Editorial Team – [2026] 185 taxmann.com 951 (Article)

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

1. FASB Issues Accounting Standards Update on Initial Measurement of Paid-in-Kind Dividends on Equity-classified Preferred Stock

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has issued a new Accounting Standards Update (ASU) to address how companies should measure paid-in-kind (PIK) dividends on equity-classified preferred stock at initial recognition. The guidance is based on a recommendation from the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) and aims to bring clarity to an area where existing US GAAP was silent.

In practice, the absence of clear guidance has led to different measurement approaches being followed by entities. This inconsistency not only affected the carrying value of preferred stock in the balance sheet but also had implications for the calculation of earnings available to common shareholders, thereby reducing comparability across financial statements.

• Improving Consistency in Financial Reporting – The ASU introduces a uniform approach to address this diversity. By standardising how PIK dividends are measured, the guidance is expected to improve comparability between companies and provide investors with more consistent and meaningful information, particularly in assessing the economic value and liquidation preference of preferred stock.
• Measurement Aligned with Contractual Terms – Under the new guidance, entities are required to measure PIK dividends initially based on the dividend rate specified in the preferred stock agreement. This approach links the accounting treatment directly to the contractual terms, reducing subjectivity and enhancing transparency.

Source – Financial Accounting Standard Board

2. IASB April 2026 Update – Focus on Financial Instruments, Leases, Equity Method and Disclosure Reforms

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), in its April 2026 meetings, continued redeliberations across several key projects, including financial instruments, leases, business combinations and cash flow reporting. The discussions largely focused on refining existing proposals, improving clarity in application and addressing stakeholder feedback.

• Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity – The IASB reaffirmed its proposed approach for classifying financial instruments that contain contingent settlement provisions, with some targeted clarifications. It emphasised that such requirements apply where settlement depends on uncertain future events beyond the control of both issuer and holder. The Board also clarified certain inconsistencies in IAS 32, which states that dividend payments are recognised as expenses if shares are wholly classified (instead of recognised) as liabilities to resolve an inconsistency within the Standard. Further, additional clarity was provided on key terms such as “liquidation” and “not genuine”, ensuring a more consistent interpretation in practice. However, the IASB decided to exclude measurement-related aspects of such liabilities from this project and instead address them separately under its amortised cost project.
• IFRS 16 – Limited Changes Emerging from Post-implementation Review – As part of its post-implementation review of IFRS 16, the IASB considered feedback on lease-related cash flow disclosures. Rather than making broad changes, the Board decided to explore requiring more detailed disclosure of lease cash outflows and their classification within the cash flow statement. At the same time, it chose not to take action on concerns relating to classification differences or comparability between leasing and borrowing transactions, indicating that the current framework remains largely appropriate.
• Amortised Cost Measurement – Refining Effective Interest Rate Guidance – The IASB discussed improvements to the accounting for changes in the effective interest rate (EIR). It tentatively decided that entities should adjust the EIR when there is a re-estimation of contractual cash flows related to time value of money or credit risk. This aims to bring greater consistency and clarity in applying IFRS 9.
• Equity Method – Targeted Clarifications on Cost and Additional Investments – In its ongoing work on the equity method, the IASB confirmed several proposals to improve clarity in accounting. It decided to include deferred tax effects in determining the cost of an associate and clarified the treatment of costs incurred when issuing instruments to gain significant influence. The Board also confirmed that gains arising from bargain purchases of additional ownership interests should be recognised in profit or loss, while providing relief in situations where prior losses were not recognised due to the investment being reduced to nil.
• Business Combinations – Streamlining Disclosure Requirements – The IASB continued its deliberations on improving disclosures related to business combinations. It decided to retain a threshold-based approach for identifying which acquisitions require detailed performance disclosures, while simplifying the criteria by removing certain thresholds. The Board also refined proposals relating to disclosure exemptions, particularly in situations where disclosure could breach legal or regulatory requirements. Additionally, it reaffirmed its proposal to include cash flows from future restructurings and asset enhancements in value-in-use calculations under IAS 36.
• Statement of Cash Flows – Improving Definition of Cash Equivalents – As part of its broader project on cash flow reporting, the IASB proposed clarifying that cash equivalents should be held primarily to meet short-term cash commitments rather than for investment purposes. This is intended to improve consistency in how entities apply the definition under IAS 7.
• Consistent Application – IFRIC Agenda Decisions Finalised – The IASB also reviewed several agenda decisions issued by the IFRS Interpretations Committee and did not object to them. These decisions, covering areas such as foreign exchange differences, lease arrangements, fair presentation and expense disclosures, will be finalised and published, providing additional interpretative guidance without changing existing standards.

