Categories
Blog Updates

RBI Amends Priority Sector Lending Framework 2026

RBI Priority Sector Lending Amendment 2026

Circular no. RBI/FIDD/2025-26/196 FIDD.CO.PSD.BC.No.11/04.09.001/2025-26 dated: 19.01.2026

1. Introduction: RBI Revises Priority Sector Lending Norms

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued the Priority Sector Lending (Amendment) Directions, 2026, through Circular No. RBI/FIDD/2025-26/196 dated 19 January 2026. These amendments aim to bring clarity, consistency, and regulatory alignment in the computation of Priority Sector Lending (PSL) targets across different categories of banks.

2. ANBC Computation: Key Clarifications Introduced

Under the amended framework, RBI has refined the calculation of Adjusted Net Bank Credit (ANBC). Certain long-term bonds and advances funded through FCNR(B) and NRE deposits have been excluded from ANBC computation. This clarification reduces ambiguity and ensures that PSL targets are calculated on a more accurate and comparable base.

3. Treatment of Off-Balance Sheet Exposures

The amended directions also align the treatment of off-balance sheet exposures with the updated prudential norms. RBI has ensured that such exposures are considered uniformly across banking institutions, thereby preventing inconsistencies in PSL reporting and compliance arising from divergent accounting or regulatory interpretations.

4. Guidance for Small Finance Banks (SFBs)

Special provisions have been introduced for Small Finance Banks (SFBs) transitioning into the PSL framework. The directions clarify the treatment of grandfathered loans, prevent double-counting of eligible advances, and specify that PSL targets for SFBs shall be fixed based on their first audited balance sheet post-transition.

5. Conclusion: Enhancing Uniformity and Regulatory Clarity

The RBI Priority Sector Lending (Amendment) Directions, 2026, strengthen the PSL framework by standardising ANBC computation, aligning exposure treatment, and providing clear transition guidance for SFBs. These changes are expected to improve regulatory consistency, transparency, and ease of compliance for banks while maintaining the policy objective of credit flow to priority sectors.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular 

The post RBI Amends Priority Sector Lending Framework 2026 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

[World Corporate Law News] ASIC Proposes Extending AFS Licence Relief

ASIC AFS Licence Relief Securitisation Entities

[2026] 182 taxmann.com 534 (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 ASIC proposes to extend relief for securitisation entities from holding an AFS licence

On January 20, 2026, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sought feedback on a proposal to remake a relief instrument to extend the exemption for securitisation entities from holding an Australian Financial Services (AFS) licence.

ASIC proposes to remake the Instrument on largely the same terms for a period of five and a half years.

ASIC Instrument 2016/272 exempts a securitisation entity from holding an AFS licence where it holds the securitisation product as a custodian or trustee or issues a securitisation product to:

(a) An AFS licence holder
(b) An entity that is exempted from holding an AFS licence or
(c) A wholesale client

Under the Legislation Act 2003, legislative instruments are repealed, or ‘sunset’, after 10 years, unless ASIC acts to preserve them.

Source : Official announcement

Click Here To Read The Full Article 

The post [World Corporate Law News] ASIC Proposes Extending AFS Licence Relief appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

New Labour Codes | Accounting Implications Explained

Accounting Implications Of New Labour Codes

[2025] 171 taxmann.com 681 (Article)

Introduction

The enactment of the New Labour Codes marks a significant shift in India’s employment and compensation framework, with far-reaching implications for employee benefit accounting. One of the most consequential changes relates to the redefinition of “wages” and its direct impact on gratuity and other defined benefit obligations accounted for under AS 15 and Ind AS 19. For professional accountants, this change raises important questions around recognition, timing, presentation, and disclosure of increased liabilities.

1. Key definitions and terminology under Ind AS 19

To understand the accounting implications arising from the enactment of the New Labour Codes, it is important to first become familiar with the key terms and definitions used in Ind AS 19. The relevant concepts are explained below.

1.1. Post-employee benefit plan

Post employee benefit plan are the formal or informal arrangements under which an entity provides post-employment benefits for one or more employee. Thus, under these plans, the benefits are given to the employees after employment. Further, the post-employment benefit plans are broadly classified as “Defined Contribution Plans” and “Defined Benefit Plans”.

