Categories
Blog Updates

RBI Amends Debt Investment Rules for NRIs

RBI non-resident debt investment

Circular No. A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 06, Dated 10.04.2026

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued amendments to the Master Direction on Non-resident Investment in Debt Instruments, 2025, updating the regulatory framework governing such investments.

1. Objective of the Amendment

The amendment aims to:

  • Consolidate existing instructions relating to investments by Non-Resident Indians (NRIs)
  • Provide clarity on the use of debt instruments as collateral
  • Streamline regulatory provisions for better compliance and operational efficiency

2. Key Clarifications

2.1 Investments by NRIs

  • The circular consolidates guidelines relating to Permissible investments by NRIs in debt instruments
  • Ensures a clear and unified framework for such investments

2.2 Use as Collateral for Derivative Transactions

Provides clarity on:

  • Use of debt instruments as collateral
  • Specifically for exchange traded derivative transactions

This enhances flexibility while maintaining regulatory oversight.

3. Directions to Authorised Dealer Banks

Authorised Dealer (AD) Category-I banks are advised to:

  • Take note of the revised instructions
  • Inform their constituents about the changes

4. Regulatory Impact

The amendment is expected to:

  • Improve clarity and consistency in regulatory interpretation
  • Facilitate smoother investment and collateral usage
  • Strengthen compliance across market participants

5. Conclusion

The RBI’s amendment reflects a move towards a more integrated and transparent framework for non-resident investments in debt instruments, supporting both market efficiency and regulatory clarity.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post RBI Amends Debt Investment Rules for NRIs appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

SC Grants Pension Relief to SSCOs – PC Process Arbitrary

SSCOs pension deemed service

Case Details: Wg. Cdr. Sucheta EDN vs. Union of India - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 581 (SC)[24-03-2026]

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Surya Kant, CJI, Ujjal Bhuyan & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
  • Dr (Mrs) Menka GuruswamyHuzefa A. Ahmadi, Sr. Advs., Ms Garima SachdevaHansdeep SinghMs Shaswati ParhiBhumika YadavMs Divyanshi MauryaAnmol GuptaAtharva KhanapurkarLalit NagarAmrish Ranjan PandeySudhanshuNaveen KumarMs S. AmbicaAtul KumarAbhimanyu SharmaMs Deepali AtrejaArun GaurMs Rashmi SinghAlekh ApoorvaDeva Vrat AnandRajesh Kumar, Advs., Rohit KumarMs Pooja DharTarun GuptaRakesh KumarRahul Krishna, AORs for the Petitioner.
  • Mrs Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms Riddhi JadMs Shreya JainMs Anupriya SrivastavNitin Chowdhary P.Sachin SharmaMs Neha MalikAnuj Srinivas UdupaSantosh KumarAkshay AmritanshuMadhav SinhalChandra PrakashMadhav SinghalJagdish ChandraBhuvan KapoorDigvijay DhamSahil KaliaSiddharth GillChandan KumarMs Anju ThomasSanjeev KaushikSimranjeet Singh RekhiMs Bhumika YadavArjun MohaAnmol Chandan, Advs., Mukesh Kumar MaroriaSahil ChandraAkshay BhandariMs Astha Sharma, AORs & Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellants, being Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) commissioned in 2007, were considered for grant of Permanent Commission (PC) pursuant to HRP 01/2019. This consideration followed the earlier suspension of grant of PC to post-25 May 2006 SSCOs. However, the appellants were denied PC on the basis of Minimum Performance Criteria and comparative merit.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the appellants had been recorded in a regime where they were ineligible for PC and were not evaluated for long-term career progression. Accordingly, such ACRs could not be relied upon to deny grant of PC.

It was further noted that the Minimum Performance Criteria, introduced for the first time under HRP 01/2019, had been implemented in haste without affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to meet such criteria prior to the constitution of the first Selection Board in 2019.

The Court also held that the hurried implementation of HRP 01/2019, without providing adequate opportunity to comply with the newly prescribed criteria and without accommodating officers affected by intervening circumstances such as pregnancy, rendered the selection process arbitrary.

Further, the non-disclosure of the evaluation criteria and the methodology for computation of vacancies prior to the Selection Boards was held to be violative of principles of fairness and transparency.

Accordingly, while the grant of PC already made was not disturbed, the Court directed that SSCOs who were considered in all three Selection Boards held between 2019 and 2021 shall be entitled to a one-time relief of deemed completion of 20 years of qualifying service, along with consequential pensionary benefits, excluding arrears of pay, on the basis that they had completed the minimum qualifying service.