Overall, the April 2026 discussions reflect the IASB’s continued focus on refining existing standards, addressing practical challenges and enhancing consistency and transparency in financial reporting.

Source – IFRS Foundation

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Global Financial Insights] FASB Issues Accounting Standards on Initial Measurement of Paid-in-kind Dividends and More appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Parth Patel – [2026] 185 taxmann.com 949 (Article)

Imagine a century-old charitable trust—quietly running a charitable activity in a small town of India, year after year. Its trustees never imagined that one day the trust would need to periodically reaffirm its eligibility before the tax authorities. Yet, that reality has already been part of the compliance landscape since the introduction of the five-year revalidation regime under Sections 12AB and 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (From year 2021).

Now, with the arrival of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (“ITA 2025”), effective from Tax Year 2026–27, this familiar framework has not disappeared—it has been recast and renumbered. The earlier provisions governing charitable registration and donation approvals—Sections 12A/12AB and Section 80G(5)—now find their place under Section 332 (Registration of Trusts and Institutions) and Section 354 (Approval for Donor Deduction).

1. The Architecture – Section 332 at a Glance

Section 332 is the successor to Section 12AB and governs registration of non-profit organisations. Who can apply? The list is familiar – public trusts, registered societies, Section 8 companies, Universities, government-aided institutions, and others notified by the Board (Section 332(1)).

Eligibility under Section 332(2) is anchored on two essentials:

(a) the entity must be constituted in India for charitable or public religious purposes under Section 2(23); and

(b) its properties must be held for the benefit of the general public under an irrevocable trust.

A private trust or a family-benefit arrangement will simply not qualify.

2. Seven Scenarios, Seven Clocks – The Section 332(3) Table

The heart of Section 332 is a seven-row table under sub-section (3). Each row represents a distinct life-stage scenario of a charitable entity. Choosing the wrong row—and hence the wrong section code on Form 105—can render your application invalid. Here is a practitioner’s map:

3. The 10-Year Validity Clause—Quietly Written, Rarely Discussed

A noteworthy practitioner insight lies in Section 332(5) of the Income-tax Act, 2025. Where an entity applies under Sl. Nos. 3 to 7 of the prescribed Table, and its total income for each of the two immediately preceding tax years does not exceed ₹5 crore, the standard validity period of five years is automatically enhanced to ten years. Importantly, this benefit operates by default under the statute, and no separate application is required to avail the extended validity. Practically, however, it is advisable that the assessee specifically highlight this eligibility in its submission before the PCIT/CIT, so that the extended ten-year validity is duly considered and reflected in the registration order.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] Trust Registration in the New Income Tax Act 2025 | A New Era Dawns appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Celebration Blenders & Distilleres (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 800 (Calcutta)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Kausik Chanda, J.
• Mainak Bose, Sr. Adv., Akshat Agarwal & Ms Doyel Dey, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv., Tapan Bhanja & Anindya Kanan, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, a registered person under the CGST Act, had opted into the Quarterly Return Monthly Payment (QRMP) scheme under the CBIC Notification dated 10-11-2020, being eligible on account of its turnover being below Rs 5 crores. It was submitted that the assessee’s aggregate turnover crossed Rs 5 crores in December 2025, thereby mandating an opt-out from the QRMP scheme with effect from the quarter commencing January 2026 and a transition to monthly return filing. The assessee contended that its attempt to opt out through the GST common portal was unsuccessful due to system constraints, and its representations before the GST Grievance Redressal Forum remained pending without resolution. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the assessee was entitled to be migrated out of the QRMP scheme upon crossing the prescribed turnover threshold, and such entitlement could not be defeated on account of technical limitations of the GST portal. It was held that the statutory scheme under Section 37, Section 39, and Section 146 of the CGST Act, read with the West Bengal GST Act, permits monthly return filing once the eligibility conditions for QRMP cease to exist. The Court observed that procedural constraints or portal incapacity cannot override substantive statutory rights, particularly where the assessee attempted timely action. It further directed the GST authorities and GSTN to carry out necessary backend modifications to enable migration to monthly filing with effect from March 2026. The assessee was also permitted to file returns upon payment of applicable late fee and interest, and was granted liberty to seek a refund.