1.2. Defined Contribution Plans

Defined contribution plans are post-employment benefit plans under which an entity pays fixed contributions into a separate entity (a fund) and will have no legal or constructive obligation to pay further contributions if the fund does not hold sufficient assets to pay all employee benefits relating to employee service in the current and prior periods.
Example: Contribution in the nature of “Provident Fund” made by the employer to the Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO).

1.3. Defined Benefit Plans

Defined benefit plans are the post-employment benefit plans other than defined contribution plans. Thus, under a defined benefit plan, the employer’s obligation is to provide the agreed level of benefits to employees, after considering the actuarial and investment risks.
Example: Payment of “Gratuity” by the employer to the employee.

1.4. Actuarial gain or loss under defined benefit plan

Actuarial gains and losses are changes in the present value of the defined benefit obligation resulting from:

(a) experience adjustments (the effects of differences between the previous actuarial assumptions and what has actually occurred) and

(b) the effects of changes in actuarial assumptions.

1.5. Past service cost under defined benefit plan

Past service cost is the change in the present value of the defined benefit obligation for employee service in prior periods, resulting from a plan amendment (the introduction or withdrawal of, or changes to, a defined benefit plan) or a curtailment (a significant reduction by the entity in the number of employees covered by a plan).

2. Understanding the Impact of the New Labour Code on Accounting of defined benefit plans

The “New Labour Codes” introduce significant changes to the determination of wages and the computation of gratuity. Under the revised framework, a minimum of 50% of an employee’s total remuneration is required to comprise “Basic Pay”, “Dearness Allowance” and “Retaining Allowance”, collectively defined as “wages.” Where these components constitute less than 50% of total remuneration, the law mandates a deemed adjustment, such that wages are considered to be 50% of total remuneration for statutory purposes.
Further, with the subsuming of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, into the New Labour Codes, gratuity is now required to be calculated based on the last drawn wages, which, as noted above, must be at least 50% of total remuneration. This change has a direct bearing on the quantum of gratuity liability for employers.

In addition to changes in computation, the Codes also expand the eligibility criteria for gratuity. While the requirement of five years of continuous service continues to apply to permanent employees, fixed-term employees, including contract workers, are now entitled to gratuity upon completion of one year of service.

2.1. Impact of New Labour Code on accounting for gratuity

As explained earlier, the revised definition of “wages” under the New Labour Codes, along with the extension of gratuity eligibility to fixed-term employees (including contract workers) after completion of one year of service, is expected to increase gratuity and other long-term employee benefit liabilities for employers.

From an accounting perspective, recognising this increased liability is critical, particularly because the new definition of wages applies immediately. Accordingly, any employee whose last working day is on or after 21st November 2025 is required to be paid gratuity in line with the New Labour Codes. This creates several practical questions for preparers of financial statements, especially for listed entities with a 31st March financial year-end that publish quarterly financial results. Key questions include:

(a) Accounting of increased liability

How shall the company recognise the increased gratuity liability arising from the implementation of the New Labour Codes?

(b) Timing of recognition

Whether the additional gratuity obligation arising from application of the New Labour Codes should be recognised in the financial results for the quarter ended 31st December 2025, or whether the impact can be deferred to the financial year ending 31st March 2026?

(c) Assessment of subsequent events

Whether the increase in gratuity liability should be considered an adjusting event or a non-adjusting event for the purpose of preparing financial statements?

(d) Presentation in the Statement of Profit and Loss

Whether the additional expense arising from the increase in gratuity obligations can be presented as an exceptional item in the Statement of Profit and Loss?

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post New Labour Codes | Accounting Implications Explained appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

MSEFC Order Quashed For Section 16 Enquiry Lapse | HC

MSEFC Section 16 Jurisdictional Enquiry

Case Details: Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 976 (HC - Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • V. Lakshminarayanan, J.
  • Om Prakash, Senior Counsel & Raghavendra Ross Divakar for the Petitioner.
  • K. Krishnan for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner had entered into a works contract with the second respondent. The second respondent initiated proceedings before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), alleging default in payment.

