Case Details: Yerram Vijay Kumar vs. State of Telangana - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 218 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.K. Maheshwari & K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
• Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv., Awanish Kumar, D Raghvendra Rao & Ms. Garima, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Kumar Vaibhaw, Dhananjay Yadav, Yatharth Kansal, Advs., Ms. Devina Sehgal, Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AORs & Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Special Court for Economic Offences at Hyderabad took cognisance of a private complaint of offences under sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act, 2013 (arising out of alleged fabrication of corporate records, unauthorised EOGM, and uploading of false filings on the MCA portal) along with allied IPC offences.

The High Court, in proceedings under section 482 of the CrPC, refused to quash such cognizance. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that where the Special Court under Companies Act is taking cognizance of an offence under a section in Companies Act which, if proved, would make person(s) ‘liable under section 447’ or ‘liable for action under section 447’, it must also invoke section 447 with corresponding section and in such a case, it must comply with bar against taking cognizance as specified in second proviso to section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Further, the offence under section 448 of the Act is an offence ‘covered under section 447’ since the offence under section 448 is inextricably linked to the punishment for ‘fraud’ as mentioned in section 447, and as such, the second proviso to section 212(6) is attracted.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that, where the Special Court is taking cognisance of an offence under section 448, it must also invoke section 447 with the corresponding section and, in such a case, it must comply with the bar against taking cognisance as specified in the second proviso to section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Further, the Supreme Court observed that, where the Special Court is taking cognisance of an offence under section 448, without invoking the punishment section, i.e. section 447, cognisance could not be countenanced. Therefore, cognisance cannot be taken merely by the filing of a private complaint by the complainant.

However, it is not to say that the complainant is left absolutely remediless, and the right recourse for a person who makes an allegation of fraud in the affairs of a company is to file an application under section 213 before the NCLT.
The Supreme Court held that where the Special Court has taken cognisance of an offence under sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act, 2013, the complaint case and all consequential proceedings to the extent of sections 448 and 451 of the Act shall stand quashed. However, there was no reason or ground to quash offences under the IPC of which cognisance had been taken by the Special Court.

List of Cases Referred to

• Sumana Paruchuri v. Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy [CRIMINAL PETITION No.3575 OF 2022, dated 21-10-2022] (para 36)
• Sivananda Rajaram v. New Shipping Kaisha Ship Management Pvt. Ltd. [Criminal Petition (OP) No. 19154 of 2021, dated 3-7-2023] (para 39)
• M. Gopal v. Ganga Reddy 2022: KHC:35824 (para 39)
• Yogesh Chander Goyal v. State 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3197 (para 40)
• S. Satyanarayana v. Energo Masch Power Engg. & Consulting (P) Ltd. (2015) 13 SCC 1 (para 51)
• Sunil Mandwani v. State of M.P. 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1248 (para 52).

The post Cognizance Under Section 448 Requires Section 447 | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

1. Introduction

The Going Concern concept is just accounting’s way of putting the everyday hope into words. It assumes the businesses will run tomorrow, next month, and at least long enough to finish another audit cycle. Under the going concern basis of accounting the financial statements are prepared on the assumption that the entity is a going concern and will continue its operation for the foreseeable future. Thus,

“Going Concern means the show will continue even if the actors are tired, the script is confusing, and the lights are blinking”.

Auditors check if the company can continue for 12 months meanwhile the company is checking if auditors will continue for 12 months.

1.1 Now let’s start with what Going Concern is as per SA 570?

The Going Concern principle assumes that an organization will continue to operate its business for the foreseeable future. The principal purports that every decision in a Company is taken with the objective in mind of running the business rather than that of liquidating it.

1.2 Is twelve months enough to assess Going Concern?

(a) While Ind AS 1 prescribes a minimum assessment period of twelve months, judicial interpretation and practical experience indicate that this period is often insufficient to assess the true financial viability of an entity. Significant risks such as long-term debt obligations, restructuring plans, regulatory actions, or revival measures usually extend beyond twelve months and cannot be properly evaluated within such a limited timeframe.
(b) It has been observed that Going Concern relates to the foreseeable future, not merely survival for the next year. Therefore, twelve months is only a starting point, and the assessment must extend further wherever facts and circumstances so require to reflect economic reality rather than mere technical compliance.