The post HC Allows QRMP Exit and Monthly GST Filing Migration appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: UCO Bank vs. SK Shrivastava - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 282 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.K. Maheshwari & Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
• Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR for the Appellant.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent-employee was serving as a Branch Manager when suspicious transactions in two accounts came to the bank’s notice. On 04.10.2010, he submitted a three-month notice for voluntary retirement to the appointing authority under the Pension Regulations.

Subsequently, on 11.11.2010, the Zonal Office issued a show-cause notice regarding the alleged transactions. Later, on 20.12.2010, the Zonal Office informed him that his request for voluntary retirement could not be considered. Upon expiry of the notice period, he ceased working with effect from 16.05.2011. Thereafter, on 29.06.2011, the branch informed him that his request for voluntary retirement had not been accepted.

Nearly eight months after he had severed his employment, the bank issued a charge sheet on 05.03.2012 alleging suspicious transactions, followed by an order of dismissal from service.

The respondent filed writ petitions seeking terminal benefits on the basis of voluntary retirement and also challenged the charge-sheet and dismissal order. The High Court held that the respondent stood retired upon completion of the three-month notice period, or in any case from 16.05.2011, and accordingly directed the grant of terminal benefits.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that since the notice of voluntary retirement was not refused by the competent authority within the stipulated period, it became effective automatically by efflux of time upon expiry of the three-month period on 04.01.2011. It was further held that the show-cause notice issued by the bank did not indicate any intention to initiate disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, could not be construed as such.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the subsequent issuance of the charge-sheet and the consequential order of dismissal were not justified in law. The respondent was thus held entitled to all consequential post-retiral benefits.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No. 824 of 2018, dated 07.01.2019 (para 43) affirmed
• UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor 2007 taxmann.com 2206 (SC)/(2007) 6 SCC 694
• UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2008) 5 SCC 257 (para 41)
• Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam (2016) 12 SCC 724
• State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3369
• UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani (2024) 13 SCC 109 (para 42) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor 2007 taxmann.com 2206 (SC) (para 9)
• UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2008) 5 SCC 257 (para 9)
• Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam (2016) 12 SCC 724 (para 9)
• State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal (1999) 4 SCC 293 (para 14)
• Tek Chand v. Dile Ram (2001) 3 SCC 290 (para 14)
• Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam (1977) 4 SCC 441 (para 19)
• B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat (1978) 2 SCC 202 (para 21)
• Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir 1995 Supp (1) SCC 76 (para 24)
• State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3369 (para 42)
• UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani (2024) 13 SCC 109 (para 42).

The post Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted on Notice Expiry | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Commissioner of Income-tax (IT) vs. Dipendu Bapalal Shah - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 654 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• M. S. Karnik & Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ.
• Ms Shilpa Goel, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Rohan P. Shah, Rajath Bharadwaj, Advs. & Ms Vidushi Maheshwari for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee was an individual and a non-resident for the relevant assessment year. The case was reopened based on information received from the French Government regarding deposits made by the assessee in its HSBC Bank, Geneva, account. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to provide the original CD of the HSBC Bank account statement or a signed and notarised consent waiver form. However, the assessee failed to provide the same. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation regarding the source of deposits, the Assessing Officer (AO) added the said amount to the assessee’s income.

On appeal, CIT(A) deleted the additions made by AO. The matter then reached the Mumbai Tribunal, which upheld the CIT(A) order. The matter then reached the Bombay High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that there was no dispute that the assessee was a non-resident under Section 6 of the Income-tax Act. AO had made additions based on the Base Note of the foreign bank account of HSBC Bank, Geneva, as income that had escaped assessment. However, the CIT(A) found that the HSBC Bank, Geneva, bank account was opened in 1997. The assessee was, in fact, a non-resident since 1979.

Thus, during 1997, the year in which the account was opened, and even before and after this year, the assessee continued to be a non-resident under the Act. It is a well-settled position in law that a non-resident having money in a foreign country cannot be taxed in India if such money has neither been received nor deemed to be received, nor has it accrued or arisen to him or been deemed to accrue or arise to him in India.