The petitioner objected that, being a works contract, the claim was not covered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED), and filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings.

The High Court, in writ petition, directed the MSEFC, before passing any final order, to immediately examine the petitioner’s application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act regarding MSEFC’s jurisdiction, to call for any additional details if required, to conduct an enquiry with the opportunity of personal hearing, and to pass a reasoned order dealing with each contention and communicate decision.

Subsequently, the MSEFC disposed of the Section 16 petition vide the impugned order. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since MSEFC had not performed the exercise required to determine its jurisdiction in terms of Section 16 of the Act, the impugned order was to be set aside, and the matter was to be remanded back to MSEFC to redo the exercise directed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition.

List of Cases Referred to

The post MSEFC Order Quashed For Section 16 Enquiry Lapse | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Assignment Of Leasehold Rights Not Taxable As Service | HC

Assignment Of Leasehold Rights Not Supply Of Service

Case Details: Aerocom Cushions (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), CGST & CX, Nagpur-1 - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 432 (Bombay) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Anil L. Pansare & Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.
  • Vinay Shraff, Counsel & Ms. Darshana Bhaiya for the Petitioner.
  • K.K. Nalamwar, Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner received a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act alleging concealment of a transaction in which it assigned its leasehold rights in a plot of land allotted to it. It was contended that the assignment of leasehold rights would amount to the supply of services under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The petitioner challenged the notice by filing the instant writ petition, asserting that the transaction constituted a transfer of immovable property rather than a supply of services. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the transaction on record constituted a transfer of immovable property, namely the assignment of leasehold rights in a plot allotted, and therefore did not involve any supply of services. It was observed that the transfer pertained exclusively to benefits arising out of immovable property and had no nexus with the business of the petitioner company, thus negating the essential element of supply of service in the course or furtherance of business. The Court held that such an assignment/transfer of leasehold rights is not subject to GST. The petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post Assignment Of Leasehold Rights Not Taxable As Service | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Mandamus Issued Over Denial Of Set-Off Claim | HC

Mandamus For Set-Off Claim Denial

Case Details: K2 Family (P.) Trust vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 19 (Bombay) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • B. P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ.
  • Harsh Shah, Paras Savla, Advs. & Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Ms. Mamta Omle, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner Trust earned short-term capital gains from the sale of equity shares and units of equity-oriented mutual funds on which STT was paid [STCG (STT paid)]. It also incurred short-term capital loss from the sale of equity shares on which STT was paid [STCL (STT paid)].

The petitioner was desirous of computing its total income by setting off the STCL (STT paid) against the STCG (non-STT paid). However, when the petitioner attempted to do so while filing its Return of Income electronically, the income-tax utility did not permit a claim to be made where the total income was computed by setting off the STCL (STT paid) against the STCG (non-STT paid).

The petitioner noticed that the utility first set off the STCL (STT paid) against the STCG (STT paid), and only if any losses remained was a set-off of the balance STCL (STT paid) allowed against the STCG (non-STT paid). Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a writ petition to the Bombay High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the Income Tax Department processes the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. At this stage, adjustments in the nature of arithmetical errors, incorrect claims apparent from records, etc., which are specified in Section 143(1)(a), can be made to the assessee’s income, and an intimation along with the amount of tax payable is issued to the assessee under Section 143(1). If aggrieved, the assessee can avail of remedies provided by the Act, including filing an appeal.

After the stage of processing a return in terms of Section 143(1) stage, the department may also select the assessee’s return for a scrutiny assessment by issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessment proceedings culminate in an assessment order under Section 143(3), against which various remedies, including that of filing an appeal, is available to the assessee.

Thus, the scheme of the Income Tax Act is that an assessee has to compute his income in accordance with his understanding of the law, and, thereafter, the revenue’s role begins, and it frames an assessment having regard to the interpretation they put on the relevant provisions of the law. Ultimately, the hierarchy of appellate authorities under the Act will determine which view is correct.