 1.3 When a business makes us Wonder: “Is this still a going concern?”

Let us understand the concept of going concern with the help of some examples:

Case 1
A Company named “Amigo” was incorporated in March of 2015, it thought it would start its business and become a unicorn, but as it turns out, it had no sales, no purchases but incurs some maintenance expenses. The company took loans for business and had some FDRs and some other loans advanced which made them earn income, but their main business never really started. It’s been more than 10 years now, nothing was going on for them, it made the auditors confused if the company is actually a Going Concern or not, which leads us to our doubt

“What if we just made a Company and did nothing? Will it still be considered a Going Concern?

2. Conclusion

Well, the answer is not a simple one, as if we try to answer the above doubt with the help of Ind AS 1 or SA 570. Amigo will be considered a Going Concern if it has future projections of cash flows, sufficient funding, and is paying off their liabilities properly but what if they can’t, well in that case they will have material uncertainty over their existence and Going Concern will not be assumed.

To give a final answer, Amigo will be simply considered a Going Concern in reference to ICAI’s guidance note on SA 570, as stated, “A Company can still be considered a Going Concern even if it has no business activity if there are no negative indicators”

Click Here To Read The Full Story 

The post Going Concern Concept Under Ind AS 1 and SA 570 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

CA Paras K Savla – [2026] 182 taxmann.com 224 (Article)

1. Introduction

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore has delivered a judgment in the case of Binny Bansal1- that revisits fundamental principles governing residential status determination under the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly in the context of individuals relocating abroad. In Binny Bansal (supra), the Tribunal was required to adjudicate upon the residential status of the co-founder of Flipkart for Assessment Year 2020-21, involving capital gains exceeding Rs. 1,626 crores on the sale of shares in Flipkart Private Limited, a Singapore-incorporated entity. The case presents a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between domestic law provisions under Section 6 of the Act and the tie-breaker provisions under Article 4(2) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

The appellant, Binny Bansal, filed his return of income for AY 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs. 83,319,930 and claiming residential status as “non-resident.” The assessee’s case was that having relocated to Singapore for employment purposes in February 2019 and having stayed in India for only 141 days during the previous year 2019-20, he qualified as a non-resident under the provisions of Section 6(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 thereto. Consequently, capital gains arising from the sale of shares in a Singapore company to various entities including Tiger Global Eight Holdings, Internet Fund III Pte Ltd, and FIT Holdings SARL were claimed as exempt from Indian taxation under Article 13(5) of the India-Singapore DTAA. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim and held the assessee to be a resident and ordinarily resident of India, bringing to tax long-term capital gains of Rs. 162,54,19,504. The Dispute Resolution Panel confirmed this view, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Factual Matrix

The undisputed facts reveal that the assessee resigned from his position as Chairman and Group Chief Executive Officer of Flipkart Group on November 13, 2018, following the Walmart acquisition. On February 17, 2019, he obtained an employment letter from BTB Consulting Pte Ltd (later known as X to 10X Technologies Pte Ltd) and commenced employment in Singapore on February 22, 2019 after receiving an employment pass from the Singapore Ministry of Manpower on February 11, 2019. His family, comprising his spouse and two minor children, relocated to Singapore in March 2019. Subsequently, on September 12, 2019, the assessee assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer with Three State Capital Advisors Pte Ltd, Singapore, having resigned from X to 10X Technologies on September 4, 2019 while in India.

