Editorial Team – [2026] 184 taxmann.com 596 (Article)

Taxmann presents Practical Insights on Ind AS and SAs, a weekly series exclusively for Accounts and Audit Module subscribers of Taxmann.com, focusing on the practical application of Ind AS and Standards on Auditing through structured, issue-based analysis.

Each week features a focused topic with real-world illustrations. This edition examines the evolving framework for Ind AS implementation in India, with a focus on regulatory developments, conceptual foundations, and institutional mechanisms supporting its practical application across sectors.

1. Introduction

The development of financial reporting in India shows how national economic policies are aligned with global capital market expectations. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), as the main regulator of companies, has implemented a phased move to Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS), taking into account the size and complexity of different sectors. The Ind AS roadmap lays down three criteria to determine applicability for non-financial companies. A company must apply Ind AS if it meets any one or more of the following:

(a) the net worth criterion, where companies with a net worth of INR 500 crores or more (Phase 1, from 1 April 2016) or INR 250 crores or more (Phase 2, from 1 April 2017) are required to comply;

(b) the listing criterion, where all listed companies must follow Ind AS, with phase classification based on net worth; and

(c) the relationship criterion, where holding, subsidiary, associate, or joint venture companies of entities already covered under Ind AS are also required to apply Ind AS.

Once a company begins applying Ind AS based on these criteria, it must continue to follow Ind AS for all subsequent financial statements, even if it no longer meets the criteria. Further, a company required to comply with Ind AS must apply the same standards to both standalone and consolidated financial statements and cannot choose to apply Ind AS only to one of them. This transition also includes a structured roadmap for financial and non-financial companies, the process for first-time adoption under Ind AS 101, First Time Adoption of Indian Accounting Standards and its wider legal and regulatory implications.

This article explains the applicability and implementation of Ind AS in India, covering key principles, regulatory roadmap, and conceptual framework. It also highlights the role of ITFG in resolving practical implementation challenges.

2. General Instructions under the Ind AS Notification, 2025

The evolution of financial reporting in India represents a sophisticated alignment of national economic policy with global capital market expectations. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), in its capacity as the primary regulator for corporate entities in India, has orchestrated a phased migration that accounts for the varying sizes and complexities of different industrial and financial sectors. It provides an exhaustive analysis of the regulatory roadmaps for non-financial and financial companies, the technical mechanics of first-time adoption governed by Ind AS 101, and the broader statutory implications of this transition.

The transition to Ind AS was catalysed by India’s commitment at the G20 summit to converge its national standards with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). The objective was to create a single set of high-quality, global accounting standards that would enhance the comparability, transparency, and credibility of financial statements for international investors. While an initial attempt to converge was planned for 2011, several factors, including unresolved tax issues and the readiness of the corporate sector, led to a deferral.

The current regime was revitalised following the 2014 Union Budget speech by the finance minister, which emphasised the urgent need for a converged framework to put India at the centre stage of global financial reporting. Consequently, the MCA notified the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, 2015, on February 16, 2015, providing the statutory foundation for a mandatory, phased rollout of 39 initial Ind AS standards. These standards are “converged” rather than “adopted” versions of IFRS, meaning they include specific “carve-outs” (departures from IFRS) and “carve-ins” (additions) tailored to the Indian economic and legal environment.

The said notification prescribes three General Instructions that govern the overall application of Ind AS:

(a) Instruction 1 – Supremacy of Law over Ind AS – Ind AS are designed to be in conformity with applicable laws. However, where a subsequent legislative amendment creates a conflict between a particular Ind AS and the law, the provisions of the law shall prevail. In such cases, financial statements must be prepared in conformity with the relevant law, notwithstanding the requirements of the applicable Ind AS.

(b) Instruction 2 – Materiality – Ind AS are intended to apply only to items that are material. Immaterial items are not required to be accounted for or disclosed in strict compliance with a particular standard, consistent with the overarching principle of materiality in financial reporting.

(c) Instruction 3 – Equal Authority of Bold and Plain Text – Each Ind AS comprises paragraphs in both bold italic type and plain type both carry equal authority. Paragraphs in bold italic denote the main principles of the standard. Every Ind AS must be read in the context of its stated objective and in accordance with these General Instructions.

These three instructions lay the foundational interpretive framework within which all individual Ind AS are to be read and applied.