When an assessee is prevented from making a claim in the Return of Income, it amounts to a determination of that claim at the very threshold, i.e., at the stage of filing of the return itself. This effectively forecloses examination of the claim during the assessment proceedings and, if necessary, adjudication through the appellate hierarchy. If an assessee is not permitted to make a claim merely because the income tax department is of the view that such a claim is not sustainable as per its interpretation, the very purpose of assessment and an appellate mechanism to redress the grievances stands defeated.

The Act contains detailed provisions enabling the income tax department to scrutinise and verify a return, and to accept or reject a claim based on established procedure. Such verification is intended to take place after the return is filed. By disallowing the making of a claim at the stage of filing the return itself, the assessment process is rendered nugatory, and the validity of a claim is pre-decided unilaterally by the Department, an approach wholly alien to the scheme of the Income Tax Act.

Therefore, the High Court directed the Respondent to modify the utility for filing the Return of Income so that the Petitioner is not required to approach the Court again for filing its future Returns of Income.

List of Cases Reviewed

  • Samir Narain Bhojwani v. Dy. CIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 70 (Bombay)
  • Lupin Limited v. DCIT WP No.3565 of 2023, dated 26-3-2024
  • Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT Writ Petition No.3109 of 2022, dated 26-3-2024
  • Chamber of Tax Consultants v. DIT (systems) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 707 (Bombay)/[2025] 303 Taxman 451 (Bombay)/[2025] 473 ITR 85 (Bombay) (para 21) followed

List of Cases Referred to

  • iShares ESG Aware MSCI ETF v. Dy. CIT(International Taxation)–2(2)(2) [2025] 175 taxmann.com 289 (Mumbai – Trib.) (para 4)
  • Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund a Series of VISPLC v. ACIT (International Taxation) [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1066 (Mumbai – Trib.) (para 4)
  • CIT v. Rungamatee Trexim Pvt. Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 812 of 2008, dated 19-12-2008] (para 4)
  • First State Investments (Hongkong) Ltd. v. Asstt. DIT (International Taxation) [2009] 33 SOT 26 (Mumbai) (para 4)
  • Lupin Limited v. DCIT [WP No.3565 of 2023, dated 26-3-2024] (para 12)
  • Samir Narain Bhojwani v. Dy. CIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 70 (Bombay) (para 15)
  • Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [Writ Petition No.3109 of 2022, dated 26-3-2024] (para 17)
  • Chamber of Tax Consultants v. DIT (systems) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 707 (Bombay)/[2025] 303 Taxman 451 (Bombay)/[2025] 473 ITR 85 (Bombay) (para 18)
  • Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC)/[2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) (para 20).

The post Mandamus Issued Over Denial Of Set-Off Claim | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Withholding Increments Without Enquiry Unsustainable | HC

Withholding Of Increments Without Enquiry

Case Details: T. Raj Kumar vs. Labour Court - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 850 (HC - Andhra Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.
  • A. Veerasekhar Rao for the Petitioner.
  • Sanisetty Venkateswarulu, SC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner was a conductor in the respondent corporation. The charges were framed against him regarding cash and ticket irregularities. Without conducting an enquiry, the respondent had passed a final order whereby the petitioner’s annual increment was withheld for a period of six months, having the effect of postponing future increments.

The petitioner challenged the punishment order before the appellate authority, which was rejected as time-barred. The dispute was thereafter carried to the Labour Court under Section 10-1(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where punishment against the petitioner was confirmed.

It was apparent that the respondent had failed to demonstrate that they had conducted an enquiry before imposing major punishment on the petitioner. Further, the punishment imposed by the respondent, which was mechanically affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the Labour Court, was to be interdicted as it was a fundamental breach of procedure established under law.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect without conducting an enquiry against the petitioner was not legally sustainable, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court was to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post Withholding Increments Without Enquiry Unsustainable | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

The classification of DDT in International Tax Treatment Of Dividend Distribution Tax

Classification Of DDT International Tax Law

Vijay Gupta – [2026] 182 taxmann.com 496 (Article)