During the financial year 2019-20, the assessee executed three tranches of share sales in Flipkart Private Limited. On August 28, 2019, he sold 54,596 shares to Tiger Global Eight Holdings and 47,759 shares to Internet Fund III Pte Ltd. On November 27, 2019, he sold 539,912 shares to FIT Holdings SARL. The assessee acquired these shares on October 19, 2011, holding them for more than 24 months, thereby qualifying as long-term capital assets under Section 2(29AA) of the Act. The assessee’s shareholding represented less than 5% of the total share capital and voting power, and he did not possess rights to appoint a majority of directors or control management or policy decisions of Flipkart Private Limited, either on the date of transfer or during the 12-month period preceding the transfers.

The passport records submitted by the assessee revealed that he stayed in India for 318 days in FY 2015-16, 326 days in FY 2016-17, 325 days in FY 2017-18, and 268 days in FY 2018-19, totaling 1,237 days in the four years preceding FY 2019-20. For the relevant previous year 2019-20, the assessee stayed in India for 141 days. The assessee contended that 38 of these days represented a period during which he was stranded in India due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore, the effective stay should be considered as only 103 days.

Click Here To Read The Full Article 

The post Residential Status Under Scrutiny After Founder Exits appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CIT - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 219 (SC) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• R. Mahadevan & J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
• Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Advs., Aniket Deepak Agrawal, AOR, Vaibhav Kulkarni & Ms. Aabgina Chishti, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Raghavendra P Shankar, A.S.G., Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Udai Khanna, Karan Lahiri, Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Ms. Seema Bengani, Preeti Rani & Digvijay Dam, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the receipt of shares of the amalgamated company in lieu of shares of the amalgamating company, when the original shares were held as stock-in-trade, gives rise to taxable business income under section 28, or whether no income can be said to accrue until such substituted shares are actually sold.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held as under:

The Supreme Court first examined the statutory scheme of the Income-tax Act and drew a clear distinction between the fields occupied by Sections 45 (capital gains) and 28 (business income). It observed that while Section 45 is triggered only upon a “transfer” of a capital asset, Section 28 is much wider in scope and taxes “profits and gains of business or profession” irrespective of the mode in which such profits arise, whether in cash or in kind, and without requiring any transfer in the strict legal sense. Therefore, the definition of “transfer” in section 2(47) is not determinative for the purposes of section 28.

The Court then analysed the legal nature of amalgamation and held that although in company law it operates as a statutory substitution whereby the amalgamating company ceases to exist, and its shareholders receive shares of the amalgamated company, this does not conclude the tax enquiry.
Relying on earlier precedents including Grace Collis [2001] 115 Taxman 326 (SC), the Court reiterated that amalgamation does involve a transfer in the tax sense, but more importantly, for the purposes of section 28, the real question is whether the assessee has, in the commercial sense, realised its trading asset and obtained something of determinable value in its place.

The Supreme Court emphasised that income under section 28 can arise even without a sale or exchange in the conventional sense. It noted that business profits may be realised in kind, and what is relevant is commercial realisability. If stock-in-trade ceases to exist and is replaced by another asset of ascertainable value, and the assessee is in a position to commercially exploit or realise that asset, then a real business profit can be said to have arisen.