3. Key Principles Governing the Applicability and Continuity of Ind AS under the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules 2015

The applicability of Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) under the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, 2015, extends beyond mere threshold-based compliance and introduces a comprehensive framework governing the continuity, scope, and manner of financial reporting. Once an entity becomes subject to Ind AS i.e. whether through mandatory criteria or voluntary adoption, the implications are far-reaching, affecting not only the entity itself but also its group structure, including subsidiaries, associates, and joint ventures, both domestic and overseas.

In this context, certain key principles such as the irrevocable nature of Ind AS adoption, the reporting requirements for overseas entities, and the independent applicability of Ind AS to Indian subsidiaries of foreign parents play a crucial role in ensuring consistency, transparency, and uniformity in financial reporting across entities and jurisdictions.

(a) The Rule of Irrevocability – A critical legal provision of the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, 2015, is the principle of irrevocability. Once an entity chooses to report its financial statements under Ind AS, whether voluntarily or mandatorily, it is prohibited from reverting to the previous IGAAP framework. This ensures consistency and prevents entities from switching back to IGAAP to avoid the more stringent measurement and disclosure requirements of Ind AS.

Even if a company starts following Ind AS due to mandatory Ind AS adoption criteria, it is required to follow Ind AS for perpetuity even if that company no longer meets any of the Ind AS applicability criteria.

(b) Financial Reporting for Overseas Entities – While an overseas subsidiary, associate, or joint venture may continue to prepare its standalone financial statements under the local laws of its specific jurisdiction, the reporting requirements for the Indian parent are distinct. If the Indian parent company falls under the Ind AS mandate either through meeting the net worth thresholds or by voluntary adoption, the overseas entity must provide a reporting package or financial statements aligned with Ind AS. This is essential for the parent company to fulfil its obligation of preparing Consolidated Financial Statements (CFS) in accordance with Ind AS.

(c) Reporting Obligations for Indian Subsidiaries of Foreign Parents – If an Indian company functions as a subsidiary, associate, or joint venture of a foreign corporation, it does not automatically default to the parent’s accounting framework. Instead, the Indian entity must assess its own Ind AS applicability criteria independently. If it meets the prescribed net worth thresholds (or opts for voluntary adoption), it is required to prepare its financial statements under Ind AS, notwithstanding the GAAP followed by its foreign parent.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post Practical Insights on Ind AS and SAs | Strengthening Framework & Institutional Support appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Narayan Rao Hebri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 441 (Karnataka)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• S.G. Pandit & K. V. Aravind, JJ.
• K.K. Chythanya, Sr. Counsel & Tata Krishna for the Appellant.
• Y.V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee was engaged in real estate business. A survey under section 133A was conducted, and the assessee, by letter dated 29.09.2016, volunteered to offer a sum of Rs. 1,14,20,100 as additional income. The assessee filed the return of income for the relevant year and paid the corresponding taxes.

The return of income was selected for scrutiny to examine the payment of Rs. 24,00,000 made in cash during November 2016 towards income tax and the source thereof. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated both the unexplained cash and the sum declared during the survey as income from other sources and subjected them to tax at a rate of 60%.On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO, and the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order. The matter then reached the Karnataka High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the assessee contended that the additional income was admitted in the return on account of coercion exercised during the survey and based on the letter dated 29.09.2016, which, according to the assessee, was forcibly obtained by the Assessing Officer.

The assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) and had the statutory opportunity to revise the return under section 139(5). Admittedly, the assessee neither retracted the letter dated 29.09.2016 admitting the additional income nor revised the return of income. The assessee also paid tax on the income so admitted.

Further, when the assessment was completed by adding the additional income and subjecting it to tax at the rate of 60%, the assessee, in the appeal before the CIT(A), challenged only the applicability of Section 115BBE, not the taxability of the additional income itself. For the first time before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the additional income declared was based solely on a statement recorded during the survey and was unsupported by any evidence. The Tribunal rejected the said contention.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order dated 22.05.2025 passed in ITA No.2051/Bang/2024 by the Tribunal [Para 20] Affirmed