The CIT(A) referred to the provisions of Section 5(2) read with Section 9 of the Act. The assessee, being a non-resident, CIT(A) held that being a ‘non-resident’, having money in a foreign country, cannot be called upon to pay income tax on that money in India unless it satisfies the test of taxability under the provisions of the Act, which in the instant case was not satisfied. It is incumbent upon the Revenue to establish any tax liability strictly within the statutory parameters of the law. The department was unable to discharge the burden of proof. Accordingly, the additions made by AO were not justified.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (IT)-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Dipendu Bapalal Shah [2018] 95 taxmann.com 171 (Mumbai)/[2018] 171 ITD 602 (Mumbai)[Para 14] Affirmed

List of Cases Referred to

• Soignee R. Kothari v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 340/386 ITR 466 (Bombay) (para 5)
• GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 54 taxmann.com 347/371 ITR 453/231 Taxman 18 (SC) (para 6)
• Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC) (para 12).

The post No Tax on Foreign Account of Non-Resident Without India Nexus | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: V Ships India (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 795 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
• Bharat Raichandani & Bhagrati Sahu, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P, Himanshu Takke & Amar Mishra, AGPs for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, engaged in ship management services for a UK recipient under a service agreement, challenged the rejection of refund claims. It was stated that in the pre-GST regime, similar services were treated as export of services and refunds were duly granted, whereas under the GST regime the petitioner discharged IGST and claimed refund treating the supplies as zero-rated supply. The Department issued notices alleging that the services constituted intermediary services on a principal–agent basis and accordingly rejected the refund claims. The appellate authority dismissed the appeals. The petitioner contended that entitlement to a refund was intrinsically linked to the interpretation of the agreement, which had not been examined in the appellate proceedings. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the impugned appellate orders were unsustainable as they failed to examine the governing service agreement and the actual nature of services rendered under the contract. It was observed that the determination of whether the supplies constituted intermediary services or zero-rated export services under Section 16 read with Section 13 of the IGST Act necessarily required an assessment of the contractual terms. The Court noted that the agreement was not considered, which vitiated the adjudicatory process, particularly when the entitlement turned on contractual obligations and the factual characterisation of services. It further held that similar matters had been dealt with in earlier decisions, in which failure to examine the contract resulted in remand of the proceedings. Accordingly, the appellate order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

List of Cases Referred to

• Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2025] 175 taxmann.com 685 (Bombay) (para 7)
• Magna Automotive India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 14325 of 2024, dated 8-7-2025] (para 7)
• KC Overseas Education (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2025] 178 taxmann.com 35/102 GSTL 66 (Bombay) (para 7)
• Vistex Asia Pacific (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2026] 182 taxmann.com 883/106 GSTL 279 (Bombay) (para 7)
• Lubrizol Advance Materials India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2026] 185 taxmann.com 270 (Bombay) (para 8).

The post Refund Denial in Ship Services Set Aside – Contract Review Needed | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Editorial Team – [2026] 185 taxmann.com 950 (Article)

World Corporate Law News provides a weekly snapshot of corporate law developments from around the globe. Here’s a glimpse of the key corporate law update this week.

1. Securities Law

1.1 FCA Consults on Changes to IPO Research Rules

On 27 April 2026, the FCA released that it is consulting on removing the requirement for a 7-day delay before connected research on an IPO can be published. It is also consulting on removing rules that require firms to provide independent analysts with the same information as their own research analysts.

These rules were introduced in 2018 to encourage the production of unconnected research, but they have not achieved that aim. However, feedback from the market suggests that they have also added complexity, risk and cost to the IPO process, and have put the UK at a competitive disadvantage compared with other international listing venues.

Removing these requirements would simplify the IPO process and improve the conditions for listing in the UK. This would support the FCA’s work to strengthen the UK’s capital markets and support growth and competitiveness.

Jon Relleen, Director of Infrastructure & Exchanges, Supervision, Policy & Competition Division, said:

“Market feedback has been clear that these rules can introduce additional risk, cost and complexity without delivering the intended benefits. We are committed to reducing friction, supporting growth, and ensuring the UK remains a competitive and trusted place for companies to raise capital.”

No other rule changes are proposed at this stage. However, the paper includes discussion questions on whether further reform of the 2018 IPO information flow rules may be appropriate.

This consultation helps deliver one of the commitments set out in the FCA’s letter to the Prime Minister in December 2025.

Source – Press Release

1.2 FCA spearheads global action to stop illegal finfluencers

On 24 April 2026, the FCA announced that it had led an international initiative to curb illegal finfluencers who put consumers’ money at risk.

Seventeen regulators worldwide participated in this ‘week of action’, which began on 20 April 2026 and included enforcement measures, consumer awareness campaigns, and educational programmes aimed at finfluencers seeking to operate responsibly.

