Case Details: Zydus Hospira Oncology (P.) Ltd., In re [2025] 181 taxmann.com 643 (AAR - GUJARAT)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sushma Vora & Vishal Malani, Member
• Hiren Pathak, Authorised Signatory for the Applicant.

Facts of the Case

The applicant sought clarification regarding the applicability of GST on recoveries of employees’ share of canteen charges. It was submitted that it was an SEZ pharmaceutical unit mandated under the Factories Act, 1948 to provide a canteen facility for its employees. It recovered a fixed portion of the meal cost from employees through salary deductions, while the remaining cost was borne by the applicant as part of staff welfare. It was contended that such recoveries were employee perquisites and did not constitute a supply under GST. The matter was accordingly placed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).

AAR Held

The AAR held that the applicant’s recovery of employees’ share of canteen charges did not constitute an outward supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act and the Gujarat GST Act. It was observed that the collection of the employees’ portion and its subsequent remittance to the canteen service provider were merely internal adjustments related to employee perquisites and were not made in the course or furtherance of the business. Applying the guidance of the CBIC Circular, it concluded that recoveries of this nature fall outside the definition of supply under Schedule III. Consequently, GST was not leviable on the employees’ share of canteen charges.

List of Cases Referred to

• Amneal Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd., In re [2021] 126 taxmann.com 228/[2022] 58 GSTL 382 (AAAR-GUJARAT) (para 13)
• Zentiva (P.) Ltd., In re [2024] 163 taxmann.com 276 (AAR – GUJARAT) (para 13)
• Zydus Lifesciences Ltd., In re [2022] 143 taxmann.com 346 (AAR – GUJARAT) (para 13)
• Cinemax India Ltd. v. UOI [2011] 12 taxmann.com 492/32 STT 359 (Gujarat) (para 15)
• Tata Power Company Ltd., In re [2022] 134 taxmann.com 69/89 GST 655/57 GSTL 141 (AAR – MAHARASHTRA) (para 16)
• Tata Motors Ltd., In re [2020] 119 taxmann.com 106/82 GST 685/41 GSTL 35 (AAR – MAHARASHTRA) (para 16)
• Posco India Pune Processing Center (P.) Ltd., In re [2019] 102 taxmann.com 21/21 GSTL 351 (AAR – MAHARASHTRA) (para 16)
• Jotun India (P.) Ltd., In re [2019] 110 taxmann.com 184/76 GST 691/29 GSTL 778 (AAR – MAHARASHTRA) (para 16)
• MMR Khan v. UOI 1990 AIR 937 (para 17)
• Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., In re [2023] 146 taxmann.com 128 (AAR – GUJARAT) (para 21)
• CCE, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 20 STR 577/29 STT 244 (Bombay) (para 27).

The post SEZ Canteen Charge Recovery Not Taxable Under GST | AAR appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Notification No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2026/291, Dated 07.01.2026

1. Introduction

The Sec1.urities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has notified the SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 2026 vide Notification No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2026/291 dated 07-01-2026, replacing the earlier SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992.

2. Objective and Scope of the Regulations

The 2026 Regulations introduce a comprehensive and updated regulatory framework governing the registration and functioning of stock brokers and clearing members. The new regime aims to strengthen market integrity, enhance investor protection, and align regulatory oversight with the evolving structure of the securities market.

3. Registration and Operational Framework

The Regulations prescribe eligibility criteria, registration requirements, and detailed operational, general, and enhanced obligations for trading members and clearing members. They also include provisions relating to risk management, inspection, fees, deposits, and prevention of fraud and market abuse.

4. Net Worth and Financial Requirements

SEBI has mandated minimum net worth thresholds based on the category of membership. Trading members are required to maintain a minimum net worth of ₹1 crore, self-clearing members ₹5 crore, clearing members ₹15 crore, and professional clearing members ₹50 crore, subject to applicable variable net worth requirements and specified relaxations.

5. Conclusion

By notifying the SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 2026, SEBI has overhauled the regulatory framework governing stock brokers, replacing a three-decade-old regime. The revised regulations are expected to improve compliance standards, reinforce investor confidence, and promote a more robust and transparent securities market ecosystem.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification 

The post SEBI Introduces 2026 Stock Broker Regulations appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

PR no. 2025-2026/1866; dated: 06.01.2026

1. Introduction

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued draft directions proposing a cap on dividend payouts by banks, limiting distributions to a maximum of 75% of net profit. The proposal was released vide Press Release No. 2025-2026/1866 dated 06-01-2026.