List of Cases Referred to

• National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 97 Taxman 358/229 ITR 383 (SC) (para 9)
• Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) (para 11.2)
• CIT v. Mantri Share Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 279 (Rajasthan) (para 11.2)
• CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC) (para 11.2)
• CIT v. K. Venkatesh Dutt [2009] 319 ITR 331 (Karnataka) (para 11.2)
• CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) (para 11.2)
• CIT v. Sumitomo Corporation [2017] 80 taxmann.com 247/[2016] 382 ITR 75 (Delhi) (para 11.2)
• National Co-operative Development Corporation v. CIT [2020] 119 taxmann.com 137/274 Taxman 187/427 ITR 288 (SC) (para 11.2)
• Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 228/265 Taxman 413/416 ITR 1 (SC) (para 11.2)
• CIT v. H.R. Basavaraj [2012] 20 taxmann.com 515/207 Taxman 111/[2011] 339 ITR 63 (Karnataka) (para 11.2)
• CIT v. Shelly Products [2003] 129 Taxman 271/261 ITR 367 (SC) (para 11.2)
• CIT v. P. Balasubramanian [2013] 33 taxmann.com 130/215 Taxman 288/354 ITR 116 (Madras) (para 11.2)
• Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT [2003] 129 Taxman 416/263 ITR 101 (Kerala) (para 11.2)
• Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 466/[2010] 328 ITR 411 (Gujarat) (para 11.2)
• CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Madras) (para 11.2)
• CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2012] 25 taxmann.com 413/[2013] 352 ITR 480/[2012] 210 Taxman 248 (SC) (para 11.2).

The post Admitted Income Can’t Be Disputed Without Retraction | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: State of Karnataka vs. Santhosh Kumar C - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 541 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the question was placed before the Supreme Court regarding whether the vacancy from selected candidate’s non-joining in 2011 recruitment can be filled from same select list as the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997, lack waiting list mechanism.

It was noted that under 1997 Rules, a vacancy arising in course of 2011 recruitment process on account of a selected candidate not undergoing mandatory pre-appointment formalities or not reporting for duty could not be claimed, as of right, by candidate immediately next below in order of selection, and such vacancy had to be treated in accordance with governing rules as a vacancy to be filled only through a subsequent recruitment process.

Further, the 1997 Rules did not provide for any reserve list, waiting list, or additional list, nor did they contain any provision enabling State to revert to same list and travel further downward to fill a post left unfilled on account of non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining by a selected candidate.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, which validated 2011 batch selection and mandated issuance of appointment orders as per KPSC selection list, underscored legislative intent to attach finality to 2011 selection and appointments as made in accordance with KPSC selection list.

Therefore, the High Court was not justified in holding that Rule 11(3) of 1997 Rules had no application to case at hand.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 24455 of 2023, dated 21.04.2025 (para 22) set aside

List of Cases Referred to

• Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 (para 9)
• State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda [2010] 6 taxmann.com 137 (SC) (para 9)
• Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi [2010] 2 taxmann.com 1005 (SC) (para 10).

The post No Filling Vacancy from Same Select List Without Waiting List | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

PR No. 21/2026; Dated: 27.03.2026

1. Background of the Suspension

Earlier, SEBI directed stock exchanges with a commodity derivatives segment to suspend trading in derivative contracts for seven agro commodities for a period of one year. This step was taken as part of regulatory measures to address market concerns.

2. Subsequent Extensions

Following the initial suspension, SEBI extended the restriction multiple times:

• First extension up to December 20, 2023
• Further extended to December 20, 2024
• Then extended to January 31, 2025
• Subsequently extended to March 31, 2025
• Again extended to March 31, 2026

3. Latest Extension

SEBI has now further extended the suspension of trading in derivative contracts for these agro commodities until March 31, 2027.

4. Key Takeaway

The continued extensions indicate SEBI’s cautious approach towards regulating commodity derivatives trading in select agro commodities, ensuring market stability and preventing excessive volatility.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post SEBI Extends Agro Derivatives Trading Ban to March 2027 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Flipkart India (P.) Ltd., In re - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 53 (AAR-TAMILNADU)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• C. Thiyagarajan & B. Suseel Kumar, Member

Facts of the Case

The applicant proposed to transport goods by road for customers placing orders through electronic commerce operator (ECO) portals. Under the proposed model, sellers hand over goods at a Source Mother Hub, which issues a single consignment note for delivery to the end customer. It retains lien and custody of goods, assumes responsibility for safe delivery, and maintains transit insurance until delivery, while transportation is executed either through its own network or third-party carriers. The end customer is responsible for the transport charges. An advance ruling was sought on whether such activity qualifies as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services. The matter was accordingly placed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).

