CIRCULAR HO/19/34/11(5)2025-AFD-POD1/I/188/2025’; Dated: 08.12.2025

1. Regulatory Context

SEBI has allowed Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) to either:

1. Launch new schemes exclusively for accredited investors or Large Value Funds (LVFs), or
2. Convert existing schemes into such AI-only or LVF structures.

The revised framework provides regulatory relaxations to funds catering to these investor segments, acknowledging their sophistication, risk appetite, and ability to evaluate complex fund strategies.

2. Mandatory Naming Requirement

Any scheme that operates exclusively for:

• Accredited investors, or
• Large Value Funds (LVFs)

must explicitly include in its scheme name:

• “AI only fund”, or
• “LVF”

This mandatory nomenclature fosters transparency, clarity for investors, and system-level standardisation for intermediaries and market infrastructure institutions.

3. Migration of Existing Schemes

Existing AIF schemes may migrate into AI-only or LVF structures, provided:

• Positive consent is obtained from 100% of existing investors
• Migration cannot be executed through a deemed consent or negative option mechanism
• The migration will only take effect after receipt of explicit affirmative consent from all unit holders

This ensures investor protection, clear disclosure, and alignment with revised risk–return expectations.

4. Post-Conversion Compliance

Once an existing scheme is successfully converted:

• Fund managers must update the scheme name to reflect its new status as an “AI only fund” or “LVF”
• Managers must intimate SEBI and the depositories within 15 days of conversion
• Depositories and market intermediaries will then carry out system-level updates, ensuring:

1. 1. Correct classification in reporting and fund databases,
   2. Accurate identifiers for filings, transactions, and holdings

5. Regulatory Intent

SEBI’s modification seeks to:

• Promote innovation and product flexibility within AIF structures
• Allow sophisticated investors to access specialised, high-risk strategies with fewer regulatory constraints
• Simplify compliance for funds serving investors who do not require extensive regulatory micromanagement
• Encourage market depth and product variety in India’s alternative investment ecosystem

6. Compliance Considerations for Fund Managers

AIFs and investment managers must:

• Review investor eligibility criteria before scheme launch or conversion
• Ensure disclosures, consents, and scheme documentation comply with SEBI’s directives
• Plan system, reporting, and operational updates in advance for seamless conversion
• Maintain clear communication with SEBI, depositories, and distribution platforms

Non-compliance may lead to regulatory scrutiny, reporting issues, or operational delays.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post SEBI Allows AIFs to Launch or Convert to AI-Only and LVF Schemes appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

1. Question

India Tech Industries Limited hereinafter referred to as “the company” is engaged in the business of importing and distributing machinery components. The company entered into CIF agreement with Aussie Tech Inc., an Australian manufacturer of specialised automotive parts for supply of transmission modules. As per the agreement, the Aussie Tech dispatched a consignment of transmission modules from the port of Sydney on 12th April 2025, with the shipment expected to arrive at the port of Chennai later that month.

While the goods were still in transit and had not yet entered Indian territorial waters, the company negotiated a high sea sale with Meta Drive Engineering Limited, an Indian manufacturing company. The company executed a high sea sale agreement in favour of Meta Drive and endorsed the bill of lading, thereby transferring title and risk to Meta Drive during the voyage itself. Thus, after such high-sea sales Meta Drive has got full responsibility for customs clearance and post-arrival obligations.

Despite transferring the goods in transit, the company remained contractually bound to pay Aussie Tech under the original purchase contract, even if Meta Drive defaulted. This obligation exposed the company to credit risk, as its liability to the supplier continued irrespective of Meta Drive’s payment timing. Further, the company faced a form of inventory risk during the transit period because, until the high sea sale agreement was executed and accepted by Meta Drive, the company bear the commercial risk associated with identifying an alternative buyer. The company also asserts that it had complete discretion to determine the resale price in the high sea sale to Meta Drive and hence it earned a trading margin rather than a commission.

However, the management of the company is of belief that the company acted as an agent in the aforesaid transaction as it did not handle logistics, insurance, or customs obligations, all of which were passed on directly to Meta Drive. Moreover, the company never took physical possession of the goods. Thus, the company’s role was merely of arranging procurement rather than fulfilling a substantive performance obligation.