2. Proposed Dividend Framework

Under the draft directions, RBI has proposed a revised methodology for computing the maximum eligible dividend payout. The term “dividend” has been defined to include interim dividends payable on equity shares, while expressly excluding dividends on Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preference Shares.

3. Concept of Adjusted Profit After Tax

The RBI has introduced the concept of “Adjusted Profit After Tax (PAT)”, which shall be calculated as the PAT of the relevant financial year minus Net NPAs as on March 31 of that year. The proposed 75% cap on dividend payouts will be applied on this adjusted PAT figure.

4. Reporting and Compliance Requirements

Banks declaring dividends or remitting profits to their Head Office will be required to submit a report in the prescribed format to the Department of Supervision of the RBI. This report must be furnished within a fortnight from the date of dividend declaration or profit remittance.

5. Conclusion

The proposed cap on dividend payouts is aimed at strengthening banks’ capital buffers and promoting long-term financial stability. RBI has also reserved the right to impose restrictions on dividend distribution or profit remittance in cases of non-compliance with applicable laws and regulatory guidelines.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release 

The post RBI Draft Norms Cap Bank Dividend at 75% of PAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

GSTN Advisory, Dated 04-01-2026

1. Introduction

The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has issued an advisory dated 04-01-2026 announcing the introduction of an online facility for filing opt-in declarations for hotel accommodation premises to be recognised as “specified premises” under GST.

2. Eligibility and Scope

The facility is available to taxpayers providing hotel accommodation services, except composition taxpayers, TDS/TCS taxpayers, SEZ units or developers, casual taxpayers, and taxpayers with cancelled registrations. Suspended taxpayers are permitted to opt in, while rejected applications remain ineligible.

3. Opt-In Procedure for FY 2026–27

For FY 2026–27, eligible taxpayers can electronically file Annexure VII on the GST Portal between 01-01-2026 and 31-03-2026 to declare up to 10 premises as specified premises. This declaration enables the application of the relevant GST provisions for such premises.

4. Continuation and Opt-Out Mechanism

Once exercised, the opt-in option continues for subsequent financial years unless the taxpayer files an opt-out declaration in Annexure IX. If no opt-out is filed, the declared premises will continue to be treated as specified premises.

5. Provisions for New Registrations

Applicants for new GST registrations may file Annexure VIII within 15 days of ARN generation to declare specified premises from the effective date of registration. If this window is missed, the opt-in can only be exercised during the annual Annexure VII filing period.

Click Here To Read The Full Update 

The post GSTN Enables Opt-In for Specified Premises Under GST appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

FAQs dated 05.01.2026

1. Introduction

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has issued FAQs dated 05-01-2026 to guide investors on Investor Service Requests processed by Registrars to an Issue and Share Transfer Agents (RTAs).

2. Purpose of the FAQs

The FAQs aim to enhance investor awareness and ensure smooth processing of service requests by providing clarity on procedures, documentation requirements, and applicable regulatory provisions under the SEBI framework.

3. Key Areas Covered

The FAQs cover registration and updation of PAN, KYC, nomination, bank details, and contact information. They also explain the process for dematerialisation and rematerialisation of securities, helping investors understand operational aspects of holding securities.

4. Investor Protection and Grievance Redressal

SEBI has addressed grievance redressal mechanisms, treatment of unclaimed securities, matters relating to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF), and the process of e-voting, reinforcing transparency and investor protection.

5. Conclusion

By issuing these FAQs, SEBI has provided a comprehensive reference for investors to navigate service requests handled by RTAs. Investors are advised to refer to applicable SEBI laws, regulations, and circulars for detailed compliance and procedural requirements.

Click Here To Read The Full Update 

The post SEBI Releases FAQs on Investor Service Requests appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Sri Shivaganga Yoga Centre vs. Income-tax Officer (Exemption) [2025] 181 taxmann.com 867 (Bangalore - Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Prashant Maharishi, Vice President
• Gowrish, CA for the Appellant.
• Ganesh R. Ghale, Adv.,SC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, Sri Shivaganga Yoga Centre, a charitable trust running a Yoga Centre and conducting a postgraduate diploma course, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) in respect of course fees collected from students. The Central Processing Centre processed the return under section 143(1).