AAR Held

The AAR held that the essential characteristic of a GTA service is the issuance of a consignment note evidencing receipt of goods, transfer of custody, and assumption of responsibility for delivery. It was observed that the applicant satisfies all conditions as it transports goods by road and issues a consignment note while retaining custody and liability till delivery, thereby qualifying as a ‘supply’ under Section 7 of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act. It was held that exemption under Section 11 of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act is applicable to GTA services provided to an unregistered person. It was clarified that customers ordering through ECO portals who are not registered under GST would fall within the scope of the exemption. Consequently, GTA services supplied by the applicant to such unregistered recipients were held to be exempt from GST.

List of Cases Referred to

• Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited v. Deputy CCTes 1992 Supp (1) SCC 21 (para 3.10)
• Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. (1990) 4 SCC 256 (para 3.20)
• Saravana Perumal, In re [2020] 113 taxmann.com 288 (AAR – KARNATAKA)/[2020] 78 GST 275 (AAR – KARNATAKA)/[2020] 33 GSTL 39 (AAR – KARNATAKA) (para 3.23)
• CCE v. JWC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (22) GSTL 237 (Tri-Mum) (para 3.8).

The post GTA Services Exempt if Recipient is Unregistered | AAR appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Pidilite Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 456 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
• Prakash Shah, Sr. Adv. & Mohit Raval, PDS Legal for the Petitioner.
• Ms Jyoti Chavan, Additional Govt. Pleader, Ms Sheetal Malvankar, AGP, Ms Maya Majumdar & Ms Megha Bajoria for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a manufacturer of chemical products, duly registered under GST, claimed transitional input tax credit (ITC) through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. Pursuant to an audit of such transition, a show cause notice (SCN) was issued proposing recovery of ITC along with interest and penalty. It submitted its reply and was granted a hearing; however, it specifically requested copies of verification reports prepared by the authorities in respect of invoice validation. Despite such requests, the verification reports were not furnished. The impugned order nevertheless confirmed the demand and penalty, citing incomplete invoice verification and column-wise discrepancies in the TRAN forms. It was contended that denial of access to relied-upon documents and incomplete verification of invoices vitiated the proceedings as being contrary to principles of natural justice. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the furnishing of verification reports relied upon by the adjudicating authority was imperative to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice. It observed that denial of such documents, despite specific requests, effectively deprived the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to contest the allegations. It was held that the adjudication was conducted without complete verification of invoices and without granting adequate opportunity for rectification of discrepancies. It emphasised that a fair hearing necessarily includes access to all material relied upon by the authority in reaching its conclusions. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration with directions to furnish the verification reports.

List of Cases Referred to

• Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [2025] 170 taxmann.com 135/94 GSTL 17/108 GST 305 (Bombay) (para 3).

The post GST ITC Demand Set Aside for Denial of Fair Hearing | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Press Release No. 19/2026, Dated: 25.03.2026

The Securities and Exchange Board of India and Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority will conduct the sixth Niveshak Shivir in Bhubaneswar on March 27, 2026.

1. Event Details

• Venue – Event Square, Jaydev Vihar
• Timings – 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM
• Participants:

1. 1. Bombay Stock Exchange
   2. National Stock Exchange of India
   3. Central Depository Services Limited
   4. National Securities Depository Limited
   5. Registrars & Transfer Agents (RTAs)

2. Key Objectives of the Camp

The Niveshak Shivir aims to assist investors in:

• Transfer of unpaid dividends
• Claiming unclaimed shares and dividends held with IEPFA
• KYC updates and nomination registration
• Resolution of pending investor grievances

3. Why This Matters

• Provides on-ground, one-to-one assistance to investors
• Simplifies recovery of unclaimed financial assets
• Encourages investor awareness and financial inclusion
• Strengthens trust in the capital market ecosystem

4. Takeaway

The initiative is part of SEBI and IEPFA’s continued efforts to empower investors and ensure that rightful owners can reclaim their investments with ease through a guided and structured support platform.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post SEBI IEPFA to Hold Niveshak Shivir in Bhubaneswar appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular No. HO/(92)2026-IMD-POD-2/I/7885/2026, Dated: 25.03.2026

The Securities and Exchange Board of India has issued an addendum to its earlier circular on borrowing by mutual funds, deferring the implementation of provisions relating to intraday borrowings.