In the UK, the FCA:

• Secured a guilty plea from Geordie Shore’s Aaron Chalmers for unlawful financial promotions on social media. Criminal proceedings have also been initiated against two other individuals for similar offences.
• Issued four targeted warning letters to individuals suspected of engaging in unauthorised financial promotions.
• Published 34 warning alerts against unauthorised firms or individuals and updated a further 14 alerts.
• Requested the takedown of 120 social media accounts hosting illegal finfluencer content. Across these accounts, the FCA identified 1,267 unlawful financial advertisements, which had reached at least 2,338,372 UK users. Notably, 66% of these advertisements originated from firms or individuals already included on the FCA’s Warning List.

The FCA has urged social media platforms to take a more proactive role in preventing illegal financial promotions at the source, noting that current efforts are insufficient to enforce their own content policies.

Source – Press Release

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [World Corporate Law News] FCA Consults on Changes to IPO Research Rules appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Vidya Sunderam – [2026] 185 taxmann.com 947 (Article)

1. Introduction

Over the last decade, proxy advisory firms have assumed an increasingly important role in shareholder decision-making in India. In the mergers and acquisitions landscape, the recommendations of proxy advisors have been shaping shareholder voting outcomes and, consequently, the certainty and timing of M&A transactions.

This development is driven by rising institutional shareholding in Indian listed companies, with investors relying on proxy advisory firms to evaluate complex transactions prior to exercising their voting rights. As a result, proxy advisors have emerged as a key interface between companies and public shareholders.

Their enhanced influence also extends to corporate governance, particularly in shaping how boards evaluate, structure, and justify M&A transactions.

This shift has necessitated more robust transaction planning, including a clear articulation of the impact of the proposed transaction on shareholders.

2. Evaluation of M&A Transactions

Proxy advisory firms evaluate M&A transactions with a primary focus on the fairness and equity of the transaction from the perspective of public shareholders, as well as its long-term implications. While statutory compliance provides the foundation, greater emphasis is placed on shareholder interests and broader corporate governance standards, particularly fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Their evaluation extends to the substantive terms of the transaction, including whether the consideration and overall structure are balanced from a shareholder perspective. In doing so, proxy advisory firms examine whether the structure reflects an equitable allocation of value and is consistent with accepted corporate governance standards.

In addition, proxy advisory firms assess the decision-making process underlying the transaction. This includes the role of the board and its committees, the independence of the evaluation, as well as whether the transaction is supported by a coherent and credible rationale.

3. Emerging Patterns

Key patterns of proxy advisory observed in recent M&A transactions include:

• Heightened scrutiny on transactions involving promoter or related parties M&A transactions involving promoters or related parties have witnessed heightened shareholder opposition where proxy advisory firms have raised concerns regarding fairness or perceived imbalance. Such scrutiny has also extended to assessing whether the transaction structure confers any disproportionate benefit on promoters or related parties and whether adequate safeguards for minority shareholders are in place.
• Enhanced Disclosure Standards – In many listed mergers and restructurings, proxy advisory scrutiny has resulted in enhanced disclosures relating to valuation methodologies, assumptions, and the commercial rationale. Companies have supplemented or clarified their initial disclosures to address the concerns highlighted in proxy advisory reports. This has resulted in enhanced transparency in valuation methodologies, clearer articulation of assumptions, and a reasoned basis for the consideration or exchange ratio.
• Impact on Transaction Timelines and Execution – Proxy advisory scrutiny has resulted in additional disclosures, increased investor engagement, and delays or revisions to transaction terms, particularly where concerns are raised close to the date of shareholder voting. Transactions have faced shareholder resistance where the consideration was perceived to be inadequately justified, even where valuation methodologies were technically sound.
• Implications for Corporate Governance – Proxy advisory recommendations have increasingly considered post-transaction corporate governance arrangements, including board composition, control rights, and minority shareholder protections, which, in turn, have impacted shareholder voting and overall support for the transaction. In this context, fairness opinions are considered as an additional layer of validation but are not treated as determinative.
• Scrutiny of Intra-group Arrangements and Restructurings – In group restructurings, proxy advisory firms have closely examined transparency and fairness to assess whether minority shareholders are adversely impacted, particularly whether value is fairly allocated between promoters or related parties and minority shareholders, which has resulted in changes to the structure.
• Influence on Investor Perception – Even where transactions secure the requisite statutory approvals, adverse or qualified proxy recommendations may influence investor perception of the fairness and legitimacy of such transactions. The commercial rationale is often assessed alongside valuation, and references to strategy or synergy are expected to be supported by a demonstrable linkage to value creation.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] Proxy Advisory Firms | Implications on Deal Outcomes and Corporate Governance in Indian M&A appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: K.G. Seshadri vs. Trustees of State Bank Of India [2026] 185 taxmann.com 352 (SC)[08-04-2026]