Based on the commercial substance of the transaction and the extent of inventory risk, credit risk, control over goods, and pricing discretion, whether the company should be treated as a principal or an agent for revenue recognition purposes under Ind AS 115?

2. Relevant Provision

Ind AS 115 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers

Para B34 of Ind AS 115

When another party is involved in providing goods or services to a customer, the entity shall determine whether the nature of its promise is a performance obligation to provide the specified goods or services itself (ie the entity is a principal) or to arrange for those goods or services to be provided by the other party (ie the entity is an agent).

Para B35 of Ind AS 115

An entity is a principal if it controls the specified good or service before that good or service is transferred to a customer. However, an entity does not necessarily control a specified good if the entity obtains legal title to that good only momentarily before legal title is transferred to a customer…..

Para B36 of Ind AS 115

An entity is an agent, if the entity’s performance obligation is to arrange for the provision of the specified good or service by another party. An entity that is an agent does not control the specified good or service provided by another party before that good or service is transferred to the customer. When (or as) an entity that is an agent satisfies a performance obligation, the entity recognises revenue in the amount of any fee or commission to which it expects to be entitled in exchange for arranging for the specified goods or services to be provided by the other party. An entity’s fee or commission might be the net amount of consideration that the entity retains after paying the other party the consideration received in exchange for the goods or services to be provided by that party.

Para B37 of Ind AS 115

Indicators that an entity controls the specified good or service before it is transferred to the customer (and is therefore a principal) include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) the entity is primarily responsible for fulfilling the promise to provide the specified good or service. This typically includes responsibility for the acceptability of the specified good or service…

(b) the entity has inventory risk before the specified good or service has been transferred to a customer or after transfer of control to the customer…

(c) the entity has discretion in establishing the price for the specified good or service. Establishing the price that the customer pays for the specified good or service may indicate that the entity has the ability to direct the use of that good or service and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits…

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post Ind AS 115 | Principal vs Agent in High Sea Sale Transactions appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Notification no. S.O. 5659(E); Dated: 08.12.2025

1. Commencement Timeline

The Central Government has notified 15 December 2025 as the date on which the following provisions of the Banking Amendment Act, 2025 shall come into force:

• Section 2
• Section 6
• Section 7
• Section 8
• Section 9
• Section 14

These amendments formally operationalise changes to certain statutory computation methods, reporting cycles, and compliance timelines under banking law.

2. Acts Amended

The notified provisions amend, among others:

• The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
• The Banking Regulation Act, 1949

Both statutes are foundational to the measurement and supervision of liquidity, reserves, and regulatory reporting in India’s banking system.

3. Substitution of “Alternate Fridays”

A key harmonisation measure in the amendments is the replacement of statutory references to “alternate Fridays” with more conventional calendar references such as:

• Last day of the fortnight
• Last day of the month
• Last day of the quarter

3.1 Rationale

This substitution:

• Aligns statutory compliance schedules with standard accounting periods
• Reduces interpretational ambiguity
• Enhances consistency in supervisory reporting, reconciliation, and audit review

4. Rationalisation of Compliance Timelines

The amendments streamline timelines relating to:

• Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR)
• Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR)
• Regulatory returns submitted to RBI
• Assessment of penalties for delay or non-compliance

4.1 Regulatory Intent

The changes aim to:

• Simplify regulatory computation requirements for banks
• Improve operational clarity for treasury, finance, and compliance teams
• Reduce administrative friction associated with legacy fortnight-based obligations
• Support uniform supervisory oversight and predictability

5. Impact on Banks and Supervision

From 15 December 2025, banks must:

• Align CRR/SLR calculations and reserve tracking with the last-day cycle
• Integrate revised timelines into internal MIS, liquidity monitoring, and core banking modules
• Adjust reporting calendars for returns, reconciliation, attestation, and supervisory disclosures
• Ensure penalty calculations reflect the new statutory periods

The amendments also streamline RBI’s supervisory analytics, improving comparability across entities and enhancing systemic liquidity visibility.