The structure, operation and philosophy of taxation in India draw their authority from a deeply rooted and carefully constructed constitutional framework, within which Parliament exercises broad discretion to design the contours of tax liability, determine the nature of taxable income and identify the person upon whom the legal burden of such taxation shall fall. The power of the Union to levy taxes flows from Entry 82 of List I (the Union List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Indian Courts have consistently affirmed that this power extends not only to defining what is to be taxed but also to determining who is to bear the legal incidence of that tax.
This understanding is reinforced by enduring legal principles such as substantial praevaleat formae, which directs that the true character of a levy must prevail over its formal expression, and the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, which recognises that legal obligations must be imposed in a manner that remains administratively workable. Equally significant is the interpretative maxim ratio legis est anima legis, which emphasises that a law can be understood only when examined in the light of its purpose and more importantly the context that sets out its creation and objective Tax.

legislation, perhaps more than any other branch of statutory design, derives coherence from the economic conduct it seeks to regulate, the administrative limitations it is shaped by, and the policy objectives it seeks to fulfil.

It was within this broader constitutional and jurisprudential context that India’s Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) regime took shape. Under the pre-DDT system, dividends were taxable in the hands of shareholders, but the absence of an effective mechanism to monitor and ensure taxation of such dividend income in the hands of recipient shareholders, despite there being an obligation on the part of dividend distributing companies to undertake deduction of tax at source of such dividend outgo, it resulted in widespread under-reporting and significant revenue loss. Recognising these administrative limitations and the consistent erosion of taxable income, the Government restructured, in 1997, the incidence of dividend taxation by transferring the liability/incidence of tax from the shareholder to the company that distributes the dividends. This approach, on one hand, avoided the need to increase corporate tax rates and yet increasing the tax collection, and at the same time, resulted in creating a more efficient, convenient and uniform method for collecting tax on distributed profits. Under this statutory arrangement, the company was bestowed with the full responsibility for bearing and discharging the tax liability at the time of dividend distribution, without going into the recognition of or differentiation based upon the individual shareholders, while the shareholder receives the dividend entirely free of any further tax burden or tax obligation to be complied with.

The DDT framework represents a deliberate legislative choice, creating a clear demarcation between the person who earns the dividend and the person who bears the legal obligation to pay the tax. The shareholder, whether resident or non-resident, remains outside the tax base for dividend income during the DDT regime, at least from an Indian tax laws perspective. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium underscores the importance of identifying the true taxpayer, since legal remedies and treaty protections operate in relation to the person actually subjected to a charge under domestic law.

These constitutional principles, jurisprudential doctrines and interpretative maxims collectively provide the analytical foundation for understanding Dividend Distribution Tax. They inform an examination of the nature of DDT, the legislative rationale for its introduction and its position within the wider system of domestic and international tax norms. This article builds upon these foundations to develop an alternative interpretative perspective on the interaction between DDT and treaty provisions, grounded in statutory structure, legal context and established principles of tax jurisprudence.

Evolution of Dividend Distribution Taxation in India:

Before the introduction of Dividend Distribution Tax, the India followed contemporary basis of taxation for dividends by taxing it in the hands of shareholders. Hence, while the company is supposed to pay due taxes on its income, any distribution of such income is dividend in the hands of its shareholders and thus, the shareholders should pay tax on such income. Done in this manner, while economics may gauge at such tax on dividend as sort of double taxation of same income, however, the respect and recognition of concept of ‘corporate veil’ should address the same. However, like any other stream of income, the companies distributing such income in the hands of its shareholders, were required to deduct tax as per the rates and manner as specified in this regard from time to time. Although this structure aligned with conventional international practice, it posed significant compliance difficulties. Dividend income was received by a large and diverse population of shareholders, and the absence of a reliable monitoring mechanism made accurate reporting difficult. As a result, dividend income frequently went unreported, causing substantial erosion of revenue. Such pilferage of income was a matter of worry!

Further, with millions of individual shareholders, it was practically impossible to track and verify each instance of dividend income.

The Government, therefore, introduced Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) through the Finance Act, 1997 by inserting Section 115-O into the Income-tax Act. This reform shifted the incidence of taxation from the shareholder to the distributing company, centralising the compliance obligation within a single, identifiable taxpayer. Under this mechanism, the company became liable to pay a specified tax at the time of declaring, distributing or paying dividends, and shareholders received such dividends fully exempt from further tax in India. The introduction of DDT marked a significant structural shift aimed at ensuring uniformity in collection, and reducing revenue leakage.