Applying these principles to amalgamation, the Court observed that shares held as stock-in-trade constitute trading assets. Upon amalgamation, those shares are extinguished, and the assessee receives in substitution shares of the amalgamated company with a definite and determinable value. This substitution, in substance, amounts to the realisation of the trading asset, even though the consideration is shares rather than cash.
The Court rejected the assessees’ argument that taxation must wait until the actual sale of the substituted shares. It held that this approach confuses timing of sale with accrual of business income. Once the trading asset is converted into another asset of ascertainable value through a statutory process and the assessee acquires a vested and realisable right in it, the profit has already accrued in the commercial sense, even if the assessee chooses to hold the asset further.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Delhi Order in ITA Nos. 935, 822, 853, and 961 of 2005 dated 07.08.2020 (para 33) affirmed
• Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 871 (SC)/[2020] 272 Taxman 391 (SC)/[2020] 425 ITR 420 (SC) (para 9.4) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) [1989] 43 Taxman 259 (SC)/[1989] 177 ITR 198 (SC) (para 3.4)
• CIT v. Grace Collis [2001] 115 Taxman 326 (SC)/[2001] 248 ITR 323 (SC) (para 3.6)
• Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 90 Taxman 535/224 ITR 371 (SC) (para 3.6)
•  Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 871 (SC)/[2020] 272 Taxman 391 (SC)/[2020] 425 ITR 420 (SC) (para 4)
• Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 59 Taxman 3 (SC)/[1991] 191 ITR 647 (SC) (para 4.2)
• E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) (para 4.4)
• CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) (para 4.4)
• State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 24 Taxman 337 (SC)/[1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) (para 4.4)
• Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 351 (SC)/[1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC) (para 4.4)
• CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 100 (SC)/[2013] 219 Taxman 379 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC) (para 4.4)
• R. Nagaraj v. Rajamani 2025 Livelaw SC 416 (para 9.2)
• Mansarovar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 178/293 Taxman 312/453 ITR 661 (SC) (para 9.5)
• Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT and Excess Profits Tax AIR 1958 SC 861 (para 15.1)
• Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dilip Kumar and Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 (para 15.1)
• Ujagar Prints Etc. v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 488 (para 15.1)
• CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. [1996] 88 Taxman 429 (SC)/[1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC) (para 15.2)
• Religare Finvest Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi [2023] 154 taxmann.com 263 (SC) (para 16)
• Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 92 (SC)/[1990] 186 ITR 278 (SC) (para 16)
• CIT v. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. [2022] 137 taxmann.com 91 (SC)/[2022] 287 Taxman 566 (SC)/[2022] 443 ITR 194 (SC) (para 16.2)
• Kanchanganga Sea Foods Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 192 Taxman 187 (SC)/[2010] 325 ITR 540 (SC) (para 18)
• Californian Copper Syndicate Ltd v. Inland Revenue (1904) 5 TC 159 (para 19)
• Raja Raghunandan Prasad Singh v. CIT (1933) 1 ITR 113 (para 20)
• Raja Mohan Raja Bahadur v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 378 (SC) (para 21)
• CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC) (para 22)
• CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. [2009] 179 Taxman 326 (SC)/[2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC) (para 24.1)
• CIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 250 (SC) (para 27.1).

The post Substitution Of Shares On Amalgamation Taxable U/S 28 | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

PR No. 04/2026; dated: 09.01.2026

1. Introduction

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has revised its technical glitch framework with the objective of easing compliance requirements and improving the ease of doing business for stock brokers.

2. Background of the Revision

The revised framework has been issued vide PR No. 04/2026 dated 09 January 2026. It updates the existing guidelines governing the reporting and handling of technical glitches faced by stock brokers during trading operations.

3. Extension of Reporting Timeline

One of the key changes is the extension of the reporting timeline for technical glitches from 1 hour to 2 hours, providing stock brokers with additional time to assess and report incidents accurately.

4. Streamlined and Simplified Reporting

The revised framework also takes into account trading holidays and introduces a single reporting platform instead of separate reporting to multiple stock exchanges, thereby reducing duplication and operational burden.

5. Conclusion

The updated technical glitch framework now applies to stock brokers with more than 10,000 registered clients and reflects SEBI’s continued efforts to simplify regulatory compliance while ensuring market integrity and operational efficiency.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release 

The post SEBI Revises Technical Glitch Framework for Stock Brokers appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Notification F. No. IFSCA/GN/2026/002, Dated 05.01.2026

1. Introduction

International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) has removed the minimum office space requirement for Book-keeping, Accounting, Taxation and Financial Crime Compliance (BATF) service providers operating in International Financial Services Centres.

2. Regulatory Background

The change has been notified vide Notification No. F. No. IFSCA/GN/2026/002 dated 05 January 2026, through the IFSCA (Book-keeping, Accounting, Taxation and Financial Crime Compliance Services) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026.