List of Cases Reviewed

  • Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 582 (SC) (para 34) followed

List of Cases Referred to

  • Babita Puniya v. Secretary 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116 (para 5.6.)
  • Sqn. Ldr. Lalit Kumar Tandon v. Union of India 2011 SCC OnLine AFT 191 (para 5.8.)
  • Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha v. Union of India (2021) 15 SCC 125 (para 6)
  • Lt. Col. Pooja Pal v. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 584 (SC) (para 16)
  • Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 582 (SC) (para 16).

The post SC Grants Pension Relief to SSCOs – PC Process Arbitrary appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

GST Order Invalid Due to Inadequate SCN Reply Time | HC

SCN reply period

Case Details: Golden Cryo (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 133 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
  • Dr Sujay KantawalaAnupam DigheMs Renita AlexMs Chandni Tanna for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, an exporter, filed a refund application for accumulated ITC on zero-rated supplies without payment of tax. It was submitted that a show cause notice (SCN) was issued in Form GST RFD-08 alleging fake invoices by suppliers but granted only seven days to reply instead of the prescribed period. It submitted a preliminary reply via email and sought a personal hearing; however, the proper officer passed an order in Form GST RFD-06 on the next day rejecting the refund without issuing any hearing notice or considering the reply. It was contended that such action violated the relevant GST provisions, which mandate a fifteen-day reply period and grant of hearing before adjudication. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that under Section 54 of the CGST Act and Maharashtra GST Act read with Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, a minimum period of fifteen days must be granted to reply to a SCN, and adjudication can be undertaken only after considering such reply and granting an opportunity of hearing. It held that curtailment of the reply period to seven days rendered the notice contrary to the statutory mandate. The Court further held that the denial of a personal hearing and the failure to consider the reply violated the requirement of fair procedure embedded in Section 75. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order was quashed with a direction to issue a fresh notice.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post GST Order Invalid Due to Inadequate SCN Reply Time | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

IFSCA Bars Multiple Fiduciary Roles in Same Scheme

IFSCA fiduciary role

Circular F. No. IFSCA-IF-10PR/7/2024-Capital Markets/10042026, Dated 10.04.2026

The International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) has issued a clarification on governance of schemes in IFSCs, mandating strict segregation of fiduciary roles to strengthen oversight and prevent conflicts of interest.

1. Segregation of Fiduciary Functions

The clarification provides that:

  • Fund Management Entities (FMEs) shall not appoint the same fiduciary to perform multiple roles for a single scheme
  • Specifically, a fiduciary cannot simultaneously provide:
    1. Fund administration
    2. Valuation services
    3. Audit services
    4. Financing services

2. Objective of the Clarification

The measure aims to:

  • Prevent conflict of interest
  • Ensure independent functioning of key service providers
  • Strengthen governance and investor protection

3. Compliance Requirement for Existing Schemes

  • Existing schemes must align with the new requirements
  • The deadline for compliance is 30th September 2026

4. Regulatory Impact

The clarification ensures:

  • Greater transparency and accountability
  • Improved checks and balances in fund operations
  • Enhanced trust in IFSC fund structures

5. Conclusion

This clarification reinforces IFSCA’s focus on robust governance standards, ensuring that fiduciary roles remain independent and conflict-free, thereby safeguarding investor interests in IFSC schemes.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post IFSCA Bars Multiple Fiduciary Roles in Same Scheme appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

IFSCA Mandates Approval for PSPs in RDA

Approval for PSPs in RDA

Circular No. IFSCA-FMPP0BR/3/2023-Banking 2026-27/01, Dated 10.04.2026

The International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) has clarified that Payment Service Providers (PSPs) must obtain prior approval to participate in Rupee Drawing Arrangements (RDA) as non-resident Exchange Houses.

1. Requirement of Prior Approval

  • PSPs intending to participate in RDA must seek prior approval from IFSCA
  • This aligns PSP participation with existing regulatory controls applicable to cross-border payment arrangements

2. Submission of Compliance Framework

PSPs are required to submit a detailed framework demonstrating compliance with:

  • Anti-Money Laundering (AML) norms
  • Combating Financing of Terrorism (CFT) requirements
  • Know Your Customer (KYC) guidelines
  • Other applicable legal and regulatory provisions

3. Extension of Existing Framework

  • The clarification extends existing approval requirements applicable to international payment systems within IFSC
  • Ensures uniform regulatory oversight across all such participants

4. Objective of the Clarification

The measure aims to:

  • Strengthen regulatory control over cross-border remittance channels
  • Ensure robust compliance and risk management
  • Enhance integrity and security of payment systems in IFSC

