Claims appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Mavenir Systems (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2025] 181 taxmann.com 197 (Karnataka)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
• Rohan Shah, Senior Counsel, Mohammed Anajwalla & Sandeep Huilgol, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Aravind V. Chavan, Adv. & H. Shanthi Bhushan, ASGI for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner exported services without payment of tax and filed refund claims of unutilised ITC under Section 54 of the CGST Act/Karnataka GST Act. The jurisdictional authority sanctioned the refund. In replies to the SCNs issued during departmental review, the petitioner submitted eBRCs (electronic bank realisation certificates) and FIRCs (foreign inward remittance certificates) with particulars; however, the appellate authority set aside the sanctions and rejected the refund on the ground of alleged non-production of these documents. Parallel recovery proceedings culminated in an adjudication order and issuance of DRC-07. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the finding of the appellate authority that eBRCs/FIRCs were not produced was factually incorrect because the petitioner’s replies on record enclosed such documents. The court further held that details of foreign remittances were available with the departmental authorities, and alleged non-production could not defeat a refund claim for export of services under Section 54 of the CGST Act/Karnataka GST Act, Section 16 of the IGST Act, and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules/Karnataka GST Rules. The court held that the impugned appellate orders, SCN, adjudication order, and recovery notices were unsustainable. It accordingly directed the departmental authorities to grant the refund as originally sanctioned along with applicable interest.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Nokia Solutions and Networks India (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CCT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 65 (Kar) (para 8) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Nokia Solutions and Networks India (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CCT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 65 (Kar) (para 7)
• ABB India Ltd. v. Union of India [2020] 373 ELT 205 (Kar) (para 7)
• Handicrafts & Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Ltd. v. Jt. Secretary, M.F. (D.R.) 2018 359 ELT 170 (Mad) (para 7)
• Commissioner of Customs v. Jindal Drugs Ltd [2018] 360 ELT 988 (Bom) (para 7)
• Zandu Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [2014] 51 taxmann.com 396/48 GST 746/[2015] 315 ELT 520 (Bom) (para 7)
• Adwaith Lakshmi Industries Ltd v. Ministry of Finance 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 22146 (para 7)
• Genpact India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2022] 144 taxmann.com 201/[2023] 95 GST 46/68 GSTL 3 (Punj & Har) (para 7)
• Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II [2023] 148 taxmann.com 461/97 GST 820/73 GSTL 161 (Delhi) (para 7)
• Ohmi Industries Asia (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner, CGST [2023] 150 taxmann.com 409/98 GST 566/75 GSTL 26 (Delhi) (para 7)
• Xilinx India Technology Services (P.) Ltd. v. Special Commissioner Zone VIII [2023] 154 taxmann.com 312/99 GST 948/78 GSTL 24 (Delhi) (para 7)
• Boks Business Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST [2023] 154 taxmann.com 72/100 GST 254/78 GSTL 393 (Delhi) (para 7).

The post Refund for Export of Services Cannot Be Denied When eBRC/FIRC Submitted | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source