3. Removal of Minimum Office Space Requirement

The amendment omits Regulation 12 of the principal regulations, which earlier mandated a minimum office space of 60 sq. ft. carpet area per employee for BATF service providers in IFSC.

4. Consequential Amendments

Consequential changes have also been made to the Second Schedule of the regulations, aligning the framework with the removal of physical infrastructure norms for such service providers.

5. Conclusion

The amendment, effective from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, is aimed at easing compliance and promoting operational flexibility for BATF service providers, further strengthening IFSCs as a competitive global financial hub.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification 

The post IFSCA Removes Office Space Requirement for BATF Providers appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Notification no. F. No. IFSCA/GN/2026/003; Dated: 05.01.2026

1. Introduction

International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) has notified the IFSCA (Registration of Insurance Business) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026, introducing changes to the regulatory framework governing insurance business in IFSCs.

2. Regulatory Background

The amendment regulations have been issued vide Notification No. F. No. IFSCA/GN/2026/003 dated 05 January 2026 and amend the principal regulations relating to the registration and operation of insurance entities in International Financial Services Centres.

3. Revision in Definition of Service Companies

A key amendment relates to the substitution of the definition of “Service Companies of Lloyd’s IFSC” as provided in the Second Schedule to the regulations, bringing greater clarity to eligible entities.

4. Expanded Scope of Eligible Entities

Under the revised definition, Service Companies of Lloyd’s IFSC now include service companies registered in India and promoted by managing agents of Lloyd’s, group entities of managing agents or members of Lloyd’s as permitted by Lloyd’s, as well as Indian companies meeting the prescribed regulatory criteria.

5. Conclusion

The amendment regulations aim to broaden participation and enhance regulatory clarity for Lloyd’s-related insurance entities operating in IFSCs, supporting the growth of India’s international insurance ecosystem while maintaining robust oversight.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification 

The post IFSCA Notifies Insurance Business Amendment Regulations, 2026 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular No. HO/19/34/11(9)2025-AFD-POD1/I/2286/2026; Dated: 09.01.2026

1. Introduction

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has simplified the regulatory requirements governing the grant of accreditation to Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) investors.

2. Regulatory Background

The revised norms have been issued vide Circular No. HO/19/34/11(9)2025-AFD-POD1/I/2286/2026 dated 09 January 2026, easing procedural requirements for accredited investor participation in AIF schemes.

3. Early Execution of Contribution Agreements

Under the updated framework, AIF investment managers are permitted to finalise and execute contribution agreements with investors even before formal accreditation certificates are issued by recognised accreditation agencies.

4. Conditions on Corpus and Fund Acceptance

While early execution is allowed, investor commitments will not be counted towards the scheme’s corpus until accreditation is obtained. Further, funds can be accepted only after issuance of the accreditation certificate, ensuring regulatory safeguards remain intact.

5. Conclusion

The simplified accreditation framework strikes a balance between ease of doing business for AIFs and investor protection, facilitating smoother onboarding of accredited investors without diluting compliance standards.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular 

The post SEBI Eases Accreditation Norms for AIF Investors appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Binny Bansal v. DCIT - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 226 (Bangalore - Trib.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Prashant Maharishi, Vice President
•  Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member
• Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv. for the Appellant.
• Arvind Kamath, ASG for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The principal issue before the ITAT was the determination of the residential status of the assessee, Mr. Binny Bansal, for AY 2020-21 under section 6(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Specifically, the controversy centred on whether the assessee, who had taken up employment in Singapore, could claim the benefit of Explanation 1(b) to section 6(1)(c) by contending that he was “being outside India” and therefore subject to the 182-day threshold, or whether he was liable to be treated as a resident in India by applying the 60-day rule, having stayed in India for more than 365 days in the preceding four years.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal ruled as follows:

a)The Tribunal examined the scheme of section 6(1)(c) of the Act and held that the basic conditions for residence under domestic law were clearly satisfied in the assessee’s case. It noted that the assessee had been in India for more than 365 days during the four years preceding FY 2019-20 and had stayed in India for more than 60 days during the relevant previous year, thereby fulfilling the statutory requirements for being treated as a resident, unless the assessee could validly bring himself within the scope of Explanation 1.