5. Conclusion

The mandate reinforces IFSCA’s commitment to a secure, compliant, and well-regulated payment ecosystem, ensuring that PSP participation in RDA is subject to stringent approval and oversight standards.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post IFSCA Mandates Approval for PSPs in RDA appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

DRC-01 Summary Not a Substitute for Statutory SCN | HC

DRC-01 vs SCN

Case Details: Arnab Kumar vs. State of Assam - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 107 (Gauhati)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Soumitra Saikia, J.
  • A K GuptaMs M DeyMs B SarmaR S Mishra, Advs. for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged demand proceedings on the ground that no proper show cause notice (SCN) was served, and only a summary in GST DRC-01 with an attachment showing tax determination was issued. It was submitted that such summary could not substitute a statutory notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner further contended that attachments to GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 lacked the digital signature or e-authentication as required, rendering them invalid. It was also submitted that despite requesting a personal hearing in GST DRC-06, no such opportunity was granted before passing the adverse order in GST DRC-07. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the issuance of a proper SCN specifying the reasons is a mandatory prerequisite for the initiation of proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act, and a summary in the GST DRC-01 cannot substitute for this statutory requirement. It held that the statutory scheme clearly distinguishes between a SCN and its summary, and both are required to be issued independently in accordance with Rule 142 of the CGST Rules. The Court also held that the requirement of granting a personal hearing under Section 75 is mandatory where requested or where adverse action is contemplated, and denial of such an opportunity vitiates the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted liberty to the jurisdictional officer under CGST to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with due process of law.

List of Cases Referred to

The post DRC-01 Summary Not a Substitute for Statutory SCN | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

GST on Canteen Recovery from Employees | AAR

GST canteen recovery employees

Case Details: Carraro India (P.) Ltd., In re [2026] 185 taxmann.com 253 (AAR-MAHARASHTRA)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • D.P. Gojamgunde & Ms Himani Dhamija, Member

Facts of the Case

The applicant operated a factory employing approximately 900 workers and maintained a statutory canteen facility in compliance with Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948. For this purpose, a third-party contractor was engaged, who supplied ready-to-eat meals within the factory premises and raised GST invoices upon the applicant, which were duly paid. The applicant recovered a fixed nominal amount from employees through salary deductions. It was submitted that no direct contractual relationship existed between the contractor and employees, and the recovery was only partial reimbursement. It was further contended that GST should not apply on the subsidised portion borne by it and that input tax credit (ITC) should be available as the provision of canteen facility was statutorily mandated. The matter was accordingly placed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).

AAR Held

The AAR held that the arrangement constituted two distinct supplies, one from the contractor to the applicant and another from the applicant to its employees, and that recovery from employees represented consideration for supply in the course or furtherance of business under Section 7 read with Section 9 of the CGST Act and Maharashtra GST Act. It was held that GST was leviable only on the amount recovered from employees, whereas the subsidized portion borne by the applicant qualified as a perquisite and was not taxable. On the issue of ITC, It was held with reference to Section 16 and Section 17(5) that although provision of canteen facility was obligatory under law, the contractor supplied services taxable at concessional rate which imposed a restriction on ITC, thereby barring the applicant from availing credit irrespective of statutory obligation or mode of operation of canteen. It was further held that such deductions did not qualify as supply.

List of Cases Reviewed

  • M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v/s CCE, Nashik (para 5.5.9)
  • Cema Electric Lighting Products India Private Limited v. CCE 2015 (37) STR 718 (Guj.) (para 5.5.9)
  • Cinemax India Limited v. Union of India MANU/GJ/1053/2011(para 5.5.9)
  • Indian Institute of Technology v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (para 5.5.9) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

The post GST on Canteen Recovery from Employees | AAR appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

[World Tax News] Brazil Releases Guidance on 10% Increase in Presumed Profit Rates and More

global tax news

Editorial Team – [2026] 185 taxmann.com 360 (Article)

World Tax News provides a weekly snippet of tax news from around the globe. Here is a glimpse of the tax happening in the world this week:

1. Brazil Releases Guidance on 10% Increase in Presumed Profit Rates

Brazil has issued Normative Instruction No. 2.306 dated 22 January 2026, providing guidance on the application of the 10% increase in presumed profit rates for companies with gross revenue exceeding BRL 5 million, as introduced by Complementary Law No. 224 of 26 December 2025.

Under the Presumed Profit (Lucro Presumido) regime, a simplified method for computing the tax base for Corporate Income Tax (IRPJ) and Social Contribution on Net Profit (CSLL) tax liability is determined by applying prescribed profit margins based on industry, rather than actual profits.