6. Compliance Considerations

Banks and financial institutions should:

• Update internal manuals, SOPs, and calendar controls
• Reconfigure automation logic in treasury systems
• Reassess cut-off workflows for reserve averaging, shortfalls, and remedial funding
• Train operational teams on the new statutory cadence

Failure to integrate revised schedules may result in computational errors, delayed reporting, or supervisory findings.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification

The post Govt Notifies 15th Dec. 2025 for Banking Laws Amendment Enforcement appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Kusum Sahgal vs. ACIT - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 720 (Delhi-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member & S Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member
• Sanjay Kumar Jain, CA & Saurav Jain, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT (DR) for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee sold shares of a company and invested the sale proceeds in purchasing a residential property. She claimed a deduction under section 54F for the investment in the residential house.

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee held a 50% share in a residential property along with her husband. Therefore, she owned more than one residential property. Consequently, the AO denied the deduction under section 54F. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the AO.

The matter reached the Delhi Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed a deduction under section 54F(1) for the investment made in a residential unit, which was part of an ongoing construction project by DLF. The record further showed that the assessee owned a commercial flat and also had a property in Mehrauli, which was agricultural land governed by the DLR Act, 1954, and she did not hold ownership rights despite being in possession. Therefore, this land was classified as agricultural, not residential. The Noida flat, in which the assessee held a 50% share, was the only residential property she owned at the time of selling the original asset.

In light of these material facts, and following the judicial precedents relied upon, the Tribunal held that joint ownership of a residential property at the time of sale of the original asset does not disentitle the assessee from claiming a deduction under section 54F. Accordingly, the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• ITO v. Sheriar Phirojsha Irani [IT Appeal No. 2835/Mum./2024, dated 27-09-2024] (para 9) Followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• ITO v. Sheriar Phirojsha Irani [IT Appeal No. 2835/Mum./2024, dated 27-09-2024] (para 9).

The post Joint Ownership in Residential Property Doesn’t Bar Section 54F Exemption | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Notification no. S.O. 5683(E); Dated: 08-12-2025

1. Background

Following the enforcement of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IRC, 2020), certain implementation challenges emerged regarding continuity of adjudication and dispute settlement mechanisms. These challenges arose because the new tribunals envisaged under the Code were yet to be constituted, while existing dispute resolution bodies continued to function under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA, 1947).

To address this transitional ambiguity and ensure uninterrupted adjudication, the Government has notified the Industrial Relations Code (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2025.

2. Clarification Issued Under the Order

The Order clarifies and legally confirms that:

• Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Industrial Tribunals constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
• Shall continue to adjudicate both:

1. 1. Pending cases already before them, and
   2. Fresh cases filed after commencement of the IRC, 2020

This continuity remains in force until the corresponding courts or tribunals are constituted under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.

3. Purpose and Regulatory Intent

The Order has been issued to:

• Avoid jurisdictional uncertainty or procedural delays during the transition to the new Code
• Ensure that dispute adjudication, conciliation, and finality of labour disputes continue without disruption
• Provide legal confidence to employers, workers, trade unions and adjudicating forums
• Prevent administrative vacuum until new bodies are formed under the updated statutory architecture

The clarification ensures that no industrial dispute remains stalled due to structural transition or statutory ambiguity.

4. Significance for Stakeholders

For Industrial Dispute Resolution

• Ensures continuity and timely disposal of industrial disputes
• Avoids multiplicity of proceedings or contest on maintainability

For Employers and Workers

• Provides clear certainty on where disputes must be initiated, heard, or transferred
• Avoids operational paralysis in labour dispute management

For Tribunals

• Confirms that existing judicial and quasi-judicial bodies retain full authority
  until alternative institutions under the IRC are formally notified and operationalised

5. Transitional Framework

Until new tribunals are constituted under the IRC:

• All matters in existing labour courts and tribunals shall continue without transfer or re-filing
• Jurisdiction, procedural powers and adjudication pathways remain unchanged under the IDA framework
• New cases can be registered, adjudicated, and concluded under existing tribunals

This prevents legal uncertainty and preserves continuity of adjudication, enforcement and labour justice.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification

The post Govt Clarifies Existing IDA Tribunals Will Continue Under IRC Transition appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Ramesh Chander – [2025] 181 taxmann.com 277 (Article)

1. Introduction

It is not very unusual for an Appeal Court or Authority to set aside the matter back to the lower Court/Authority for fresh trial or determination. It is not the law that the Appeal Courts or Authority enjoy absolute discretion to do so. Under the law as well as because of the court laid down norms such a set aside is possible only in limited circumstances. Even under the Income Tax Act, 1961 these restrictions are equally applicable both in the context of the First Appellate Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal.