In 2002, the DDT regime was temporarily abolished, and the system reverted to taxing dividends in the hands of shareholders. However, the familiar administrative challenges re-emerged almost immediately, forcing the Government to soon reintroduce the ‘DDT’ regime in 2003. The reinstated system reaffirmed the policy logic underlying the original reform:

Click Here To Read The Full Article 

The post The classification of DDT in International Tax Treatment Of Dividend Distribution Tax appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

[Global IDT Insight] China Issues Regulations Under VAT Law

China VAT Law Regulations

Editorial Team, – [2026] 182 taxmann.com 488 (Article)

Global IDT Insights provides a weekly snippet of tax news specifically related to Indirect Taxes from around the globe.

China issues regulations under the Value-Added Tax Law

China has issued detailed regulations under the Value-Added Tax Law of the People’s Republic of China through a state decree. The regulations were adopted at the 75th Executive Meeting of the State Council and promulgated on 30-12-2025, setting out comprehensive operational rules governing the levy, calculation, deduction, refund, and administration of value-added tax.

The regulations elaborate statutory definitions, clarify the scope of taxable supplies of goods, services, intangible assets, and real estate, and prescribe detailed mechanisms for cross-border transactions, invoicing, input tax deduction, tax incentives, and compliance. They apply to entities and individuals engaged in taxable transactions within the territory of China and provide the core subordinate framework for administering the VAT Law.

Key aspects of these implementing regulations include:

(a) Clarification of taxable scope and core definitions

The Regulations define goods to include tangible movable property and utilities such as electricity, heat, and gas, while services cover transportation, postal, telecommunications, construction, financial services, and various production and living services. Intangible assets are defined as non-physical assets capable of generating economic benefits, including technology, intellectual property, goodwill, and natural resource use rights, while real estate refers to immovable property such as buildings and structures. The State Council’s finance and tax authorities are empowered to propose and promulgate specific scopes for each category with State Council approval.

(b) Treatment of cross-border services and intangible assets consumption

Consumption of services and intangible assets within the territory includes supplies by overseas entities or individuals to domestic recipients, except for services consumed entirely overseas. It also includes cross-border supplies directly related to goods, real estate, or natural resources located within the territory, as well as other circumstances stipulated by the finance and tax authorities. These provisions establish the domestic VAT nexus for imported services and intangibles.

(c) Taxpayer classification and invoicing requirements

General taxpayers are those applying the general tax calculation method and are subject to a registration system administered by tax authorities. Natural persons are classified as small-scale taxpayers, while certain non-enterprise units may elect small-scale treatment if taxable activities are infrequent. Taxpayers issuing special VAT invoices must separately state the sales amount and VAT amount, and special VAT invoices are restricted in cases involving natural person purchasers, VAT-exempt transactions, or other prescribed circumstances.

(d) Zero-rated exports and cross-border supplies

Exported goods are defined as goods declared to customs, physically leaving the country, and sold to overseas entities or individuals, including goods deemed as exported. Specified cross-border services and intangible assets supplied by domestic entities to overseas recipients and entirely consumed overseas are subject to a zero tax rate, including R&D, design, software, offshore outsourcing services, technology transfers used overseas, and international transportation services.

(e) Determination of composite taxable transactions

Taxable transactions involving multiple supplies subject to different tax rates or levy rates are treated as composite transactions where there is a clear primary and secondary relationship. The primary business must reflect the substance and purpose of the transaction, while the secondary business must be a necessary supplement dependent on the primary supply.

(f) Input tax deduction vouchers and deductible input tax

VAT deduction vouchers include special VAT invoices, customs import VAT payment certificates, tax payment certificates for imported services and intangibles, agricultural product invoices, and other approved vouchers. Deductible input tax includes VAT stated on these vouchers, subject to compliance with the relevant administrative regulations.