The Instruction clarifies that the 10% increase applies only to the portion of gross revenue exceeding BRL 5 million in a calendar year. This threshold is apportioned across quarterly periods, effectively applying the increase to quarterly revenues exceeding BRL 1,250,000.

In the final quarter, total annual gross revenue must be reassessed, and corresponding adjustments to IRPJ and CSLL are made in accordance with the prescribed procedures. These adjustments account for the application of the increased rate in earlier quarters and whether the annual threshold is ultimately exceeded.

Where excess IRPJ and CSLL have been paid in prior quarters and cannot be fully offset against the final quarter liability, the taxpayer may claim a refund of the surplus.

Source – Complementary Law No. 224

2. Belgium Approves New Capital Gains Tax on Financial Assets

On 2 April 2026, the Belgian Chamber of Deputies approved legislation introducing a new capital gains tax on financial assets. The scope covers financial instruments such as shares and bonds, as well as crypto-assets, savings-oriented insurance contracts, currencies, and investment gold.

The tax applies to individuals, certain non-profit entities, and private foundations that are tax resident in Belgium. It is levied at varying rates based on the category of gain:

  • Category A – 33% on internal capital gains, including transfers of shares to companies controlled by the transferor and/or their family;
  • Category B – Progressive rates ranging from 1.25% to 10% on gains from substantial shareholdings (at least 20%), with an exemption for gains up to EUR 1 million over a five-year period. Where shares are sold to a non-EEA entity, a flat rate of 16.5% applies, along with the EUR 1 million exemption;
  • Category C – 10% on gains from other financial assets, subject to an annual exemption of EUR 10,000, indexed up to EUR 15,000 for taxpayers with no capital gains in the preceding five years.

The law also provides that the tax applies only to gains accruing from 1 January 2026, with specific rules to determine the valuation of assets held as of 31 December 2025.

The legislation will enter into force upon publication in the Official Gazette and will apply retroactively from 1 January 2026. Withholding obligations for intermediaries will be effective from 1 June 2026, although taxpayers may opt out of withholding and instead self-assess their taxable gains.

Source – Sessional Paper 56K1244

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [World Tax News] Brazil Releases Guidance on 10% Increase in Presumed Profit Rates and More appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

SEBI Clarifies Broad-Based Fund Norms for AIFs

SEBI broad-based fund

Issue No.:1/9052/2026, Dated: 09.04.2026

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has provided clarification regarding the applicability of the broad-based fund requirement to Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) and their schemes under the Mutual Fund (MF) Regulations.

1. Applicability to Advisory/Management Services

SEBI clarified that:

  • The broad-based fund requirement applies to entities providing management or advisory services to AIFs
  • This ensures that such services are extended only to funds meeting prescribed diversification criteria

2. Assessment at Scheme Level

  • Compliance with the broad-based requirement shall be evaluated at the scheme level, and not merely at the fund level

This ensures granular compliance across different investment strategies within a fund.

3. Independent Compliance by Each Fund

  • Each fund, including feeder funds
  • Must independently satisfy the broad-based criteria

This prevents reliance on compliance at a group or umbrella level.

4. No Exemption for Domestic Entities

  • SEBI has clarified that domestic entities are not eligible for any exemption from this requirement

5. Conclusion

The clarification reinforces SEBI’s focus on investor diversification and regulatory consistency, ensuring that AIF structures and their schemes adhere to broad-based participation norms at an individual level.

Click Here To Read The Full Update

The post SEBI Clarifies Broad-Based Fund Norms for AIFs appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

RBI Circular on Faster Cross-Border Inward Payments

RBI cross-border inward payments

PR No. 2026-2027/56; Dated: 09.04.2026

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued a circular on guidelines to facilitate faster cross-border inward payments, addressing operational inefficiencies and delays in processing such transactions.

1. Objective of the Circular

The circular aims to:

  • Address frictions in inward cross-border payments
  • Ensure timely intimation of payment details to beneficiaries
  • Enable faster credit of funds to customer accounts

2. Key Focus Areas

The guidelines emphasise:

  • Prompt communication of inward remittance information
  • Reduction in processing delays at bank level
  • Improved coordination between messaging and credit systems

3. Enhancing Customer Experience

By streamlining processes, the RBI seeks to:

  • Improve transparency for customers
  • Reduce waiting time for receipt of international funds
  • Strengthen trust in the cross-border payment ecosystem

4. Conclusion

The circular reflects RBI’s continued push towards a faster, more efficient and customer-centric payment framework, ensuring that cross-border inward remittances are processed with greater speed and reliability.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post RBI Circular on Faster Cross-Border Inward Payments appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source