2. Position of Law under the Income Tax Act

2.1 “Section 251 – Powers of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals)

(1) In disposing of appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers:

(a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment;

Provided that where such appeal is against an order of assessment made under section 144, he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment;”

It is important to note that proviso enable the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {for short, hereinafter also referred to as ‘the CIT(A)} to set aside assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment was not there prior to 01-10-2024.

2.2 Relevant Provisions in the Context of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are Found Contained u/s 254(1) of the Act Which Read As Under

“The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.”

3. Analysis

Though bare provisions u/s 254(1) extracted above do not include powers which are specifically conferred on the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) u/s 251(1) but section 254(1) is very widely worded. They are wide enough to include the power to ‘set aside’ an assessment or an appeal for fresh assessment/determination by the Assessing Officer or for fresh decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is important to note that power to set aside or remand is an inseparable power of any Appellate Authority be it the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or for that matter the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Though the power to set aside is an incidental power but is required to be used very sparingly else very purpose of appeal would get defeated.

3.1 How Powers of CIT(A) to Aside are Different from ITAT

Phraseology as used in the proviso inserted from 01-10-2024 in clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 251″where such appeal is against an order of assessment made under section 144, he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment;” clearly shows that the CIT(A) can set aside the assessment only when the assessment is made u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is important to bear in mind the use of the word ‘may’ which clearly shows that the CIT(A) is not mandated to always set aside the assessment which had been framed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case even in a case where assessment is framed u/s 144, the CIT(A) may decide to adjudicate the appeal on the merits of the additions or the disallowances or the issues made subject matter of the appeal before him. Thus, in view of the specific facts of a given case it will always be open for the Assessee to impugn the decision of the CIT(A) who set aside an assessment which had otherwise been framed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act.

3.3 When Can Order of the CIT(A) to Set Aside an Assessment be Challenged

At the very outset, it is relevant to note that any interpretation to propose that in view of the proviso as brought out on the statute book from 01-10-2024 it is not possible to impugn the order of the CIT(A) in setting aside an assessment which had otherwise been framed u/s 144 of the Act, to be re-done by the Assessing Officer {for short, hereinafter also referred to as ‘AO’} will be an absurd interpretation as such an interpretation will unclothe or disable effectively an Assessee to claim relief in appeal preferred before him especially in cases like where the Appellant is able to show how the jurisdiction by the AO was incorrectly exercised or why on the facts and in the circumstances the additions or disallowance made were not called for in law.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] Limitation On the Power to Set Aside Matter for Fresh Determination appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Union of India [2025] 181 taxmann.com 143 (HC-Calcutta)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
• Manik Das for the Petitioner.
• Nandlal Singhania, Sr. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent employee was working in the petitioner company. After his death, his son ‘A’ raised a dispute seeking compassionate employment in his father’s place.

The Appropriate Government referred the said dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal dismissed the son’s claim but went on to hold that the wife of the deceased employee was entitled to monetary compensation from the date of the death of her husband till she attained 60 years of age.

The petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s order. It was noted that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass an award within the terms of reference, and it cannot go beyond those terms to pass an award.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the Tribunal directed that the wife of the deceased employee was entitled to monetary compensation from management till she attained 60 years of age, such direction was beyond the terms of reference, as the same was not even incidental to the reference preferred.

Therefore, the direction given by the Tribunal to management to pay monetary compensation to the wife of the deceased employee was to be quashed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa AIR 1964 SC 1746 (para 7).

The post Tribunal Cannot Grant Relief Beyond Terms of Reference | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

PR No. 2025-2026/1661; Dated: 08.12.2025

1. Regulatory Overview

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued the ‘Rupee Interest Rate Derivatives (IRD) Directions, 2025’, providing a consolidated and updated regulatory framework governing Rupee IRD markets in India. The Master Direction modernises the earlier regime to reflect evolving market structures, product innovation, and wider risk-hedging needs across the financial system.

These Directions reinforce the supervisory architecture for banks, financial institutions, market intermediaries, corporates, and non-resident participants engaged in Rupee IRD transactions.