b)On the interpretation of Explanation 1(b) to section 6(1)(c), the Tribunal agreed with the Assessing Officer and the DRP that the benefit of the extended 182-day threshold is intended only for individuals who are otherwise non-residents and who visit India, and not for persons who were ordinarily residents in India in the preceding years. The ITAT held that the expression “being outside India” cannot be read in isolation, and must be harmoniously construed with the main charging provision of section 6(1)(c). According to the Tribunal, the Explanation is a relaxation provision, meant to protect the non-resident status of persons already outside the Indian tax net, and cannot be invoked to convert a resident into a non-resident.

c)The Tribunal further observed that the assessee had been a resident of India for several consecutive years, including the immediately preceding years, and that his presence in India during FY 2019-20 was not merely casual or incidental. The assessee had visited India multiple times for business and personal reasons, and even after his alleged relocation, he spent a substantial portion of the year in India. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee could not be characterised as a person who merely “came on a visit to India”.

d)With respect to the assessee’s alternative reliance on Explanation 1(a) (leaving India for employment), the Tribunal rejected this argument on the ground that Explanation 1(a) applies only to the previous year in which the individual leaves India for employment purposes. The facts on record established that the assessee left India in February 2019, which fell in the previous year 2018-19 relevant to assessment year 2019-20, not in the previous year 2019-20 relevant to assessment year 2020-21 under consideration.

e)The Tribunal also took note of the assessee’s long-standing economic and personal connections with India, including ownership of residential properties and significant business interests, and held that the conditions for invoking Explanation 1(a) were not satisfied.

f)The ITAT further examined the assessee’s claim under the India–Singapore DTAA, particularly Article 4(2), which addresses tie-breaker rules. It held that since the assessee was found to be a resident under Indian domestic law, the mere fact that he may also qualify as a resident of Singapore would not automatically entitle him to treaty benefits. In fact, the Tribunal accepted the Revenue’s finding that the assessee had a permanent home available in India, and that his centre of vital and economic interests continued to remain in India, especially considering the source and nature of his wealth and business activities.

g)On the issue of habitual abode and nationality, the Tribunal observed that the assessee was an Indian citizen who had lived and carried on his principal activities in India for most of his life, and that his relocation to Singapore did not, by itself, displace India as his habitual abode for the year under consideration. Consequently, even under the treaty tie-breaker analysis, the assessee could not dislodge India as the country of residence.