The CPC denied the exemption on the ground that the assessee had not selected section 10(23C)(iiiad) in the relevant drop-down menu under “section under which exemption claimed” in Schedule – Personal Information and had not filed Schedule IE-4. The assessee explained that the omission occurred due to a technical issue in the return-filing utility and that its aggregate annual receipts did not exceed the monetary limit prescribed under rule 2BC.
A rectification application filed under section 154 was rejected on the ground that the issue was debatable. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of exemption. The matter reached before the Tribunal.

High Court Held

The Tribunal observed that if an issue is debatable, it could not have been adjusted while processing the return under section 143(1). It was noted that the denial of exemption was based solely on non-selection of the relevant drop-down option and non-filing of Schedule IE-4, and not on any inconsistency or incorrect claim in the return of income.

The Tribunal held that mere technical or procedural lapses in filling the return could not be the basis for denial of a substantive exemption, particularly when the necessary information was otherwise available on record, and the assessee satisfied the conditions prescribed under section 10(23C)(iiiad).

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the factual eligibility of the assessee and allow the exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad), or under section 11, if otherwise admissible in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The post Sec. 10(23C)(iiiad) Exemption Not Denied for Drop-Down Error | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Elgi Sauer Compressors Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer [2026] 182 taxmann.com 72 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• C. Saravanan, J.
• G. Vardini Karthik for the Petitioner.
• Ms. P.Selvi, Govt. Adv. (tax) for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged an impugned order confirming a demand arising from a mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. It was submitted that the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act was incorrectly invoked. It contended that the preceding show cause notice was unclear and was based solely on an audit report. The mismatch arose due to technical glitches as the GST portal was not fully synchronized with the ICEGATE portal, causing difficulties in claiming input tax credit on IGST transactions. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the impugned order could not be challenged solely on the ground of limitation, as the reply did not engage with the merits of the show cause notice, leaving the jurisdictional officer under CGST with no alternative but to confirm the demand. It was held that the matter should be sent back to the jurisdictional officer for reconsideration. The impugned order was quashed, and directed that 10% of the disputed tax be deposited from the Electronic Cash Ledger within 30 days, in accordance with Sections 16 and 74 of the CGST Act/Tamil Nadu GST Act.

The post 2A–3B Mismatch Demand Remanded Subject to 10% Deposit | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

V K Subramani – [2026] 182 taxmann.com 122 (Article)

The Income-tax Act, 1961 which remained in force for the last 6 decades or so, is now replaced by the Income-tax Act, 2025 w.e.f 01.04.2026. There are many far reaching changes made in the new Act and any serious practitioner of income-tax law would be somewhat nervous since the old Act which was so familiar to him goes out of the usage and he has to understand the new law. Even when in deep sleep when one is asked to wake up and explain certain simple legal provisions it could be done comfortably. Now the familiar matters covered in sections like sections 43B , 44AB , 44AD , 56(2) , 80C etc when posed it would be embarrassing since the new section numbers are not yet familiar and the changes are also not fully comprehended. Of course, it is too early and we have about 3 months i.e. last quarter of F.Y. 2025-26 to catch up with the changes or refer the parallel mapping of legal provisions to wade through the legal provisions to appreciate whether there is, any upside-down changes made in the law. It is with respect and with lot of circumspection it is stated that the new law carries forward all the legacies of the old law including controversial interpretations and legal decisions.

Instead of pick and choose of each of the legal provisions with microscopic analysis, at least how the erstwhile legal provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 will have a bearing while applying the Income-tax Act, 2025 is sought to be analyzed in this write up.

1. Legal provision

Section 536 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 has the title “Repeal and savings”. Section 536 is the last legal provision which is succeeded to by the Schedules forming part of the Act.

Sub-section (1) of section 536 says that the Income-tax Act, 1961 is hereby repealed. Sub-section (2) of the Income-tax Act virtually deals with various scenarios of how the provisions of the repealed Act would impact the taxpayers after the Income-tax Act, 2025 becomes operational.