2. Purpose of the Updated Framework

The revised Directions aim to:

• Strengthen market integrity, transparency, and governance
• Support risk management requirements for financial institutions, corporates, and investors
• Align regulatory norms with global IRD market practices
• Promote orderly, efficient, and well-supervised development of Rupee interest rate derivatives

The Directions are intended to facilitate hedging, improve liquidity, enhance price discovery, and reduce systemic risk through better oversight and market discipline.

3. Scope of Coverage

The Directions govern Rupee IRD transactions undertaken:

• In the Over-the-Counter (OTC) market, and
• On recognised stock exchanges in India

This dual-framework approach provides regulatory uniformity across both bilateral and exchange-traded derivative segments.

4. Key Regulatory Provisions

The Master Direction lays down requirements in the following broad areas:

4.1 Eligible Participants

Rules governing:

• Banks, financial institutions, primary dealers, corporates, NBFCs, and other entities permitted to participate in Rupee IRD markets
• Conditions for participation and product usage

4.2 Transactions with Non-Residents

• Norms for non-resident entities entering Rupee IRD transactions for hedging, investment, or market-making
• Conditions applicable to cross-border counterparties and settlement mechanisms

4.3 OTC Market Guidelines

• Standardised terms, documentation, conduct, and risk-management rules for bilateral trades
• Requirements on valuation, margining, settlement, and product usage

4.4 Reporting Requirements

• Mandatory transaction reporting to trade repositories
• Enhanced visibility and supervisory analytics for RBI to monitor systemic risk
• Timelines and formats for reporting of bilateral and exchange-cleared trades

4.5 Information and Compliance Obligations

• Participants must furnish information sought by RBI for supervisory or market-monitoring purposes
• Maintenance of records, internal controls, and audit readiness

5. Effective Date

The Directions will come into force from March 01, 2026.

From this date onward:

• All new Rupee IRD transactions must comply with the updated Directions
• Market participants must align systems, documentation, reporting pipelines, and compliance frameworks with the revised norms

6. Regulatory Intent and Market Impact

The Directions are expected to:

• Enhance market transparency, supervisory insight, and investor confidence
• Improve risk-hedging access for banks, NBFCs, corporate treasuries, and institutional players
• Deepen liquidity and broaden product usage in interest rate derivatives
• Support the stable development of fixed-income markets and financial stability

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post RBI Issues Rupee Interest Rate Derivatives Directions 2025 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular No. e-file No. 110/IFSCA/Banking Regulation/2020-21; Dated: 08.12.2025

1. Regulatory Overview

The International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) has issued amendments to Module 16 of the IFSCA Banking Handbook, which governs the framework for provision of credit by IFSC Banking Units (IBUs). The amendments clarify the applicability of certain lending restrictions and strengthen governance standards relating to related-party lending and conflict-free decision-making.

2. Non-Applicability of Section 20(1) Restrictions to Foreign Bank IBUs

Section 20(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, imposes restrictions on banks in India in respect of granting loans or advances to:

• any of its directors,
• firms or companies in which a director is interested, or
• certain related entities.

2.1 Clarification by IFSCA

The IFSCA has clarified that these restrictions will not apply to foreign bank IBUs operating in GIFT IFSC.

This exemption recognises:

• the international nature of foreign bank operations in GIFT IFSC,
• the broader regulatory architecture governing foreign banks, and
• the need to maintain parity with global wholesale banking practices within IFSC.

3. Policy Requirements for Related-Party Lending

Despite the above exemption, IBUs must adhere to enhanced governance and conflict-mitigation requirements, especially when extending loans or advances to:

• a director of the Parent Bank, or
• any related party of the Parent Bank

3.1 Mandatory Internal Policy

IBUs are required to:

• formulate a policy on loans and advances, covering approval norms, due diligence, credit appraisal, documentation, exposure conditions, and risk controls
• ensure that credit decisions are free from conflicts of interest, particularly in cases involving directors, parent-entity relationships, or connected lending arrangements

This reinforces sound internal checks, prudential oversight, and independent decision processes, even where statutory prohibitions are relaxed.

4. Governance Expectations

The amendments emphasise that:

• IBUs must maintain transparent approval processes
• Any lending decision involving directors or related parties must be subject to:

1. 1. independent review,
   2. board-level or committee-level supervision, and
   3. robust record-keeping and documentation

The intent is to prevent undue influence, preferential terms, or misaligned credit decisions, while still permitting legitimate wholesale lending market activities within IFSC.