1. Revised Timeline

• The applicability of intraday borrowing guidelines has been deferred to July 15, 2026
• Earlier timelines have been extended due to operational challenges highlighted by Asset Management Companies (AMCs)

2. Regulatory Basis

The circular has been issued under:

• The SEBI Act, 1992
• The SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996

3. Key Rationale

• AMCs raised concerns regarding system readiness and operational implementation
• SEBI has provided additional time to ensure smooth transition and compliance

4. What This Means

• Mutual funds will get extra time to align systems and processes
• The move supports ease of implementation without disrupting fund operations
• Regulatory intent remains unchanged—better liquidity management and investor protection through controlled borrowing mechanisms

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post SEBI Defers Intraday Borrowing Rules for Mutual Funds appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Group ESOP arrangements are widely used to align incentives across entities, but their accounting—especially in the subsidiary’s books—often creates confusion. This case-based explanation simplifies how Ind AS 102 applies when a parent grants shares to employees of its subsidiary.

1. Core Issue – Who Recognises the Expense?

Even when:

• The parent company grants shares, and
• The subsidiary has no obligation to settle,

The subsidiary must still recognise employee benefit expense.

1.1 Why?

Because:

• Employees are rendering services to the subsidiary, not the parent
• The benefit (ESOP) is compensation for those services

Hence, expense recognition follows where the services are received, not who settles the award.

2. Classification – Equity-Settled (Not Liability-Based)

Under Ind AS 102:

• The transaction is treated as equity-settled in the subsidiary’s books
• This is because the subsidiary does not have a cash or settlement obligation

Even though shares are issued by the parent, the nature of settlement (equity) drives classification.

3. Accounting Treatment in Subsidiary

3.1 Expense Recognition

• Recognise employee benefit expense over the vesting period
• Based on fair value of ESOPs at grant date

3.2 Corresponding Entry

Instead of liability:

• Recognise Capital Contribution from Parent

4. Step-by-Step Considerations

4.1 Fair Value Measurement

• Determined at grant date
• Based on valuation models (e.g., Black-Scholes)

4.2 Vesting Period Allocation

• Expense spread over vesting period
• Adjusted for expected forfeitures

4.3 Changes in Estimates

• If employee attrition changes:

1. 1. Revise total expense
   2. Adjust cumulative expense prospectively

5. Why Capital Contribution?

• The parent is effectively bearing the cost on behalf of the subsidiary
• This is treated as a deemed capital infusion

Reflects the economic substance:

The subsidiary receives employee services + parent support → hence equity, not liability

6. Key Principle – Substance Over Form

Even though:

• Legal form = Parent issues shares
• Economic reality = Subsidiary receives employee services

Accounting follows substance over form, a fundamental principle in financial reporting.

7. Why This Matters

For professionals dealing with:

• Ind AS implementation
• Audit reviews
• Group financial reporting

This clarity helps:

• Avoid misclassification (liability vs equity)
• Ensure accurate expense recognition
• Maintain compliance with Ind AS 102

8. Takeaway

Group ESOPs are not just a parent-level transaction—they directly impact the subsidiary’s P&L and equity.

Understanding:

• Where the service is received
• How the transaction is classified
• Why capital contribution is recognised

is critical to getting the accounting right.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post Accounting for Group ESOPs under Ind AS 102 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular no. HO/38/12/12(1)2026-MIRSD-SEC-FATF/I/7933/2026; Dated: 25.03.2026

The Securities and Exchange Board of India has amended its Master Circular for Research Analysts (RAs) and Investment Advisers (IAs) dated February 6, 2026, to expand the scope of professionals eligible to conduct compliance audits.

1. Key Update

• Members of the Institute of Cost Accountants of India are now permitted to conduct annual compliance audits for RAs and IAs
• Cost accountants have been formally recognised as eligible audit professionals alongside existing categories

2. Compliance Requirement

• RAs and IAs must conduct an annual audit of their compliance framework
• The audit must be completed within 6 months from the end of each financial year

3. Significance of the Amendment

• Expands the pool of qualified professionals for compliance audits
• Enhances ease of doing business for intermediaries
• Strengthens regulatory oversight and audit quality through broader professional participation

4. What This Means for Market Participants

• Research Analysts and Investment Advisers now have greater flexibility in appointing auditors
• Cost accountants can play a more active role in financial regulatory compliance and governance
• The move aligns with SEBI’s focus on robust compliance frameworks and accountability

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post SEBI Allows Cost Accountants to Audit RAs and IAs appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source