2. Past orders [Section 536(2)(a) and (b)]

As per clauses (a) and (b) of section 536(2) the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 2025 shall not affect the previous operation of the repealed Income-tax Act and orders or anything duly done or suffered thereunder.
Any right, privilege, obligation or liability, acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Income-tax Act or orders under such repealed Act will not be affected by anything contained in the Income-tax Act, 2025.

3. Pending and fresh proceedings under the repealed Act [Section 536(2)(c)]

The provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall continue to apply to any proceeding pending on the date of commencement of this Act i.e. from 01.04.2026. Also, any proceedings initiated on or after 1st day of April, 2026 including notices, assessment, re-assessment, recomputation, rectification, penalty, reference, revision and appeals in respect of the assessment year up to 2026-27 shall be carried out as per the procedure specified in the repealed Income-tax Act, 1961.

4. Penalty proceedings [Section 536(2)(d)]

Any proceeding for the imposition of penalty up to and including the assessment year 2026-27 may be initiated and any such penalty shall be imposed under the repealed Income-tax Act, 1961 as though the Income-tax Act, 2025 had not been enacted.

5. Pending proceedings before income-tax authority and appellate authorities [Section 536(2)(e)]

Any proceeding pendingas on 1st day of April, 2026 before any income-tax authority or any other authority such as appellate tribunal or any court, by way of application, appeal, reference or revision or by any other means, shall be continued and disposed of as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as though the Income-tax Act, 2025 had not been enacted).

6. Any election or option exercised [Section 536(2)(f)]

Any election or declaration made, or option exercised, by an assessee under any provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and in force immediately before the commencement of the Income-tax Act, 2025 shall be deemed to have been an election or declaration made or option exercised, under the corresponding provision of the Income-tax Act, 2025. (Example: Trust giving option for accumulation or presumptive income determination provisions contained in section 44AD of the repealed Act).

7. Refund and default of tax [[Section 536(2)(g)]

In respect of any proceedings relating to any assessment year up to and including the assessment year 2026-27, where a refund falls due after the commencement of the 2025 Act or default is made after such commencement in the payment of any sum due under such proceeding as per the provisions of the 2025 Act relating to interest payable by the Central Government and interest payable by the assessee for default, shall apply for the period after the commencement of the 2025 Act. (Refund up to the assessment year 2026-27 and any tax due in respect of any proceeding up to the assessment year 2026-27, interest payable thereon from 1st day April, 2026 shall be as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 2025).

8. Deduction claimed [Section 536(2)(h)]

Where any deduction has been allowed or any amount has not been included in the total income of any person subject to fulfilment of certain conditions for any assessment year up to the assessment year 2026-27, and in case of violation of such condition after 1st day of April, 2026 any sum which was allowed as deduction or exemption was required to be included in the total income of the assessee in the subsequent year under the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall apply as if it had not been so repealed. Thus, the sum shall be deemed to the income of the tax year in which the violation takes place and included in the total income of the said person under the same head of income as it would have been included under the repealed Income-tax Act, 1961. Example: A capital gain exemption under section 54 or section 54F availed in the assessment year 2023-24 is to be taxed in the tax year 2027-28 due to breach of conditions contained in the repealed Act.

9. Tax arrear recovery [Section 536(2)(i)]

Any sum payable under the repealed Income-tax Act, 1961 may be recovered under the Income-tax Act, 2025 without prejudice to any action already taken for the recovery of such sum under the repealed Income-tax Act. Example: Tax arrear and recovery proceedings of the assessment year 2024-25 could be pursued under the Income-tax Act, 2025 without prejudice to any action previously taken under the repealed Act.

10. DTAAs, Circulars and Notifications [Section 536(2)(j)]

Any agreement entered into, appointment made, approval given, recognition granted, circular, direction, instruction, notification, order or rule or any scheme framed therein issued under any provision of (the repealed) the Income-tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 2025 shall be deemed to have been entered into, made, granted, given or issued under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall continue in force accordingly. Example: All circulars, DTAAs, approvals (trust), recognition, notifications under the Income-tax Act, 1961 would continue to be relevant under the Income-tax Act, 2025 unless it is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Act.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post Carry Over Provisions Under Income-Tax Act, 2025 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Editorial Team – [2026] 182 taxmann.com 124 (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 OSC investor warnings and alerts for December 2-23, 2025

On December 23, 2025, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) warned Ontario investors that the following companies are not registered to deal or advise on securities in Ontario:

(a) Titan Capital Partners
(b) Caruselepro
(c) Deals-nzs.top
(d) OV Finance
(e) Allegiant Metals Group
(f) JA Stock
(g) Royal Wealth Ltd.
(h) Golden-X-Net
(i) TrueCanTrust Canada
(j) Provexgrowth.net
(k) Yourtradingssystem
(l) Gatevex

The OSC issues investor warnings and alertsregarding possible harmful or illegal activities and maintains a warning list of companies or individuals whose activities may pose risks to investors.