h)In light of the above findings, the ITAT upheld the conclusions of the AO and the DRP and held that the assessee was resident and ordinarily resident in India for AY 2020-21. As a corollary, the Tribunal held that the capital gains arising from the sale of shares were taxable in India, and the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption under Article 13(5) of the India–Singapore DTAA.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Adarsh Developers v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com 81 (Karnataka) (para111) followed
• Shyam Sunder Bhartia v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 162 (Lucknow – Trib.)/[2023] 200 ITD 117 (Lucknow – Trib.) (para 115)
• Atos India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 152 taxmann.com 217 (Mumbai – Trib.)/[2023] 103 ITR(T) 296 (Mumbai – Trib.) (para 116)
• Aldrin Alberto Araujo Soares v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 162 taxmann.com 186 (Bombay)/[2025] 482 ITR 257 (Bombay) (para 119) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• DIT v. Manoj Kumar Reddy Nare [2011] 12 taxmann.com 326 (Karnataka)/[2011] 201 Taxman 30 (Karnataka) (para 8)
• ADIT v. Sudhir Choudhrie [2017] 88 taxmann.com 570 (Delhi – Trib.) (para 79)
• ITO v. Dr. M.P. Konanhalli [1995] 55 ITD 266 (Bangalore) (para 8)
• Vijay Mallya v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 133 Taxman 552 (Calcutta)/[2003] 263 ITR 41 (Calcutta) (para 20)
• Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO (International Taxation) Ward-1(3) [2009] 34 SOT 180 (Bangalore) (para 21)
• Manoj Kumar Reddy v. ITO (International Taxation) Ward-1(3), Bangalore [2009] 34 SOT 180 (Bangalore)/[2010] 132 TTJ 328 (Bangalore) [2010] 132 TTJ 328 (Bangalore) (para 45)
• AMP Spg. & Wvg. Mills (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2006) 100 ITD 142 (Ahd) (para 46)
• Adarsh Developers v. Dy. CIT [2024] 158 taxmann.com 81 (Karnataka) (para 48)
•  Shyam Sunder Bhartia v. Dy. CIT (International Taxation ) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 162 (Lucknow – Trib.)/[2023] 200 ITD 117 (Lucknow – Trib.) (para 51)
• decision of Shyam Sunder Bhartia v. Dy. CIT (International Taxation) [2023] 200 ITD 117 (Lucknow -Trib.) (para 51)
• Atos India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 152 taxmann.com 217 (Mumbai – Trib.) (para 116)
• Johnson & Johnson (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT/ACIT/Jt./ITO/NFAC, Delhi [2024] 158 taxmann.com 1246 (Mumbai – Trib.) (para 51)
• Aldrin Alberto Araujo Soares v. Dy. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 186 (Bombay)/[2025] 482 ITR 257 (Bombay) (para 51)
• Durga Engineering Co. v. ITO [1985] 22 Taxman 11 (Hyderabad) (para 60), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial tax Officer [1985] 22 Taxman 11 (SC)/[1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) (para 60)
• Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial tax Officer [1985] 22 Taxman 11 (SC)/[1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC)/[1985] 47 CTR 126 (SC)[1985] 47 CTR 126 (SC) (para 60)
• CIT v. Bombay Pipe Traders [1994] 75 Taxman 533 (Bombay)/[1995] 213 ITR 282 (Bombay) (para 62)
• Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. CCE 1999 taxmann.com 629 (SC)/1999 113 ELT 24 (SC) (para 62)
• Pr. CIT v. Binod Kumar Singh [2019] 107 taxmann.com 27 (Bombay)/[2019] 264 Taxman 335 (Bombay)/[2020] 423 ITR 175 (Bombay) (para 78)
• In ADIT v. Sudhir Choudhrie [2017] 88 taxmann.com 570 (Delhi – Trib.) (para 79)
• Ashok Kumar Pandey v. ACIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 286 (Mumbai – Trib.)/[2024] 209 ITD 274 (Mumbai – Trib.) (para 99)
• Asstt. CIT v. Prakash L. Shah [2008] 115 ITD 167 (Mumbai) (para 107)
• Mumbai v. Prakash L. Shah [2008] 118 TTJ 577 (Mumbai) (para 107).

The post Binny Bansal Held Resident in India Despite Singapore Shift | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Consultation Paper; Dated: 09.01.2026

1. Introduction

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has proposed a major overhaul of the trading-related framework at stock exchanges with the objective of reducing compliance burden for market participants.

2. Background of the Proposal

The proposal has been released through a Consultation Paper dated 09 January 2026, seeking to rationalise and streamline multiple regulatory provisions governing trading activities across stock exchanges.

3. Consolidation of Trading Provisions

SEBI has suggested merging overlapping provisions relating to trading, price bands, bulk and block deal disclosures, call auction mechanisms, trading hours, and daily price limits into a single consolidated framework.

4. Applicability Across Market Segments

The proposed unified framework would apply uniformly to both the equity and commodity segments, eliminating duplication and enhancing regulatory clarity for exchanges and market participants.

5. Conclusion

SEBI has invited public comments on the proposal up to 30 January 2026. The move reflects SEBI’s intent to simplify market regulations, improve operational efficiency, and strengthen ease of doing business in the securities market.

Click Here To Read The Full Update 

The post SEBI Proposes Simplified Trading Framework for Stock Exchanges appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source