(g) Adjustments for discounts, cancellations, and returns

Under the general tax calculation method, VAT refunded due to sales discounts, cancellations, or returns is deducted from current output tax, while recovered VAT is deducted from current input tax. Under the simplified tax calculation method, refunded sales amounts reduce current sales, with any excess refundable or deductible in future periods in accordance with regulations.

(h) Rules on non-deductible input tax and abnormal losses

Input tax related to personal consumption, abnormal losses, non-taxable transactions, and other specified circumstances is not deductible. Abnormal losses include theft, loss, spoilage, mismanagement, or legally mandated confiscation or demolition, with detailed rules covering goods, work-in-process, finished products, and real estate under construction. Fixed assets are defined as assets with a service life exceeding 12 months.

(i) Mixed-use long-term assets and input tax adjustment

General taxpayers acquiring fixed assets, intangible assets, or real estate for mixed use across taxable, exempt, simplified, non-taxable, collective welfare, or personal consumption activities must apply specific input tax rules. Assets with an original value not exceeding RMB 5 million allow full input tax deduction, while assets exceeding this threshold require annual adjustment of non-deductible input tax during the mixed-use period, in accordance with procedures issued by finance and tax authorities.

(j) VAT incentives and scope of exemptions

The Regulations define qualifying agricultural producers and primary agricultural products, eligible medical institutions, old and used books acquired from the public, and specified education, childcare, elderly care, and disability service institutions. They also clarify exempt ticket revenue and require public disclosure, periodic evaluation, and adjustment of VAT preferential policies by the finance and tax authorities.

(k) Collection, withholding, and compliance mechanisms

Taxpayer determination rules apply to contracting, leasing, affiliation, and asset management product operations, with asset managers treated as taxpayers for asset management products. Withholding obligations apply in specified transactions involving natural persons and cross-border real estate leasing.

(l) Anti-avoidance and information powers

Tax authorities are empowered to obtain logistics, customs, and fund settlement information relevant to export VAT administration, subject to confidentiality obligations. Where taxpayers implement arrangements without a reasonable commercial purpose resulting in improper VAT reduction, exemption, deferral, or excessive refunds, tax authorities may make adjustments in accordance with tax collection and administration laws.

Source – Official State Decree

Click Here To Read The Full Article 

The post [Global IDT Insight] China Issues Regulations Under VAT Law appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Tax Recovered Illegally Must Be Refunded | ITAT

ITAT Power To Direct Tax Refund

Case Deatsils: TLG India (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 216 (Mumbai - Trib.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member
  •  Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member
  • Hiten Thacker for the Appellant.
  • Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Assessee filed its return of income reporting total income at nil. Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 113,11,80,000 were proposed by the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) vide order dated 26.10.2023 which was objected to by the assessee before the ld. Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP).

The proposed adjustment was confirmed by the ld. DRP based on which the final assessment order was passed by the ld. Assessing Officer on 23.10.2024, assessing total income at Rs. 113,11,80,000, raising a demand of Rs. 23,30,67,630.

Against this final assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the assessee filed an application before the Tribunal for the refund of demand already recovered by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the pendency of the appeal.

Assessee contended that post passing of rectification order under section 154 by the learned AO, there remained no demand to be recovered from the assessee. Since there was no tax payable by the assessee, there was nothing to be stayed under the present stay application before the Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Mumbai Tribunal held that the assessee was seeking direction from the Tribunal for the refund of the money which was recovered unlawfully during the pendency of the rectification application. For the purpose of grant of refund, the Tribunal has the power to ensure that the assessee is not left high and dry only on account of illegal and high-handed action on the part of the revenue and its Assessing Officer.

In the instant case, it was not merely a case of procedural defect adopted for recovery of demand during the pendency of the rectification application. Instead, such a recovery of tax resulted in double jeopardy in the hands of the assessee, well established by the outcome of the rectification order passed under section 154 by the learned AO.

Thus, the prayer for the refund of recovery made by the learned AO leading to double jeopardy carries a heavy force in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal exercised powers under section 254 of the Act to direct the AO to grant the refund of recovery of tax made by him to the assessee for the year under consideration.

List of Cases Referred to

The post Tax Recovered Illegally Must Be Refunded | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source