Ontarians who have been approached by any of the individuals or firms listed above, or by any other unregistered company or individual, are advised to contact the OSC Contact Centre at 1-877-785-1555 or via email at inquiries@osc.gov.on.ca.

The mandate of the OSC is to protect investors from unfair, improper or fraudulent practices; to encourage fair, efficient and competitive capital markets and confidence in the capital markets; to promote capital formation; and to contribute to the stability of the financial system and the reduction of systemic risk. Investors are urged to check the registration of any persons or companies offering an investment opportunity and to review the OSC investor materials available at https://www.osc.ca.

Source– Press Release

Click Here To Read The Full Article 

The post [World Corporate Law News] OSC Investor Alerts and Warnings appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple vs. Income-tax Officer - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 506 (Kerala)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
• Mahesh V Ramakrishnan, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Christopher Abraham, P.R. Ajith Kumar, Advs., R.Lakshmi Narayan, Sr. Adv., Smt R.Ranjanie, Jose Joseph and P.G. Jayashankar, SCs for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee-petitioners were either administrative bodies of temples under the Malabar Devaswom Board or temples represented by their administrative bodies. They sought the benefit of section 10(23BBA) for exemption from income tax, for a refund of TDS deducted on deposits held in the names of the respective temples with financial institutions, and, in some cases, a declaration of exemption.

The administrative bodies were constituted under schemes framed pursuant to section 58 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and under the scheme, the properties and endowments from which income arose belonged to the deity/temple, with the administrative bodies managing such properties and income.

In some instances, assessment orders were passed against the temples, while in others, claims for refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on temple deposits were rejected or notices under section 148A were issued. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred a writ petition to the Kerala High Court.

High Court Held

The Court held that the exemption contemplated under section 10(23BBA) is only for the body or authority created by the statute to govern public religious institutions, but the said provision is not intended to provide exemptions to public religious institutions governed by such body or authority. In other words, the exemption contemplated as per the said provision is for the income of bodies like the Devaswom Board, Waqf Board, etc., and not to the religious establishments governed by such institutions.

Further, there is a separate provision for exemption under sections 11, 12, and 12A for religious establishments. The religious institutions referred to in section 10(23BBA), including trusts, endowments, or societies, are eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12 upon complying with the conditions stipulated in those provisions.

Further, the income of such body or authority alone is exempted, and the establishments/institutions which are under the administration of the said authority, as such, are not exempted from the liability to pay the income tax. A proviso to the said provision confirms the said aspect, by clearly specifying that the provisions under the said Act should not be construed to mean that the income of any proposed endowment or society which is subjected to the administration by the bodies referred to in the provision is exempted from tax.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Sri. Amrithakadeswaraswamy Devasthanam Dharumapuram Adheenam v. Asstt. CIT [CDJ 2021 MHC 1706] (para 18) followed
• Payyannur Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple v. ITO [W.P.C. No. 8524 of 2019, dated 1-7-2019] (para 16)
• Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. CIT [2008] 299 ITR 56 (Orissa) /AIR 2008 Ori.37 (para 18)
• State of Haryana v. Bharti Teletech Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 7/45 GST 283 (SC)/(2014) 3 SCC 556 (para 18)distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Payyannur Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple v. ITO [W.P.C. No. 8524 of 2019, dated 1-7-2019] (para 16)
• Sri. Amrithakadeswaraswamy Devasthanam Dharumapuram Adheenam v. Asstt. CIT [CDJ 2021 MHC 1706] (para 17)
•  Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. CIT [2008] 299 ITR 56 (Orissa) (para 17)
• State of Haryana v. Bharti Teletech Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 7/45 GST 283 (SC) (para 17).

The post Section10(23BBA) Exemption Not Available to Temples | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source