5. Regulatory Intent

IFSCA’s amendments seek to:

• align IFSC credit operations with international banking norms for wholesale financial centres
• reinforce prudential safeguards where statutory exemptions apply
• ensure risk-based governance, conflict-free decision-making, and policy-driven internal controls
• promote a stable credit ecosystem within GIFT IFSC without constraining legitimate cross-border financing arrangements

6. Compliance Considerations for IBUs

IBUs must:

• draft or update their internal lending policy, with explicit provisions for related-party and director-linked exposures
• maintain clear conflict-mitigation procedures, including abstention, independent approval, and controlled documentation
• review credit committee frameworks to ensure independence and traceability
• monitor exposures to parent-entity directors and affiliates to prevent reputational or supervisory concerns

Non-compliance may invite enhanced supervisory review, inspection findings, or operating restrictions.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post IFSCA Strengthens Governance for Related-Party Lending by IBUs appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

CIRCULAR HO/13/19/13(2)2025-ITD-1_VIAP/I/187/2025; Dated: 08.12.2025

1. Background

SEBI has issued a clarification on its earlier circular relating to digital accessibility compliance by all regulated entities (REs). The clarification addresses queries raised by intermediaries and market infrastructure institutions and outlines a more practical, phased approach to readiness assessment and reporting.

Digital accessibility norms are intended to ensure that investors—especially those with disabilities—can access, navigate, and use digital platforms and investor-facing systems without barriers.

2. Investor’s Right to Digital Accessibility

SEBI has mandated that “Investor’s Right to Digital Accessibility” be integrated as a component of all Investor Charters issued by regulated entities.

This requirement:

• Recognises digital accessibility as a core investor protection right
• Reinforces SEBI’s commitment to inclusive access across securities market platforms
• Ensures that investors are aware of their entitlement to accessible digital services and grievance escalation avenues

3. Revised Compliance Timelines

Instead of appointing an auditor by December 14, 2025, REs are now required to:

• Submit the readiness and compliance status of each digital platform by March 31, 2026
• Use the standardised format prescribed by SEBI for platform-level reporting

This revision provides regulated entities with additional time to evaluate current accessibility gaps, upgrade systems, and prepare structured compliance information.

4. Digital Platform Coverage

The reporting requirement applies to:

• Mobile applications
• Web portals and investor interfaces
• Onboarding platforms
• Transaction, account management, or market access platforms
• Any digital touchpoint used by investors or clients

Each digital platform must be evaluated separately for its accessibility status.

5. Grievance Redressal Via SCORES

Regulated entities must:

• Track, acknowledge, and resolve accessibility-related complaints through the SCORES grievance redressal system
• Ensure that accessibility concerns receive the same priority and complaint closure requirements as other investor grievances

This ensures standardised grievance transparency and supervisory monitoring.

6. Audit and Assurance Requirements

Although the immediate auditor appointment requirement has been deferred, SEBI has clarified that:

• REs must conduct regular accessibility audits
• Audits must be performed by qualified and certified accessibility professionals
• Audit outcomes must be used for ongoing remediation and platform enhancement

The expectation is for periodic technical review, using recognised accessibility standards (e.g., WCAG), rather than ad hoc or one-time assessment.

7. Compliance Intent

SEBI’s regulatory intent behind the clarification is to:

• Promote digital inclusion and accessibility equity
• Provide REs with practical and phased compliance timelines
• Ensure structured self-assessment and reporting rather than compliance only via auditor certification
• Embed accessibility into core consumer protection and market transparency frameworks

8. Key Compliance Actions for REs

Regulated entities should now:

• Map all digital platforms and assess current accessibility readiness
• Use the prescribed SEBI format for reporting readiness by March 31, 2026
• Ensure integration of accessibility rights into Investor Charters
• Strengthen internal SOPs, product design, technology standards, and remediation timelines
• Put formal mechanisms in place to handle accessibility complaints through SCORES
• Schedule periodic audits with certified accessibility professionals

Failure to comply may invite regulatory review, investor complaints, supervisory measures, or digital platform usage restrictions.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post SEBI Mandates Accessibility Readiness Reporting for Digital Platforms appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source