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Prashant Kumar Mishra & N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
• Ms N S Nappinai, Sr. Adv., V. Balaji, B. Dhananjay, Atul Sharma, Vinod K. Nair, C. Kannan, Md. Nizamuddin, Anuraj Mishra, Advs. & Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR for the Petitioner
• Sanjay Kapur, AOR, Surya Prakash, Ms Shubhra Kapur, Ms Mahima Kapur, Ms Mansi Kapur, Ms Santha Smruthi, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant was appointed as a clerk in the respondent bank. He left for abroad and, upon returning, sought to rejoin service, which the respondent bank declined.

On account of his unauthorised absence, the bank issued notices and, finding his response unsatisfactory, treated his services as voluntarily abandoned. The appellant thereafter filed a petition before the Labour Court seeking computation of pension.

The Labour Court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, holding that there was no pre-existing right under the pension rules. The High Court also dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant.

Supreme Court Held

On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant was never granted voluntary retirement, and his services were instead treated as voluntarily abandoned. Accordingly, his case did not fall within Rule 22(i)(c).

Further, as he had neither attained the age of 50 years nor completed 20 years of service at the relevant time, he was also ineligible under Rule 22(i)(a).

Therefore, since the appellant’s case did not fall under any of the applicable provisions, the Supreme Court held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A No. 1065 of 2022 dated 27.04.2022 (para 32) affirmed

List of Cases Referred to

• Rugmini Ganesh v. State Bank of India 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3884 (para 11)
• Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India v. Radhey Shyam Pandey [2020] 6 SCC 438 (para 11)
• Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju v. Branch Manager, State Bank of India [1997] 1996 taxmann.com 1680 (SC) (para 15)
• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak [1995] 1994 taxmann.com 2479 (SC) (para 15).

The post SC Denies Pension for Voluntary Abandonment of Service appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Gujral Sons vs. Union of India [2026] 185 taxmann.com 871 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Nitin Wasudeo Sambre & Ajay Digpaul, JJ.
• Nikhil Gupta, Rochit Abhishek, Prince Nagpal, Devang Dwivedi & Jiten Yadav, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Kshitij Chhabra, SPC, Madhav Anand, Shikhar Gupta, Shubham Mishra, Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Ankush Bhardwaj, Ms Anushka Mishra, Advs., Atul Tripathi, SSC, Santosh Kumar Rout, SC & Ashish Rawat, GP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was subjected to provisional attachment of its bank accounts by issuance of Form GST DRC-22 under Section 83 of the CGST Act and the Delhi GST Act during proceedings under the said enactments. The initial attachment remained operative and, upon expiry of the statutory period, lapsed by efflux of time. Subsequently, even after the completion of assessment proceedings by the order-in-original and during the pendency of appellate proceedings, the jurisdictional authorities issued a fresh provisional attachment on the same set of facts without any new material or change in circumstances. The petitioner contended that the successive invocation was impermissible after the expiry of the earlier attachment and the completion of assessment. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that re-imposition of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act and Delhi GST Act on an identical factual basis, after expiry of the earlier attachment by statutory efflux of time, was unsustainable. It was observed that once the assessment had concluded by order-in-original, any further exercise of power under Section 83 required fresh material or changed circumstances, which were absent in the present case. It was further held that failure to act within the validity period of the earlier attachment could not justify its revival in the absence of new grounds. Accordingly, the impugned attachment was held to be arbitrary and liable to be quashed, and relief was granted, including the defreezing of the petitioner’s bank accounts.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Kesari Nandan Mobile v. Asstt. CST [2025] 177 taxmann.com 481/111 GST 387/101 GSTL 177 (SC) (para 11)followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Kesari Nandan Mobile v. Asstt. CST [2025] 177 taxmann.com 481/111 GST 387/101 GSTL 177 (SC) (para 6).

The post Fresh GST Bank Attachment Without New Grounds Invalid | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source